Forum Moderators: open
So, I personally don't think Google will penalized the 'advertiser' but I think it would be possible for Google to easily reduce or even eliminate the weight of the links send to the 'advertiser'. What do you think?
That clears things up. If my competitor buys a PR8 link and ranks 5th on the page it's ok ... but if he buys a PR9 and ranks 1st, then Google doesn't like it.
If buying high PR links didn't "excessively skew the results", people wouldn't be spending hundreds of dollars for a link.
If my competitor buys a PR8 link and ranks 5th on the page it's ok ... but if he buys a PR9 and ranks 1st, then Google doesn't like it.
I don't think they would be concerned if that PR9 site was just influencing the ranking of one site. It becomes more of an issue if that PR9 site has a whole bunch of links to unrelated sites, and those links alone pop them to the front of their industry.
But if the site does not sell widgets but is a gay porn site google would not be happy.
[edited by: ecomagic at 12:30 am (utc) on Oct. 24, 2003]
Exactly what seems fairest. That way the on-topic legit ones don't get tossed into the meat grinder with the rest of them.
>>I don't think Google is inclined to do anything beyond filtering non-relevant links because at the moment it's not an epidemic problem that is skewing relevancy.
It does look like it's concentrated in a few industries, and what it can be adding up to is that those people are fighting it out amongst themselves - whoever pays the most $ for the most links, for the most anchor text and for the most PR is the winner.
Let's be realistic. It really isn't skewing relevancy, is it? What's the big difference if one of them wins and makes it to the top? The concept of relevancy for those sites is a big crock of "soup" anyway. The name of the game, from what I see, is production assembly line that rivals Detroit car makers. It looks like they plagiarize one another left and right, churn out the same old content with a bit of rewording and then set out to hunt down the PR and anchor text, cash in hand.
If any do get hit, crash and burn is normal. If it happens they can just turn on the machine and crank out more of the same.
The accounting equation for some industries:
Credit Cash, debit Advertising Expense.
Advertising Expense for links & PR = Cost of Goods Sold.
Let's be realistic. It really isn't skewing relevancy, is it?
It *only* skews the relevancy if Google does not like the results they are serving up to their users. Their totally arbitrary opinion is the only one that matters.
"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value."
"Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank,.."
Given the above I'm sure Google does not wish "importance" and "uniquely democratic nature" to be biased towards SEO clients with deep pockets.
A simple check on the backlinks of e.g. PR7 sites with only a limited amount of pages and backlinks could make easy adjusting at Google's will:
A natural website with a few PR7 pages would probably have 1000 plus non-reciprocal backlinks built over a longer time from many Toolbar PR ranges. Instant out of the blue PR7+ hood may be perfectly normal and justified, or attract a lot of attention for adjustion.
not true. I had 2 links on my website which got pr3 from me (they don't have any other backlinks not in google or alltheweb). I used javascript just to test how it affects .. next update they were pr0 with no backlinks on either google or alltheweb .. it's been 2 updates since then and they still lies at pr0 with no backlinks.
oh and for whatever keywords they were ranking high, they don't even appear in the 1st 500 now.
It's an entirely different matter how they can filter those.
excessively skew the results
I've heard that many times here, and it tells me that no one knows for sure. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for others.
What google cares is the BEST SERPs for their visitors. Only with the best SERPs, they can get more visitors and it is their visitors that bring them revenue in ads.
1. They don't need to care if one of the good site is missing in the TOP 10 as long as the TOP 10 has many good sites.
2. But of course as said by martinbuster, "they can dampen links located in the footer, deprecate off-topic text links, and dampen repetitive outbound links." without the need penalizing sites that involved. This is the good news for webmaster. So it that didn't help, you no longer need to pay $1000 for links.
In the cases I have seen, the sites buying the PR have not been affected, they just don't receive the PR boost anymore - this is in-keeping with the old theory of "a link to your site can't harm you"
After all, one could go out and buy a link pointing to a competitors site to get them banned!
Unless Google are certain a site is trying to cheat I don't think they will take action against it - i.e. on site factors are the only time for certain that they know somebodies intentions.
This is all IMO - but I also do not feel that big PR buying is necessary in the current algo.
Anyone agree or disagree with any of this?
It would be to hard to figure out the good ones from the bad ones (other than blatant links farms which get filtered most of the time anyway) and many many innocent links would get shot down.
If you buy an ad on the front page of fox or something, how does Google know you bought it for PR or for actual advertising since it is a popular site?
I don't know what industry you are in. But in mine, the top spots are all dominated by sites buying high PR links. If I want to remain competitive, I see no choice but to ante up.
Although , with that said, they also have a highly optimised network of domains that are cleverly interlinked with on topic content. All domains have many many different pages, which link to other 'related' content within their network of 500k + pages.
They have a respectable 100k backlinks, the majority of which come from their own network of similarly high pr pages.
Question is: Is their high pr a result of their pr purchase, or is it simply a natural result of their interlinked network?
Without any historical data relative to this particular network it is difficult if not impossible to assess.
They do very well serp wise and have done so for some time now, so it looks as if it certainly hasn't hurt them.
Good luck to them is what I say.....just gotta figure out a way of beating them ;)
"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value."
What's the difference between buying a link, and exchanging links? A link exchange is not a "uniquely democratic" vote. It is saying "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". So it seems hypocritical for webmasters who engage in link exchanges to complain about SEOs who pay for links/advertising and then say that paid links skew the SERPS.
C
P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with crobb305's statement.
until you read numerous posts on forums by reputable SEOs saying how google has learned to interpret and penalize a closed loop of sites (if they're on the same IP address, it's even worse).
I am very precautious on this and that's why I have never tried (although my evil side of mind keep pushing me to it). So where can I read post of these reputable SEOs? :)
Oh, btw, I used to be a former AMD enthusiast (still running my 1.4 Tbird), until Intel started crushing them with the 3.0 HT P4 line. :)
I will check out the mininet immediately
It's kinda like the Darwin Awards, how much of a doofus do you have to be to buy links when you could just make 1000 pages of your own?
Google cares about anchor text. If you want to do something un-content-y, just make gobs of useless pages of your own with good anchor text (and good html linking). Why pay money for something you can do, and do better, for free?
> airpal
I really don't see anything wrong with linking to your own content.Provided its of use to the *user* and fits in contextually then I say great, good on you siteowner, thanks for the extra info.
I too used to be competely paranoid about this stuff - I sat and watched my competitors build other domains whilst I sat there and said to myself "ooh risky practice buddy, Google death awaits you" - 18 months on, they are all still there and all doing well, in fact, most of them house multiple domains on the same webserver and same IP. My choice now - compete or die, it was/is that simple, I only wish I had the brains/guts to recognise the true value of what they were doing when they first did it.
Sure, theres a right and a wrong approach as to how one should go about it. My approach, identical to that of my successful competitors is simple - Primary question > "Does it benefit the user, and does it add value to their overall experience?"
If a well thought out navigational structure, that includes options for other related product (external links) information has the added spin off of building and distributing page rank then in my view it is win win all round.
I don't see anything wrong with providing contextual links, in fact I think it actually assists google and other se's in mapping an internet of themed areas. (covers head in anticipation of the old "when did google ask for seo's help chestnut? ")
If a website about various widgets relied on link exchange deals that used a singular kw anchor text then they may well rank high for this singular term, and Pr would indeed flow through their domain, and perhaps, with a good internal nav structure they may even find that overtime their overall rankings for their inner pages would also improve too, however, the reality is that site owners who had either built singular kw domains, or engaged in methods that accounted for the value of kw rich IBL'S would easily outdo them.
IP FILTERS
Some of us have seen instances when some SERPS show results for certain kws whereby the top 10 are from 5 different domains from the same IP, so in this regard IP filters may have limited use, although when you think about it further, a determined circumventor could sidestep this filter with relative ease. Even if the algo could include a domain lookup, the whois entries are invariably false, so the determined 'winners' would continue to 'win'.
Perhaps there will come a time when there are various legal constraints that force people to jump through various hoops, but by the time that happens, the search landscape will have altered and the winners will have adapted.
Those that know the game, play it well, and succeed. Besides I don't think any real value is gained from knocking these people. In most cases its jealousy.If anything, I think they should be applauded for their innovative approach to an environment full of uncertainty and unpredictability. Provided that they give people stuff that is relevant and useful then I dont see the harm, I just wish I was above them :)
"Cross-Linking" vs "Excessive Cross-Linking"
As always, seems to be all about educated guesses here :)
(Thread on VA backlinks update)
[webmasterworld.com...]
Well, no, but nice to wish for.
Maybe your competitor bought more links! so after discount, their links still increased. :)
Theming for example you run a weather site and have pharm, loans, holidays and cosmetic links. it shouldn't be to hard for google to pick it and stop PR been passed
Okay, but what if you're a FORBES Magazine editor and you link to a "Best of the Web" site about Asian travel or pregnancy? Or you're a PC MAGAZINE editor and you link to a sports site in a "Top 100 Web Sites" article? Or you're a university librarian and you link to a site about medieval music that you believe to be outstanding in its field? Should those links be devalued just because your site's perceived theme is business, computers, or higher education?
A little side note, I mentioned in another thread how this site mages to get 90+ listings among the top 500 results, with a total index page PR of around 70. Well, with the new update, many of these pages are now PR3 and some PR4. The question is often asked how many PR0 links might it take to get a PR3 and, no joke, it looks like the answer is that you can get a family of 100 PR3 and 4 (on the index page) domains by creating about one million pages, and having under ten PR4 links to the whole kit-and-kaboodle from the entire rest of the Internet.
well over one million pages in the database
Must be a fellow WW member then :)
