Forum Moderators: open
----
I'm starting this thread because another member suggested such would be a good idea because the main Google update thread is cluttered with posts like "OMG, I've been dropped in the new index!" and "Yippee, I'm now #1 on a key SERP". This thread is ONLY for serious, generic discussion of changes that you are observing with the new algo in this update. As in things like "Looks to me like PR is less important this month, and anchor text of inbound links counts more.", etc. How your site is doing has no relevance here unless you can explain why you think so in terms of a general algo update.
I'm sure that this hasn't been the case previously.
I am seeing this much more for 3 and 4 word search terms.
I hope that this is a temporary thing.
Anyone else?
best viewed with
Over 5.3 million links that use that phrase in the anchor text. On -sj it's even more if I remember correctly.
Does this site do well for the term with all those links or has it also been afflicted?
I'm sorry but I hope it is true and I hope it is permanent.
The crux is in the 'too many'. Only link farms and SEO's have these type of links.
Prove me wrong if you can?
two keyword term - three keyword term - description
I only have about 75 links poiting to me that aren't even all the same title in www2 and about 150 in www. This would be too much?
The crux is in the 'too many'. Only link farms and SEO's have these type of links.
What about internal links on a site with many pages? The link will be exactly identical on hundreds if not thousands of pages. Or what about a site that offers a product etc. in return for a (copied and pasted) link? Neither example is guilty of spamming, but both would trip a 'too many identical links' filter.
Doesn't seem like an effective filter if in fact it is a filter.
Only link farms and SEO's have these type of links
You have a point, but what about company names or straight URLs in the anchor text? Innocent enough IMO.
What I say is *in general* , I'm not accusing you of anything.
Have you *counted* your links or are you looking at the reported number of links? If the reported number of backlinks has been reduced by about 50% between www and www2 you should read this [webmasterworld.com] first before you think of penalties.
I guess I should just sit tight and wait it out....
daven
I think you have a point with the copy/past thing. I presumed textex was referring to external links which should be treated differently. 'Too many' refers (in my opnion) to percentages.
Company names and urls don't qualify for 3 of 4 word phrases.
internal links have been dampened.
Dampened how? Dampened by decreasing the credit given to matching anchor text or in some other way?
My point was that the site those links are pointing to (MS) doesn't seem to have been penalized, nor the number of identical links reduced.
Those are the ever common "Best Viewed With Internet Explorer" links I'm referring to.
If there are 5 million plus of these pointing at MS without penalty, then why would I believe that (just for example) several hundred identical ones pointed at me would be an issue.
Company names and urls don't qualify for 3 of 4 word prases.
They do if they just happen to have an all-keyword company name and domain name which also happens to be their targeted phrase--OK, you win. :)
Ok, there will be some innocent victims if this turns out to be true.
"Keywords" in business names predate the Internet and probably predate the Yellow Pages. It is reasonable to dampen the effect that all that identical link text would have, but NOT to penalize it.
617,000 is the number for -sj and -fi (and thus also in w2 and w3).
Is that number constant for you, or is it perhaps just the case that you hit those dns' sometimes, which is happening for most / all of us...
Indeed...keywords, ie. generics, have been included in signage and branding since commercial signs were invented in Medieval times...
Would be pretty extreme to implement a filter like that...and would certainly punish many not deserving of such.
Being the marketplace force that she now is, Google has a problem on her hands; certain changes in their algo's will almost certainly lead to altering the course of the Web, rather than just bringing the Web to us more effectively...
Not only is -sj and -fi showing pretty crappy results at the moment, but this will be pretty sad for all of us who have worked so hard to get where we were at. Being penalized for anchor text just does not make sense.
[edited by: textex at 5:47 pm (utc) on May 13, 2003]
