Forum Moderators: open
Also, when you try just pulling the .js file on it's own (show in browser), you get runtime errors.
I think they are being really nasty. Any views either way (should I report them to Google)?
>>(should I report them to Google)?
Gordon. Should I submit a complaint to Google search-quality about getting poor search results if I misplace my shoes and can't find them?
The point being made is that it's a personal matter. The value of a link exchange is strictly a transaction that's a personal issue between webmasters. If a return link has no value, we just don't link to the site doing it unless we'd link to them without getting a return link.
If they'e not legitimate links that are visible to spiders they'll never get indexed, so it's irrelevant to Google's search results and has nothing to do with them. If they're not legitimate links and other webmasters are linking to them, it's their responsibility for not checking, and has nothing to do with the search engine.
Certain things are personal issues and it's not worth reporting because they're not obligated to arbitrate.
[edited by: Marcia at 6:41 am (utc) on Mar. 25, 2003]
- Rob
As I just sticky mailed you, I do not think your sarcasm is called for, especially as the spider thing does not show the links.
FoodPlaces
Thanks for the help and courtesy.
There is nothing wrong with using js to code reciprocal links. All exchanging links does is to give their site some referrals from yours, and yours from theirs.
Now, if they promote their link exchange as being beneficial for your site from a link popularity point of view or PR point of view, then yes they are being less than honest.
But of course that is of no concern to Google. They have little interest in mediating disputes between two websites that are attempting to opportunistically degrade their index! Its between the other website and you.
We should not assume that all reciprocal links are there for the PR or link popularity benefit. We were all echanging links 8 years ago, long before PR and link pop was a factor.
Bottom line is you have make it clear that you want the link for PR and link pop purposes when agreeing to exchange links and that you will only exchange if links are formatted in such a way that they can be indexed by Google and other search engines. Unless you do that you have absolutely no comeback, (apart from removing your link back of course, if that is the only value you see from getting links from others)
off topic -
Though many here would disagree with me and i respect their opinion, my view is that reciprocal linking is a waste of time.
Why?
Firsly, I feel Google at one stage soon may introduce elemnents of their algo which may downgrade sites or pages which have a large proportion of reciprocal links compared to one way links.
Secondly, PPC is now far more cost effective for ROI than getting high rankings in the general Google database for most sites that need to hunt for recips that just attarct one way incoming links naturally. And for many reasons, it is getting increasingly hard to get good recip links from other sites that count.
[edited by: chiyo at 6:44 am (utc) on Mar. 25, 2003]
Hi,
Fortunately I have not linked with them. I was looking at link exchange sites out of interest, to see if they had PR (to see if link exchange was definately Spam, and when it becomes Spam).
I understand about exchanging links. I, not so long ago, stopped direct linking from one of my (large, busy sites), and recently came to the conclusion that some direct outbound, preferably reciprocal links would be advantagous. And I am now looking at what would be a good medium (and to avoid any pitfalls). When I came accross this particular site, it seemed very odd to me as they had some pages without, and some pages with this javascript stuff.
I am convinced they are out to con others, and I therefore wondered in light of Google's "Be nice, don't do anything nasty" policy if it constituted Spam to them. Obviously some people think it is OK to belittle such a question. But I still think the question is a good one, and as the "What the robot sees" thing saw nothing, I just wonder what other tricks sites like this pull down.
I agree that are thousands of tricks that people do on the internet. But maybe Google should not be seen as a sort of UN policeman!
Robots never see exactly what a reader sees. For example our ad system is all in js. Just because it is us the best solution for setting up a rotating ad system with the absolute minimum of server overhead,admun and expense. Google does not see the ad links, and many say it does not see the js coded text either, though personally im not convinced of the latter.
The people this site might be trying to cheat are other webmasters, and not Google so much.
Again my point is that if they dont expressly mention that their site links will pass on PR or link pop to you, they are not cheating anybody. A REAL LEGITIMATE link has far more value than link pop and PR alone. If anything, links that are placed or offered purely for Pr and log pop are the ILLEGITIMATE ones..
If this is the case, Google should not have any problem with these links. Google objects when links are presented to the bots, and hidden from the users.
From what I am reading here, it sounds like the links are visible to the users and hidden from the bots. If this is the case, how is this spam?
Sometimes people put links in JavaScript to prevent the passing of PR.
