| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) || |
|The TRUTH about Linking|
| 4:24 pm on Mar 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I thought I would share some results regarding linking (observations).
Basically a month or so ago I was pointed to a tool which shows 3 types of link graphs for a URL.
I became interested in the Monthly graph - as this shows me - month by month - approximately how many links a URL has attained in that period.
The results are SHOCKING.
Why? Because I have been scared witless about gathering links too fast, uneavenly, off topic etc.
So I was shocked to see graphs showing massive spikes, and massive quantities of links for a given month.
Basically I looked at my competitors who are ranking solidly above me - I wanted to see what I needed to do to catch up regarding link quantity.
Let me share some thoughts on my three previous fears.
Getting links too fast - RUBBISH
I have seen sites with link spikes of thousands of links in one month - then next to nothing in the months around the spikes. I have seen sites with 80,000 links gained over just 6 months ranking solidy for 1 word terms!
Uneavenly - RUBBISH
The link rate does not have to be a steady rate of aquisition. Ive seen sites rank solidy with a monthly link graph that looks like a profile of the Himalyan mountain range.
Off topic - RUBBISH
Ive seen sites ranking solidly with so many links that they can not POSSIBLY come from on-topic sites - not a cat in hells chance. Links from off topic sites appear to me to be just as good as those from on topic sites.
Another thought - theres no way on this planet that a site can write to 80,000 other site owners in 6 months and get 80,000 non-reciprocal links back. Therefore - its open season on most forms of links spam.
Also - bear in mind that not all of these links are DO-FOLLOW ;)
As I say - in all truth as far as I can see it is open season on linking - and if I were you I would steer well clear of scare mongering know it alls and do some heavy link spamming yourselves on some throw away domains if you must see for yourself.
Given what I have observed - google doesnt do half the checking people seem to think they do.
Im an telling it how it is - no scaremongering from me.
| 9:55 pm on Mar 13, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Some of those million dollar verticals seem to be ranked by a completely different algorithm |
Interesting - and presumably different parameters for editorial management e.g. health
| 3:58 am on Mar 14, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|That may be something of a generalisation - I'm not seeing that in the money terms that we're working in for our clients. |
It is a difficult thing to test, and really a theory of sorts, as that information won't be readily available to find.
However, judging by the sheer number of spam reports Google receives and the number of websites out there, they would definitely have a pecking order priority and process based on verticals and likely based on manual flags, although they likely use a diverse collection of data to make the distinction of moving a website over to an actual manual review.
| 8:45 am on Mar 14, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Competitors ARE able to spend money to create a "larger pattern" of inbound links to a competitor site especially in the case where the competing site is in those very lucrative top 3 positions. I am assuming this is what we are referring to in 'violations' |
I disagree ... If you look at the quote:
|Demotions generally only occur when a larger pattern of violations is found. |
It's about a pattern of violations ... So, taking JCPenny ... They've been warned about 'blah' they were doing (x 3 I think), then they went out an bought links ... There were multiple violations over time ... It was a larger pattern of violations than buying links.
In the Overstock debacle, Google said repeatedly it was not about the links, and many said they were not telling the truth, but we've heard here from someone with a great deal of knowledge about the situation who also said it was not about the links, and they are not a Google rep. and have nothing to gain by lying, so I tend to believe them.
I think a larger pattern of violations in most cases (unlike JCPenny where I think the pattern was probably 'warning' 'warning' 'warning', okay, hit the red penalty button) could be something like 'purchased or spammy links' + 'hidden on page text' + 'doorway pages' = penalty. A single instance of any might not be a 'penalty' but when they put together on-site and off-site factors it's ads up to 'spammer' rather than 'quality, just discount the links'.
Back to the quote: It's talking about a large pattern of violations, not a larger pattern of linking...
| 10:00 am on Mar 14, 2011 (gmt 0)|
"It's really like Google editors are sitting though a backlog of flagged sites, taking on priorities to investigate and clear."
Considering the massive growth of web pages and webmasters that start to focus more and more on link building, I guess there is no other possibility for Google to proceed this way ...
It would be interesting to me, how much per cent of manual work Google is spending on these investigations and penalties.
Just for public relations purpose, itīs more useful for Google to catch some of the big fishes (Penney, Overstock, ...) violating their guidelines than one that is ranking on position 150.
| 5:37 pm on Mar 14, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Just for public relations purpose, itīs more useful for Google to catch some of the big fishes (Penney, Overstock, ...) violating their guidelines than one that is ranking on position 150. |
How many people were dissuaded from purchasing links because of the JCP - O/S penalties?
Much more bang for their buck.
| 6:54 pm on Mar 14, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|I disagree ... If you look at the quote: |
Irregardless, my point was that competitors can create ongoing "patterns" of inbound links either way.
|but we've heard here from someone with a great deal of knowledge about the situation who also said it was not about the links, and they are not a Google rep. and have nothing to gain by lying, so I tend to believe them. |
Take what you will from the situation. Listening to communication from the source is like predicting weather.
Fairly accurate sometimes, and often completely wrong. :)
| 12:05 am on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Take what you will from the situation. Listening to communication from the source is like predicting weather. |
My point was the information wasn't from the source ... It was from an analyst who was asked to review the situation and got information about the situation from a number of sources ... They seemed to know of something Overstock was doing that was way over-the-top...
It's funny how so many people seem to think G lies when it's counter-productive for them to do so ... Wouldn't they accomplish more against 'persuasive link building' by saying the Overstock penalty was from the links than by saying it was from something else?
IMO it would have been way more 'to their advantage' to say the Overstock penalty was from links if they want to discourage that type of practice or link building, but they didn't ... They said it was not about the links, but they said JCPenny's penalty was about the links ... So if you conclude they were both about the links, for some reason they lied about Overstock to throw us all off, but not about JCPenny? ... Defies logic and reason IMO ... To me it sounds like they told the truth about both situations, but as stated above, believe as you please...
| 12:56 am on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Here's the quote from our own forum. It comes from thegypsy [webmasterworld.com] - that's Dave Harry, who was the independent analyst that the WSJ involved:
|Ok gang, once more... it was NOT all about the EDUs. I can confirm this, but I cannot give details as it was given to me <off the record>. And I can also confirm that the other item they were caught doing is most CERTAINLY in voilation of the Google guidelines. |
I was also confused somewhat as there was no 'smoking gun' with the EDU stuff. I've gotten clarification and most certainly ANY website would have been nuked if caught doing what they were.
I wish I could tell you more, but I respect my sources.
That's message #:4271466 - about #67 in that thread
| 1:14 am on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|They seemed to know of something Overstock was doing that was way over-the-top |
Well, that - and the analysis of it - isn't really what this particular thread is about, but if you want to go there... there are several (read many) experienced members of the forum, like you, who seem this coming for awhile, based on their analysis of that particular website as natural competitors.
|Wouldn't they accomplish more against 'persuasive link building' by saying the Overstock penalty was from the links than by saying it was from something else? |
Not necessarily - because they are outwardly showing real webmasters real examples of links they don't like and they don't operate that way. They rarely like to show examples, because people can then reverse engineer those examples.
Sometimes there are also particular types of links that are "very effective" that are in fact against Google guidelines that they would prefer NOT to show people.
|IMO it would have been way more 'to their advantage' to say the Overstock penalty was from links if they want to discourage that type of practice or link ... Defies logic and reason IMO ... To me it sounds like they told the truth about both situations, but as stated above, believe as you please... |
Again, this thread was not about whether Google is honest or dishonest, nor whether people should believe what they say or not. :)
It was (and I hope still is) about link building, acquisition and how the poster believes Google does not apply as much checking against relevancy and build as others think they do.
Anyone familiar with the situation and in direct competition with the company already knew what was going on, despite the 'weather reports' particular people ran on the 6 pm news...
That being said, I believe its likely that there was feedback and thus enough impetus forward to move the situation into warranting more scrutiny - and the rest, is history.
| 1:22 am on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|It was (and I hope still is) about link building, acquisition and how the poster believes Google does not apply as much checking against relevancy and build as others think they do. |
Agreed, and the Overstock drop not being 'all about the links' seems to back up that theory doesn't it?
|They rarely like to show examples, because people can then reverse engineer those examples. |
We already had those examples, and the news and everyone else knew they were here ... The way to keep 'the everyday' webmaster from using those examples seems to be to let people know they could result in a penalty, not say they were not the reason for the penalty ... It makes no sense to me for them to deny those links as the reason for the penalty in this situation, unless they really weren't the reason for the penalty ... The difference in statements about JCPenny and Overstock seems to indicate the penalties were for different reasons and both relate directly to the premise of the thread, and seem to reinforce the 'they don't penalize for links that often' theory, don't they?
The initial JCPenny drop was from an updated algo, then they got hammered manually ... The Overstock penalty was for 'a larger pattern of violations' to paraphrase the source who posted here and is cited by tedster above ... Both situations imo reinforce the premise of the OP in this thread.
How are the two penalties not directly related to this discussion and how does either not reinforce the theory behind the original post if we simply look at the situations?
JCPenny had a longer pattern of violations ... Warning, warning, warning, buy links = penalty.
Overstock (if you choose to believe the source) was not 'all about the links' it was about 'a larger pattern of violations' ... The links may have triggered a hand review, but they were (according to the people who seem to know) not the direct reason for the penalty.
Both IMO definitively reinforce the OP's theory.
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) |