homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.10.244
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google Updates Webmaster Guidelines
A_Khan




msg:3517062
 12:34 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google updates webmaster guidlines. It is comprehensive guidline for webmaster and specially for those who involve to sell links. Google is enforcing to don't get any paid link or don't involve these type of activity, it causes to decrease your ranking, sometime disappear your website from Google index. Read the google webmaster guidline, it really helps to all of You
[google.com...]

 

tedster




msg:3517259
 4:45 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Since there's been a lack of clarity about this point among some comemntators, I'd like to emphasize:

Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such.

[google.com...]


trinorthlighting




msg:3517353
 5:41 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

The shot across the bow was fired with lowering page rank last month. I bet come January Google will hammer a lot of sites that buy links to gain PR will lose some serious rankings or just be removed from the index.

matrix_neo




msg:3517429
 6:49 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

The orginal poster's link does not seem to be talking anything about paidlinks and the ranking drop. I read twice still I miss something?

SEOPTI




msg:3517458
 7:32 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Finally they confirm algo weakness.

jakegotmail




msg:3517464
 7:41 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is google really going to throw quality sites down the drain because they have bought some high quality links on another high quality, on topic, extremely releveant website that passes a very solid amount of traffic? Is it really poisoning there results that bad?

are all these fortune 500 companies who buy links or sell them really going to drop out of the index.

If its that easy to hurt yourself with paid links, why wouldn't ALL your competitors do it to easily remove any page from the index they wanted.

These are the kinds of questions that lead me to believe it won't happen.

The ONLY way google can fix the current issue is to devalue ALL links. Keep the results relevant like they are now without backlinks being such an important factor.

lee_sufc




msg:3517474
 7:52 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have purchased around 7-8 links from generic directories over the past couple of years - should I email those directories and ask to remove my site or should I be OK?

europeforvisitors




msg:3517476
 7:55 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is google really going to throw quality sites down the drain because they have bought some high quality links on another high quality, on topic, extremely releveant website that passes a very solid amount of traffic?

Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, Google doesn't have to penalize every site that it suspects of buying or selling links for SEO purposes. By announcing its policy in the Webmaster Guidelines, Google is simply serving notice that it can and may penalize or devalue a site that violates those guidelines. I'd guess that Google will whack a few high-profile "quality sites" to set an example, and that most other sites getting penalized will be sites that have little TrustRank or authority status and won't be missed by Google's users.

tedster




msg:3517479
 7:58 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes, identifying paid links through an algorithm is a major challenge. Google has been working this for a long time and they still reach out to the public to send them reports.

Here's a related bit of history that I recently learned about. Apparently Google developed the rel="nofollow" attribute internally before it went public. Essentially, they were already identifying some kinds of links that they felt should not pass PR and internally, and then the algo was already treating them like a nofollow. That's how they worked up their proof of concept.

But can the algo identify a large percentage of paid links? It's not easy to say, but to me it seems hard to envision. It's not even easy to define what "padi" means, s many have observed.

The challenge Google faces here is also a political and social one, in addition to being an algorthmic one. My hunch is that they're further along in the identification step than many people think - but they haven't completely devalued all the links that they know about because of the social and political issues involved.

Whether we like Google's direction or not, they are quite up front and communicative about their intentions here.

whitenight




msg:3517489
 8:20 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

they haven't completely devalued all the links that they know about because of the social and political issues involved

::Sigh:: this is all i've been trying to say for a year now.

Once one understands that Goog 2.0 is more concerned with the above issues, than whether their algo is "corrupted" or not, it provides a greater insight and understanding on how much concern you (the webmaster) should put into following or avoiding their guidelines for your business.

whatson




msg:3517495
 8:28 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Not all paid links violate our guidelines.

It goes on to state they are ok if they DONT pass PR.
Which means no paid links that pass PR are ok.

I dont think they can harm major sites for buying/selling links. But it is something they are taking very seriously, and will likely have it better sorted in the near future.

menial




msg:3517503
 8:32 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have purchased around 7-8 links from generic directories over the past couple of years - should I email those directories and ask to remove my site or should I be OK?

The best approach would be to send them a certified mail to remove the links, ask them to refund your money, then report them to Google for accepting money for links, and spend the money with Google Adwords.

lee_sufc




msg:3517519
 8:49 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I was always under the impression that buying submissions on directories were OK? I can't see any of the directories I've submitted to refunding my money if I asked to be removed!

tedster




msg:3517534
 9:00 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

These new guidelines really don't clarify anything about paid directories - and that is a bad oversight IMO. Matt Cutts did state a while ago that some paid directories are fine, especially the human edited ones that don't just list everyone who pays them money. But some so-called directories are only paid link-manipulation schemes in Google's eyes.

lee_sufc




msg:3517539
 9:02 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

hmm...this really should be clearer...

i have only submitted to directories which are well reviewed, well respected and recommended on seo sites. i have also spread the submissions out over the past 3 years and have no more than about 10

idolw




msg:3517565
 9:28 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I bet come January Google will hammer a lot of sites that buy links to gain PR will lose some serious rankings or just be removed from the index.

waiting for sign of that in order to point my 10 million $hit links at all my competitors.

menial




msg:3517571
 9:34 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

waiting for sign of that in order to point my 10 million $hit links at all my competitors.

Please don't do that, I will pay you not link to my websites so that they don't tank in Google. How much? :)

Bewenched




msg:3517576
 9:40 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

WOW.

So ... to blow a comeptitor out of the water all I have to do is buy a bunch of crappy links and link to them? That's SOOOO much cheaper than marketing for my own company.

Of course I'm being sarcastic. But it is true.

And what about all those *%&^!# scraper sites that we have NO CONTROL OVER. Crap pages of adwords with scraped pages with links to those people. How will that garbage affect our rankings.

300m




msg:3517583
 9:47 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thats why this does not make any sense. If we can target competitors by masking the purchase details as if it was purchased by them, essentially we could bowl them right out of the serps, right?

tedster




msg:3517593
 9:59 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Of course Google knows that. Here's my prediction:

Buy links? --
Google will try to make sure that they don't pass PageRank.

Sell links? --
If you let them pass PR, you may get hit with a true ranking penalty, and that's a lot worse than the current little smack on the wrist of a toolbar demotion to your PR.

The challenge I see for Google comes when a prominent site that people expect to find in their search results gets a strong penalty. The average searcher will not understand that. They'll just think the search results are crappy and Google can't afford to lose too much of their user base's confidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if such cases are handled more through personal communications and business meetings rather than solely by penalties and the algorithm. Of course, Google has shown willingness to penalize major sites to get them to shape up, so who knows?

Rugles




msg:3517602
 10:07 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

I hope they dont punish directory links. It would not be fair at all.

If I see a directory show up in my searches, I make a note of them. Then I check them out to see if they are not too expensive and then I sometimes pull the trigger if I think there is some value. Its more than just a paid link I am also looking for traffic.

Now to punish me because I have a directory listing I purchased 3 years ago when it looked like it was becoming a popular resource is just wrong.

[edited by: Rugles at 10:08 pm (utc) on Nov. 30, 2007]

incrediBILL




msg:3517607
 10:18 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Looks like all the link selling companies are being exterminated or driven way underground at a minimum.

whitenight




msg:3517658
 11:25 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

waiting for sign of that in order to point my 10 million $hit links at all my competitors.

You guys are making this way too complicated...

Simply put up a site (anonymous of course) saying
"Buy PageRank - Boost Your SERPs in Google!"

Put your competitors in the sidebar and footer under paid links and then report yourself...err.. have a "do-good-er" report you in the name of Google SERPs integrity.

Score 1 for the good guys.
----------
Edited to add -- ah the ideas just keep flowing.

Better yet, make some extra cash by advertising your services to others who want their competitors punished so there's no "footprint" of only your own niches.

Miamacs




msg:3517717
 1:05 am on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

We could make this into an affiliate program.
A broker site.

Use javascript or cloaking to mimic direct links - just to make sure they perfectly *look* as if they were passing PR, while actually... they wouldn't be. HA. This way we can eliminate any accidental ranking gains of targeted competitors ( should the plan fail ), but enter the human evaluators and *bingo*

*smirk*

Gee, I wonder if anyone is already doing this. But I still don't think that Google will penalize sites that buy links, ever. They can't even sort out sellers with good enough precision.

europeforvisitors




msg:3517744
 3:06 am on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

But I still don't think that Google will penalize sites that buy links, ever. They can't even sort out sellers with good enough precision.

They don't have to. They can combine suspicion about links with other factors, cutting the site slack (or not) depending on the total score.

To put it in more graphic terms, if the site already smells questionable and there's a whiff of something suspicious about its links, the sniff-o-meter needle can creep from the yellow zone into the red zone. Users aren't likely to suffer or complain, because a "yellow zone" site already smells bad enough to be unappetizing.

SlyOldDog




msg:3517850
 8:31 am on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>Sell links? --
If you let them pass PR, you may get hit with a true ranking penalty, and that's a lot worse than the current little smack on the wrist of a toolbar demotion to your PR.

And what if the site linking out is just a piece of spam set up for linking out? You can make 100 of those a day and google can't get them all.

In the mean time the good sites are being hit :)

Crush




msg:3517851
 8:34 am on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are more than enough ways to simulate link building + google has to crawl billions of pages each day. I think they are finding it hard to keep up and their algo scores can never be perfect for that fact, so they will never find all links. TBH I am not really sure how they can do it at all apart from a manual check. It is pretty much complete bull.

All they can do is penalise the link selling pages not the site that is advertised. What a tedious job that must be for some human robot.

Crush




msg:3517853
 8:39 am on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

"The best approach would be to send them a certified mail to remove the links, ask them to refund your money, then report them to Google for accepting money for links, and spend the money with Google Adwords. "

Jesus, some people!

A_Khan




msg:3517891
 10:46 am on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

All dear SEO, Paid directories are not included in paid linking. Web Directory is word to offer web sites list by category base, it is 100% category-base-listing in directory. Which is very vital for online visitors or users to get web sites which they desire to find. So, Online directories who are well categorized, even they charge, they are fine for Search engine including GOOGLE.

superclown2




msg:3518030
 2:31 pm on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

<<"The best approach would be to send them a certified mail to remove the links, ask them to refund your money, then report them to Google for accepting money for links, and spend the money with Google Adwords. "
Jesus, some people!>>

I think the post was meant to be humourous. Certainly made me grin anyhow.

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved