| 9:33 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
For the record, i'm not anti-Google. I'm simply frustrated with the link nonsense. The net was healthier before Google placed value on links imo.
Fact: my competitors aren't all playing by the rules because of these link issues and they aren't all getting caught. This problem isn't going away.
| 2:32 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Just a thought, if everyone places "nofollow" on every link, internal and external alike, Google will fall down and go boom but Yahoo! and MSN will keep on going. Who has the better algo again? |
First, Google wouldn't "fall down and go boom," because PageRank is only one small part of its algorithm.
Second, that isn't going to happen, so why waste time on pointless "what ifs"?
As for competitors, if you can't compete without buying links, you've got bigger problems than Google's linking guidelines. Maybe you should plow your link-buying budget into something more useful, such as an impartial site review or more professionally-written content. Ultimately, your site's content is what gets indexed and ranked by Google Search.
| 9:15 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've got pages with no links from other sites (some of which have zero toolbar PageRank) that rank high in Google--in some cases, #1--for phrases with millions of search results. Inbound links aren't the Holy Grail.
| 9:39 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've got pages with no links from other sites ...that rank high in Google ... Inbound links aren't the Holy Grail
Surely you realize that is a faulty argument. Those pages are on a domain that has plenty of good inbound links, aren't they?
Do you have, or know of, any domains that have no inbound links yet rank high in Google?
| 10:28 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You misread my post. I'm not arguing that inbound links aren't useful. However, I will point out that the value of having huge numbers of what might be termed "bulk links" is overrated. (This was discussed in another thread on the Google Search News forum recently.)
Where your links are coming from is likely to be as important as how many you have. (I'd much rather have a single inbound link from THE NEW YORK TIMES than a dozen links from the orthodontists, real-estate brokers, vacation-property owners, and rental-car agents who clog my spam filter with requests for link exchanges.) If you want first-class links, build a first-class site--even if that means spending money for content by professional writers.
| 3:04 pm on Sep 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If Google figures out that you sell links, then the worst that will happen is your links won't pass PageRank to other sites. |
Can you be 100% sure of that? Can you guarantee that to the recipients of your advice? Would you want to bet your business on that if you didn't have a business built around disposable domains?
To each his own, but even if I were tempted to buy links, I wouldn't see the value in taking a gamble (or wasting money) on something that isn't even necessary for sites with enough intrinsic value to attract third-party links.
| 6:12 am on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
i think if your sell 1 link on your site, it is not critical for google. ;-)
| 1:10 am on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I would think if you weren't greedy, you could certainly get away with selling links to 5 or 6 sites that had content similar or product similar to yours but not in competition with yours (why would you want to do that anyway?)
No reason to make your site look like a link farm anyway, that's just ugly (unless you are a directory of course)
Besides, when I look for links to buy, I never do it on a site that already has a list going down the side of "sponsors". At that point you're only getting like 1/50th of the benefit anyway, so what's the point?
| 9:43 am on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The SE's and SEO's Duet
We may do what we want, when we want, and how we want,
and when we do what we want,
they should not tell us what to do, how to do or when to do;
They may do what they want, when they want and how they want
and when they do as they want
we should not tell them what to do, how to do, or when to do.
It can and will really be so, and these are the terms of the internet
Do you agree to these terms?
Yes - No - You are now leaving your personality behind. Please wait..
| 10:51 am on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google is only protecting its business model with its paid links (for natural search manipulation) policy.
Its as simple as this...
If search engine users are unhappy with Google's search results, they will move to another search engine.
Google's results are to a large extent determined by who links to who and with what text they use to link (anchor text). This is what differentiated them from their predecessors (Alta Vista et al..)
If black hat SEOs feel its okay to manipulate this model, then Google has a right to fight back by banning sites who use this technique. More power to them if you ask me!
| 3:29 am on Sep 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'll have to disagree with the links-are-everything-strategy-and-you-wont-rank-without-heavy-links.
During the last few months I have made some different websites public and for one of them I just made two inbound links to it by throwing the link at some of the popular social network sites, so google and other search engines would pick up on it and index it whenever, didn't care. They did pretty fast though. But to get to the case:
A few different articles on the website in question already rank number #5-15 on google on some of the above medium competetive phrases - two-three keywords searches.
The articles aren't linked from or even near the frontpage or anything, you actually have to click 3-5 times from the frontpage to get to them. The articles aren't even crosslinked. Just one link to each of them from within the internal structure of the website, total.
So tell me how it's possible to rank that fast, without any links (unless you call two inbound links a viable linking strategy) with something buried deep within the website, on a domain which has never been in use before and has no age. Not possible unless the internal structure and different contents of the website gives the article some authority in the serps, and it at least regards them as "News about it! Funeral in a week!".
Sincerely, and have fun,
| This 101 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 101 ( 1 2 3  ) |