Forum Moderators: open
Someone told me that <snip> could be one, but I am not sure, does anyone have any feedback on that.
I want to find out as they link to our site and I need to find out if I should get them to take the link down or if it is no worries.
[edited by: Marcia at 6:31 am (utc) on Mar. 22, 2004]
[edit reason] No specifics, please. [/edit]
If you're creating artificial link structures AND artificial keyword stuffing, then you need to worry. Otherwise, you should be safe.
I wonder how this particular site got away being #1 on a very competitive keyword for 'a very long time' at Google using the above technique...oh well, I guess some rules are just applied selectively? Reminds me of ODP. lol
Subject: Your link has been deactivated
Dear webmaster, we have checked your site and have not found the link to getwidgets.com. Once you have restored the link, reply this message with the url where the link is placed and we will restore your listing.
Not very important, now we are not-linking, as I wanted.
Only a very illustrative example of wich kind of sites can be considered bad neighbourhood.
Greetings,
Herenvardö, the good neighbour ;)
you cant go down if someone links you and you dont link back...you must be thinking of the new Yahoo!...
I beg to differ. One of the most important changes that google has introduced is that you can go down as a result of other sites linking to you, something I always thought was and would remain sacrosanct
Now here's a real-life (and common) example: Your web designer also hosts your web site and both your site and the web designer's site are hosted on the same IP address. Your web designer's site has a link to your site because they are very proud of it and want to show it off. You have no other links (or very few low-quality ones). Result - you vanish from the listings.
Good neighbourhood, bad effect
I agree with most of what is being said in the Links forum you refer to and I have nothing major to add. My point is that for perhaps the first time ever, there is a situation where links can be bad for you. Of course for most sites it is overcome by simply getting more external sites to link to you which will dilute the effect of any penalty for being linked to from what google considers to be an "associated site", but people need to be aware of this problem as otherwise they will experience great frustration with their rankings dropping despite having more links inward.
I can't say I disagree with google's algorithm because it is a clever one designed to prevent linking abuse. Just like any algorithm there is collateral damage.
In the scenario you describe I think it is more the lack of links that would affect the site rather than the link in the same IP.
It's worth checking out this thread [webmasterworld.com...] in particular GG's post - he has said what he has always said on this subject - "you can't help who links to you."
So the solution is to get a significant increase in links from multiple sources
A- Linking to grey barred or PR0 sites as its not humanly feasible to check and see if every singe new addition is penalized or just newly created, one can only check that they are relevant to the region and topic and not "clearly" spamming
B- Not Checking back on thousands of sites routinely to see if any of them has been penalized / changed hands and topic / turned to spam or all of the above
People, If A is doable with more time or staff, B is IMPOSSIBLE?
In all honesty I do not think Google should expect anyone to do that unless they give us a free tool that can automate this job and email you if a site is on their "black list" :)
I expect some of the well paid PHDs to sort this mess out, they got us here in the first place!
hobbs, yes, keeping a directory up is a lot of work. And, just like a search engine, every sleazeball spammer will target you if they think it's half worth their while to subvert your links.
Google doesn't need to provide a links checker, though: it's a fairly trivial programming task. Major directories WILL have their own link checker. Other directories ... are in danger of being penalized for what can only be described as negligence of basic quality assurance procedures.
Google will have, and ought to have, no pity: you want a quality directory, you do the quality assurance. You don't want a quality directory, Google hopes their algorithm will out you.
I don't think they are doing what you suggest. All my sites are on the same IP (six of them). One site has been around the longest and I link to all the others from it. I have a "my sites" page linked off the index page, and the "my sites" page has links to all the others.
They all have PR (good PR) and they all appear in the SERPS.
No evidence of any penalty that I can see.
Could you stick me the URLs and I will see why this happens. I'm sure I will find that the sites have enough links to them to get over the penalty.
If Site A is linked to from site B, and site B is sitting on the same IP address as site A, site B will have a penalty attached to it.
Greetings,
Herenvardö
If you're really providing mostly useful links, you won't look like the doorway to a bad neighborhood. In another thread, someone noticed that the ODP had just gone to PR 10. Think we don't link to any SE-cloaking abusers? I know we do, and we do it deliberately! (It's not our business to police that kind of spam. If the site is useful for the human surfer, we list it based on what is visible to a human surfer.)
The problem will only occur for "closed neighborhoods" with highly incestuous "artificial linking" (taboo at Google) due to a fetish for PR-retention. And it will only occur on "gateways to the ghetto" masquerading as city visitor centers.
Think we don't link to any SE-cloaking abusers? I know we do, and we do it deliberately! (It's not our business to police that kind of spam. If the site is useful for the human surfer, we list it based on what is visible to a human surfer.)
Even if it means that a cloak redirect ends up on a site that is already listed on a different category? Isn't that would be considered artificial/multiple listing of same site? And, I thought affiliate is a big no-no at ODP? lol
Google, rightly, bins the site. The ODP, rightly, lists it: our human editors verify that, despite some brain-damaged attempted SERP perverting, useful content is there.
On the other hand: a site, after being listed in the ODP, changes to an affiliate banner farm. The ODP delists it and all related sites -- our human editors no longer can trust that content developer or any of his sites. Google keeps listing it (with the current content, not the original ODP-reviewed content.) Both are doing the right thing -- the best they can do with their chosen tools.
And, to bring in a third case that has caused acrimonious debate in this forum, pejorative-ethnic-name-watch.hatesite.com is listed in both Google and the ODP, but Netnanny doubtless weeds it out -- while letting both blank-text-using, affiliate-doorway-swinging sites through. netnanny is also doing the right thing: its best attempt at its chosen mission, and no fumbling undersupported half-witted attempts to perform other missions.
We all do the best we can at the job we take on. And the wise among us depend on others who do their job better than we possibly could -- but crosscheck for ourselves on important issues. Isn't that the way the real world is? And how could any electronic net in that world possibly be different?
