Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: open
What's Google's position on receiving massive amounts of backlinks from one site? Thanks in advance.
No reason to think Google would see this as bad unless they thought this was done just for Google ranking purposes. Besides, Google can set the algo to just stop giving any benefit for more than x links from any one site. That PR6 of your competitor is hardly impressive. I could trivially get any site to a PR6 fairly cheap by arranging for just a few links to it from minor amateur sites.
I have 11 links shown in google, and when I last checked I had a pagerank of 6.
I'm not sure, but I don't think the thread was aimed at PR (I'm not just saying that because I'm sick of hearing the word ...)
The number of backlinks affects ranking through anchor text more than anything so 6000 good anchor texts can make a huge difference no matter what the PR or content of the linking site.
A pr0/1 would be enough to target "uneducated crazy answers" Check the query out in a few days -;)
You need links, not PR
A few hundred dollars (US) a year should be adequate. The strategy is basically you find high PR minor amateur sites and offer them a sum of money to add to the home page a simple link with keyword laden anchor text, prefaced with "Sponsored in part by:". These are just little amateur sites. Doesn't take much money to induce the webmasters to add a single line of HTML code to the bottom of the page. The trickiest part of this strategy is knowing where to look for these high PR amateur sites. Of course, a lucky commercial webmaster just surfing around one day could happen upon one of these high PR amateur sites by accident.
"Opportunity plus instinct equals profit."
-Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #9
That's a good idea. I wonder how long that will last, now that the text link auctions have begun to explode and with the rapid maturation of the revenue side of webmastering.
I wonder if the days of the "country bumpkin" (term not used derogatively only as a meme icon), are coming to a close?
Pretty soon there will be a "Webby Blue Book" telling you how how much a "used 2002 web link on a PR X web site with X thousand visitors per day in good condition" is worth. :)
7000 links to each site all with major keywords in the anchor text. It's costing them around $6000 a month (one of the tech sites contacted me with an offer)
He put two links to the same page using different test-specific anchor text, after the page had been spidered, only the first link/anchor text came up in the SERPs, the second link/anchor text seems to have been ignored.
If G is doing this on a per page basis, they could at some stage apply this on a site-wide basis.
> That sounds kinda expensive to me I recently got for a client 100,000 links across 50 domains for $1,500/month from the broker I use.
And you both are sure this still has the desired effect since last TPR update? If my observations are correct, then there's much more semantic filtering at work since then than just anchor text, presumably influenciing the way PR is inherited from one page to another. I'd suggest such backlinks aren't worth a penny now, but I might be wrong.
And you both are sure this still has the desired effect since last TPR update?
I don't know as far as PR is concerned because I never look, it's is a superfluous metric in my book.
I'd suggest such backlinks aren't worth a penny now, but I might be wrong.
I would agree that (all other things being equal) sites with thousands of links that come from a few domains are not indexed as well as sites with only a few hundred links from unique domains. Buying the right text links, like everything else in SEO, requires some degree of skill and experience but in the right hands they are the most cost effective tool in the off-page optimization box.
But it would cost your soul.
Where do I sign?
I would agree that (all other things being equal) sites with thousands of links that come from a few domains are not indexed as well as sites with only a few hundred links from unique domains.
I agree, but the time and effort and pure "luck" of getting hundreds of unique backlinks is outwayed by the simplicity of paying for thousands of similar ones. That's why I'm saying that currently, paid links from large tech sites are winning because the weighting for unique links isn't significant enough ... yet ...
Why would they have a "position"? There is nothing suspect, bad, or weird about this.
People need to stop thinking that because Charlie Manson wore a red shirt that all red shirt wearers are nutjobs and that authorities need to have a "position" on red shirts.
Why would they have a "position"?Because links are (or were) the lifeblood of their existence. Because they count different links differently and thousands of links from one domain would definitely fit into a certain category. Because oft times it would represent someone trying to improve rankings by taking av=dvantage of G's algorhythm.
BTW there are numerous places in SoCal where red is not a color kids are allowed at school. Why? Because of the nutjobs with red shirts. (gangs)
Google doesn't need and shouldn't have a "position" on this. Google needs and has positions on other things, like valuing links and not liking selling PR, but this is not a position about the red shirt.
Dmoz has links to Wikipedia on every page. Why would anyone think Google has a "position" on this? Google has algorithmic rules by which it ranks things. What is Google's "position" on having links to an index page on each page of a domain? What is Google's "position" on having three paragraphs of text on a page rather than two?
Google needs a position on Charlie Manson, not the color of his shirt, which so happens to be the color of the shirts of millions of other people.
Google has guidelines. They are simple. Those state their "position" on link issues. They, and webmasters, should focus on Charlie, not his shirt.
Google doesn't need and shouldn't have a "position" on this.
Agreed, (nice one about the Manson t-shirt by the way! that could probably be applied to 90% of the threads like this one.)
All to often people refer to ranking techniques as "spam". Spam now seems to mean - "something someone else thought of first" rather than "deceptive and poor quality informational mis-direction".
Just because something isn't completely above board doesn't make it spam. Most of us use comment tags, aren't they the same thing as hidden text? If Google take a stance on optimization techniques then they will have tried to set the "webmaster moral code" which they are not qualified to do. Instead they simply say - "don't do anything that will give poor quality results to users".
Getting 1000's of backlinks with "widgets" in the anchor text to your "widget" site to give users information about "widgets" is providing relevant search results isn't it?
Because oft times it would represent someone trying to improve rankings by taking advantage of G's algorhythm.That was in my post too. That's charlie. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the links are bought or sold.
If Google has no position on the subject, that in itself is a position and is worth talking about.
If Google has no position on the subject, that in itself is a position ...
Were in trouble now .... if people can't keep their opinions to themselves without being judged for keeping their opinions then we are in a world of "eye-brow" raising and I for one don't want to go that way.
What is it you Yanks have? Oh, yeah - "I plead the fifth" does not mean "I did it". It means that you don't want to give your opinion because people will just twist it or lie about it or judge it or write articles about it or discuss it in forums ....
Google's silence on the matter may be because they don't really give a damn, but I suppose that is something that needs to be discussed? What about the fact that Larry likes two sugars in his coffee - how does that influence the search results?
Okay, yes that is true.
The thing here though that I think should be emphasized is that if you see a guy wearing a red shirt being shoved into the back of a police car, you shouldn't conclude the red shirt is responsible, and thus strip off yours. You should inquire, and discover the guy in the red shirt just threw a rock through a store window and swiped some underwear. You should then not conclude that he could have safely swiped a toaster. Instead you should look at the rules the cops follow and note that the rock through the window was the problem, and that the red shirt dude grabbing underwear instead of a toaster was not important.
The bottom line is that wikipedia is not punished because dmoz links to it thousands of times (off topic, notice lots of wikipedia pages have moved up in the serps because of this relatively new linking), or vice versa (dmoz isn't punished for it), while at the same time another page offering lots of links to a different domain might suffer (or vice versa), but not merely because of the linking.
1. Have no position on this; i.e. each link counts as any other link and each transfers PR and anchor to the receiving page.
2. Have the PR transfer, anchor, and any other benefits of the link diminish marginally with each successive link.
3. Completely ignore any links beyond a certain threshhold while still counting those up to the threshhold.
4. Count the links up to a certain threshhold, but then apply some negative value for successive links beyond the threshhold.
5. Ignore all the links.
6. Something else completely
Knowing Google has no position would be useful because it would be an important factor for someone considering a transaction invloving this.
steveb, the dmoz thing doesn't pertain so much to this part of the discussion because those links all go to different pages, which is ideal (at least coming from an objective source). i hadn't noticed that about wikipedia though and I am glad to hear it. I have almost always been able to glean some useful info there, even on subjects about which I considered myself to be an authority.