Brett_Tabke
msg:4334803 | 2:02 pm on Jul 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
it's true - it isn't new. We had this thread in supporters forum last dec and matt cutts confirmed it was true.
|
Andem
msg:4334807 | 2:31 pm on Jul 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Interesting. Want to know how to knock out a competitor? Buy a few really cheap links, report them and voila!
|
suzukik
msg:4334874 | 6:39 pm on Jul 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@Brett
Are you mentioning this thread?
New Alert? "Webmaster Tools notice of detected unnatural links." [webmasterworld.com]
If so, the alert I'm showing is not the same.
| Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links on your site pointing to other sites that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. |
|
| specifically,look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. |
|
The former message was telling about outbound (paid) links from your site: it will mean you are selling links.
While the latter massage, which I'm showing, is telling about inbound (paid) links from other sites; it will mean you are buying links.
|
nippi
msg:4334930 | 12:54 am on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I'm pretty sure google will have considered others might buy links for your site and their paid links detector will filter these out.
I'm thinking only sites that buy more and more links each month will be penalized to get around this - a one off link buy would not be enough to trip this up.
|
ken_b
msg:4334931 | 12:56 am on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| telling about inbound (paid) links from other sites; it will mean you are buying links. |
|
More like ...
... it will mean [that someone is] buying links [pointing to your site].
That "someone" might be a competitor.
|
Whitey
msg:4334933 | 1:05 am on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| ... it will mean [that someone is] buying links [pointing to your site]. |
|
If this takes off in WMT it provides an opportunity to communicate with Google and take action. Competitors probably don't want to invest heavily in ruining another site, with the risk of it backfiring. It's not difficult to find out who paid for those links and enforce remedies in theory.
Google has detected unatural links and link patterns for many years and penalised sites accordingly. Their difficulty has always been in fully automating it, often having to rely on hand reviews and spam reports probably on trophy term and traffic reports.
Any high trafficked, trophy term driven site, or network of sites is a target for flagging and review.
The fact that notifications are ramping up in WMT is a sign of Google becoming more confident about warning webmasters openly, and no doubt their detection methods are getting better. It's not difficult to work out the more obvious methods.
The day's of relying on paid links alone as a main game are long gone. One or two , maybe , but why bother if sustainability is important for your site.
|
graeme_p
msg:4334972 | 5:21 am on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| it provides an opportunity to communicate with Google and take action |
|
Google communicate? Is there an algo for that?
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:4335157 | 1:33 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Ya, we've seen a couple different variations on the 'unnatural links' emails.
|
Onders
msg:4335180 | 2:19 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I like the word "encourage" in the original message!
|
sanjuu
msg:4335215 | 3:29 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| Ya, we've seen a couple different variations on the 'unnatural links' emails. |
|
Did the other ones include capital letters?
|
pageoneresults
msg:4335220 | 3:36 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| Did the other ones include capital letters? |
|
I was wondering about that. The formatting of that email looks suspicious.
Added: After further review, it looks like the original email formatting was lost during the paraphrasing.
|
pageoneresults
msg:4335225 | 3:46 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| I'm thinking only sites that buy more and more links each month will be penalized to get around this - a one off link buy would not be enough to trip this up. |
|
I'd think the same thing - and a whole lot more. I'm guessing that Google has detected enough patterns over the years to determine whether or not there is competitive sabotage at play.
It's time for the Link Demolition Team to step in.
|
Planet13
msg:4335331 | 6:46 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| I'm thinking only sites that buy more and more links each month will be penalized to get around this - a one off link buy would not be enough to trip this up. |
|
for what it's worth, in the various black hat forums, they say that the best way to avoid being penalized is to buy link blasts on a regular bases.
They say that doing a one-off link blast is the most likely way to be penalized, since it will be so easy to spot.
Anyway, that's just what the black hatters say.
|
Sgt_Kickaxe
msg:4335358 | 7:29 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
What others do can and does impact your site, regardless of what you've heard.
example: If you hotlink a competitors image onto a domain that has content which requires safe search to be off to see the image falls from the 'safe search moderate' setting to the 'safe search off' setting for BOTH sites. Regular visitors with the default safe search moderate setting will no longer see the image, regardless of what's on it.
I don't know how long that change lasts or if Google does further investigation, but it does knock the image out of the default results completely, still.
I refuse to turn off hotlink protection off because of that.
|
nippi
msg:4336096 | 12:11 am on Jul 7, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hmn on no vetting caught by constantly buying lInks I don't agree. I think bought links quickly devalue so if you go this path you need to constantly buy - it's not so much the one off link blast is spotted - it's just devalued very fast.
|
CainIV
msg:4336160 | 3:15 am on Jul 7, 2011 (gmt 0) |
"Interesting. Want to know how to knock out a competitor? Buy a few really cheap links, report them and voila!"
Pretty expensive investment for the competitor if the website spots it, and then does a reinclusion request and the value of those links are wiped.
|
|
