Forum Moderators: open
The reason that this is causing problems for Google is that it's allowing people like us to fill up the SERPS with our affiliate rubbish websites - because we learn how to manipulate the SERPS by examining other sites' link structures and ultimately discover their methods of obtaining backward links.
This is creating search results that are a bunch of similar sites that link through an affiliate code to one of the sites that SHOULD come up for a search.
For instance, if I came up with a genious method of getting high listings at Google for my affiliate sites, another webmaster can usually come along and pick my method to bits just by examining my backward links. Then that webmaster will dupicate this method and so on, which not only opens the door for unintelligent spam monster webmasters to earn good money, it also creates a game of who-can-manipulate-google-better.
Why is Google allowing this?
What about pagerank, this is just a fantasy that has absolutely no relevance to anything. Why is it displayed, and why are webmasters doing monkey tricks to artificially increase theirs?
Google is supposed to be a search engine, but it's turning into some kind of spammy battleground where webmasters dual each other by furiously linking and examining each others affiliate rubbish websites in order to copy them.
This trend is only going to continue, until Google puts more emphasis on site content, rather than links, or at least stops displaying backward links.
Ultimately, the poor sod who is searching for something is going to see the top 10 sites with just about identical 'content'.
*shrugs*
It has no value for the average searcher, yet is the primary tool for SEOs trying to game the system. Can't understand why Google hasn't figured this out yet.
value:
1) quick access to searching
2) popup blocker
3) on page / on site searching without having to know "advanced" search terminology
gaming: how do you know that G is not gaming the users with the toolbar? It has been argued and "proven" (circumstantially) that the GTB brings the gBot from time to time when you have the "advanced features" activated and visit pages/sites not in the index.
It has happened to me personally about 3 times, but it doesn't always work, unfortunately.
Sure, those features of the toolbar have value. I should have been more precise: displaying PR on the toolbar has no value for the average searcher. Causes more problems than it's worth.
>> gaming: how do you know that G is not gaming the users with the toolbar?
Could be. But that doesn't prevent the SEOs from gaming Google.
Can't understand why Google hasn't figured this out yet.
Maybe they know something you don't...
What's so bad about obfuscation anyway? Sometimes it's just better to keep some things secret.
The Google algorithm (links being counted as votes for a website) worked better before SEOs grasped the concept and starting reacting to it.
Really, if you don't like your current situation, DO something about it! Stop whining and complaining.
Affiliate programs make my living, so why should I complain about them (as a webmaster)? You can really add value to affiliate sites if you invest time. And as a searcher for products I am able to choose from the sites presented by an SE, and crappy ones get the fire button.
SN
So if i find a good affiliate site, my search is a lot easier!
Google's algo was published 1998, so I don't think that's a point.
No, People know how PageRank works, but that is not the Google Algo. A factor, yes, but not the algo. I mean, how do Google use PageRank? How do they rank sites? Based on a score out of what?
PageRank continues to work well because of the way it was developed. Link Popularity can be spammed, and spammed easily. But PageRank is a lot harder to game.
<edit>spellig is bery vad</edit>
Google's algo was published 1998, so I don't think that's a point.
I'm sorry for that one, certainly I meant the PageRank theory and also the anchor text characteristic of Google. My point is that by publishing this the whole Google algo is pretty much "open", you can clearly see what counts most, and with a little experience you also see some details.
Link Popularity can be spammed, and spammed easily. But PageRank is a lot harder to game.
spellig is bery vad
Pagerank doesn't count volume so much as it counts quality.
But otoh, it could be easier to get one PR8 link than 1000 PR2 links ...
I don't care much about PR anymore anyhow. I beat out all kinds of PR7's and 6's with anchor text from PR4's.
Or maybe Google could use a rotational system so everybody gets shuffled to the top one day
dam I'm number out of 2 million does that means i got to the bottom tomorrow
DaveN
This is very clearly not true at all, and the fundemental area where Google is falling flat on its face. Anyone with a PR5 site could create 10,000 PR2 plus pages in a couple hours. Right now sites that just make pages and pages of gibberish (and interlinked them via good anchor text) will outrank sites with much higher PR and links from every authority site on a topic.
Google has backed itself into a disasterous corner. For everything except the very most competitive terms, all you have to do is buy a few dozen domains, create 10,000 pages of gibberish text (with non-gibberish linking), get ten or so free for all links, and poof you rule half of the top 100 search results for that term/phrase.
PR matters not at all here. Volume of links is all that matters -- except when volume of links is about the same, then PR and page title will "break a tie".
Google needs to put pagerank back into the mix, kill these free for all links trash programs (and again, NOT for PR but for anchor text), and extract their head from their plex's rectum and understand that context matters. Links from sites about a topic should matter more than random links, and links that are simply purchased on unrelated domains.
Google needs to put pagerank back into the mix, kill these free for all links trash programs (and again, NOT for PR but for anchor text), and extract their head from their plex's rectum and understand that context matters. Links from sites about a topic should matter more than random links, and links that are simply purchased on unrelated domains.
Absolutely!
PS: Isn't "Plex's Rectum" a rock and roll group?
Anyone with a PR5 site could create 10,000 PR2 plus pages in a couple hours.
I didn't think of that, it's certainly true. There is software for this purpose, isn't it?
except when volume of links is about the same, then PR and page title will "break a tie"
Can you explain this?
Links from sites about a topic should matter more than random links, and links that are simply purchased on unrelated domains.
I don't think this would change the situation much, besides that I don't want an algo rule about whether a link is "on context". It's tough to define the boundaries even for humans. And it would not change the first cited problem.
One partial solution would be to take ownership of domains into account, so that no one can make up his own anchor text anymore, but this brings further problems.
Anyhow, those looking to buy "Widgets" will do a google for "Widgets" to go to a site selling "Widgets", rarely to a site concerning Widgets with links to sites selling Widgets
I totally disagree. Content and information are still king. More people search for information than product. And a site full of content about widgets will most certainly have good listings of places to get widgets.
Instead of playing the SEO game, or rather, trying to keep up with the SEO game, it seems best to keep up as well as you can but more importantly build useful content/information/services.
I give away free USEFULL services on my site, mixed in with paid stuff. Its quite obvious to me that people still LOVE free USEFULL stuff and I think they always will.
That USEFULL information/content/services brings them to your site. That gets them to link back to your site.
Webmasterworld is a good example. I came here for free information. Ultimately, I was so impressed I gave them a permanent link from MY site. I want MY users to know about this place too! I think we all win in the end.
Sure it would. Now sites with literally zero links from other sites on a topic can be #1 for that topic simply by getting ffa links with correct anchor text and generating their own.
If no site in the top 1000 search results for a word links to a site, but that site has thousands of links, that should set off a bell in the Googleplex.
At the beginning of 2003 both Yahoo and Google (standalone, Yahoo results not counted) had an audience reach of about 30%.
[see the Nielsen audience reach study from January 2003]. This won't change by Yahoo's shopping spree, imho.
It's the question whether Yahoo or any company can make their search engine(s) relevant by throwing money at them. Or even make them relevant.
But the purpose of the site isn't to benefit the public or the webmasters in the directory. The purpose is to direct people to the affiliates.
These site aren't benefitting anyone but the webmasters who run them. It would be better if all the affiliates just bid for their position in the SERPs rather than having this big charade going on.
If you know how to use Google to find something specific (usually involving a lot of search words) it can be wonderful. But if you type in a generic search word, you get these garbage affiliate sites showing up.
Normally my store should get credit because it works well and clearly states the products it sells, not because another more popular site links to it, not because I spent months doing my damndest to accumulate links everywhere I can, and not because I have a big enough advertising budget to paste banners everywhere.
But, I think Google will add a twist, with "protected" sites based on PR of maybe 7 or higher, that remain static in the SERPS...
A moving target is much more difficult to shoot...
