Forum Moderators: open
Is this spamming by exclusion?
Frankly, this is getting rediculous. I wish Google would remove the page ranking from the toolbar because it's really being used for the wrong purposes. People should link to other sites based on content and the opportunity for relevant exchange of traffic, not for manipulation of and commercialization of Google page rank.
If lots of sites are refusing to link to you because you have low PR (or a PR 0 penalty), then Google is directly affecting the growth of your business. If you can put a dollar value on "lost links" then you could in theory take legal action against Google.
Also Google states [google.com] "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".
That's true until you get a PR penalty which distorts your sites real PR. You could then in theory sue Google for libel as they do not tell users anywhere on their site, that in certain curcumstances, PR is not a true "democratic" representation.
All you need to do these days is create a site and get as many inbound keyword text links as you can.
Relevancy has NO BEARING and thats the problem.
I stay on topic as much as possible and only link to sites that are relevant to mine. PR is never an issue as long as the site I am linking to has decent and relevant content.
Problem is my competeition employ spam tactics DELUXE and its so obvious. Its very easy to get links from sites when you dont care where they are coming from.
The result is that I slip a little further down every month while my spam competition maintain top positions.
SOLUTION: I must link spam to survive
BOTTOMLINE : If I do this am I risking my future?
GOOGLE GET RID OF THAT DAM GREEN BAR and sort out your duplicate content filter! All top position holders in my industry have MULTIPLE DUPLICATED LINKS PAGES!
Easy to swap links for 100 websites and reciprocate from 100 websites when the links pages are duplicated!
I do not judge PageRank when looking at linking, although I will not link to any site with a white bar.
The toobar is a good way to steer clear of 'bad neighborhoods' as defined by Google. I'm comfortable with that because there is way too much garbage on the internet now.
My niche is highly competitive, and I see a lot of spammy techniques used by my competitors, so anything to help straighten things out is a good thing.
I was irritated to see how many of my competitor would appear before me in the Google results even though they are glorified link farms with hidden text and hidden links.
I have been seeing them drop out of the Google results recently though, and one of the largest just got a white bar and disappeared. YEA!
I'm hoping that Google is aggressively working on the rolling spam filters that they have mentioned, and that the others will soon be swept away due to their use of inappropriate techniques too. If they can just slam sites that use hidden text and hidden links, a lot of the negative manipulated listings will begin to go away.
Is PageRank illegal somehow? If not, then I am still confused.
I am a bit on the frazzled side so stick with me...
We tend to forget that Google can do pretty much anything they want within the bounds of law. It is a business and it will do as it pleases.
Your only recourses are
A. Moan and groan at Webmasterworld,
B. get your politicians to sink their rotten teeth into something,
C. Get your lawyer to sink her teeth into something,
D. Start your own SE that is done the way you want it done,
E. Try to convince Google to do it your way.
I am concerned that just because a crazy webmaster rejected mayor's link based on Google PR, we are suggesting, as Kerrin legal action.
Remember the "freedom of speach" in the U.S. grants you the right to speak out! What most people forget is it does not grant you the right to be heard, nor can you force people or companies to listen to you.
I'd be interested to hear the theory, although I'm highly dubious. If you could take action against Google then why not Alexa, Alltheweb etc? Or any site that offers an 'opinion' on the value of a particular site?
You can't take Google to court because another webmaster decided your site wasn't worth linking to, whatever the criteria they used to determine this.
This whole thread seems to have taken a turn for the bizarre, but what you say here simply isn't true.
Let's assume that PR is democratic. Sites that are banned have been trying to subvert the democratic process by artificially creating link popularity. So what legal recourse do they have?
Anyone who is interested in taking legal action against Google should do a site search for searchking (or just talk to any tech lawyer, they'll tell you what a good idea it is). The case touches on some of the same issues.
Your site is not what the web considers important, it's what Google considers important. If they review your site and only give you 2 stars, that's there choice, no-one should be able to sue over this? I for one like the way Google is doing things, at least I can see what the rules to the game are before playing.
You could then in theory sue Google for libel as they do not tell users anywhere on their site, that in certain curcumstances, PR is not a true "democratic" representation.
I'd suggest searching Google for a definition of the term "libel" before speculating on what is or isn't libelous.
This is the crucial point. Your site in general can be judged on many different levels, quality of content, usability, whatever. Your site as far as Google SERPS are concerned, is whatever they decide it is. If you don't like this, then ban googlebot from your site.
[added] I wish this debate had stuck to whether or not Google's influence on the structure of the web is a good or bad one [/added]
[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 3:02 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2003]
How many top sites do reciprocal links?
Go ahead and do it if you like.
there are lists of top 100 sites per pagerank per country
... care to point me at them, please?
google top 100
(not that they are accurate)
and my own dated and limited one of course:
[webmasterworld.com...]
This is foolish. If you link to a PR 2 or PR 3 page from your PR 6, what happens? They become a PR 4 or PR 5! Then you get another good link because you boosted them! It's amazing how many webmasters don't realize that.
As far as Google success goes, relevant ancor text links from a PR 4 or 3 site for that matter still count a lot.
More importantly, many sites with PR4 and below- and even PR0 get tons of traffic that may actually send you visitors (a novel concept).
lol ;)
>>Google distorting the shape of the web?
The short answer is yes. Google is manipulating the linking of the web. Both overtly by penalties and by creating demand.
If you get penalized by linking to a PR0 site, that is a completely fabricated situation. likewise, by reporting PR with the green bar Google creates and inflates a demand for a scarce resource - PR.
However, "natural linking" is a myth. To be fair, link pop factors in SE's predate Google's rise to mega stardom and they also distorted the linking of the web. But Google goes a large step further with their bad neighborhood policies.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here - do you mean that sites in similar content areas don't naturally link to each other? How did the webs current structure come about, in that case?
I agree that Google is having an 'artificial' influence on this structure, and also that sites have been manipulating linking way before Google started showing PR, but I definitely think that a 'natural' linking structure does exist - this is why Google wrote their linking algo - to see which sites are 'naturally' popular because of links.
And the fact remains that if you have an excellent site/resource, people will link to you, without you ever needing a link exchange, or without manipulating this to improve you popularity on the SEs.
I see 12K unique visitors a month for a PR3 site, what numbers do PR6 sites see?
I know its a broad question but a general Idea..
Relevancy has NO BEARING and thats the problem
I had the impression Google did check for relevancy from other discussions on this forum. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If relevancy is included page rank makes sense.
Nitch topics like hobbies just naturally do a lot of linking between each other and it would be counter productive to discount it in the PR.
Anne
BTW these links aren't just for PR. They bring a lot of visitors to a site if they are theme related.
More importantly, many sites with PR4 and below- and even PR0 get tons of traffic that may actually send you visitors (a novel concept).
Sticky me a couple of examples of quality PR0 sites (who know how to hide session ID's) that are making money and I might believe you.
As for visitors - fair enough, you may get some from any link, but at least with Google you know that they convert well.
Travelnow is PR0
Tons of adult sites have pr2-3 that get over 100,000 uniques per day.
The point is, if you are after PR only, you really haven't built much of a biz and linking would still be very valuable if PR ceased to exist.
If all major SE's quit counting linking and link pop then we will eventually go back to something closer to a "natural" linking structure. So long as they do, it is a distortion.
I'm not advocating that but these are factors.
Link swaps are nothing more than marketing deals where firms agree to put in a word for each other.
And paying for pagerank is nothing more than a paid media campain where real life renowned people advocate a product for a fee.
Google is changing the structure of the web, but in the same way as a verbal recommendation sells a product in real life.
Google is part of the web's landscape and there has to be feedback as people optimise for it. In the end it will settle down and reach equilibrium, just as real life marketing has.
And how many celebrities who advocate products actually use the products concerned?
>In the end it will settle down and reach equilibrium, just as real life marketing has
Hehe, am I the only one that thinks real life marketing has spiralled a little out of control, so that marketing has become an end in itself rather than a means to an end? Just as Google ranking and good PR has become an end in itself for many online marketers, regardless of the actual results.
I guess Google is more of a controversial area, because it has always been seen as a trusted and reliable resource. The manipulation of PR threatens this.
What you say is all true SlyOldDog, but I can't get away from the idea that the equilibrium you mention may not be the best thing in the long run.
<sigh> Not sure how I can be such a cynic in the real world and such an idealist when it comes to the internet! ;)</sigh>
Adult sites - I said quality sites... ;)
Someone did sticky me one PR3.
