Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
We had a very highly ranked jobs site banned from the Google index (it has since been reinstated, but still hasn't recovered 99% of its traffic) - and the reason Google gave for banning it was a statement on our homepage saying that we also offered "text links for sale". (I actually talked to a Google person on a plane when I vacationed in San Fran this fall, and that was her take on my ban). We always offered text links (since we are a job site), but Google apparently didn't like us advertising the fact that we did!
So .... if Google holds true to form, should we see some graying out of the PR on these pixel link farms and bans from the index in the next update or so, wouldn't you think?
Do you think they'll eventually be removed from the index, just like all the other link schemes? That would absolutely kill the popularity of these sites, IMO.
It just occurred to me
JUST? I confess it occured to me the second I got a phone call from a person setting this up as a business model and wanting help. I had to say no thanks straight off the bat. The idea was cool once - but Google won't even have to tweak their algo to stop it working a thousand times. Why? because it is only unique once. No other attempt will get the same media attention.
I dont see how it is possible for these pages to pass PR anyway, some use redirects etc so all you can realisticaly hope for is clicks.
Mack.
is this a fact? I know G suggests using 100 or so links for page but...
Mack.
>pass PR
nope.
>help rankings
nope.
>great idea (the first time)
yep.
>piece of internet history
yep.
What I do like is the idea. That's what I love about the internet. Someone thinks of something new, a new idea although totally worthless but still a couple of people earn big time. I saw one who made 660K (the orginator for what I know).
>> Google will only count the first 100 links on any given page
is this a fact? I know G suggests using 100 or so links for page but...
i know for fact that isnt true and pr is passed. I see pages that are linked ONLY from around 200th or more position link from a single page and show indexed and with appropriate pr. If your examples arent showing that then perhaps google is just doing a good job of placing appropriate value to a link. I dunno but for sure it CAN be passed pr from way past 100 links.
>great idea (the first time)
yep.
Great idea for the first guy who sold the links. Worthless idea for those buying the links.
Can someone define "Million dollar links".
Do a G Search for 'pixel ads'. Example: Sites are trying to sell 1,000,000 pixels for $1 each.
Hmm ... I don't know. Of course the idea here is that anyone can have a link but the traditional link farms involved swapping links for free for the purpose of gaming Google. First of all these links are free, Second its not a link exchange, and 3rd the game here is not necessarily to game google...its advertising.
Whether or not it gets caught in the filters I guess is another story but I personally wouldn't call this a link farm.
...the traditional link farms involved swapping links for free for the purpose of gaming Google.
Link farms are defined by their free for all nature in that anybody can add a link.
Worthless idea for those buying the links.
So you're saying you don't believe the testimonials (on the original site) from advertisers who say their traffic and sales went up 50% and more? :)
Matt Cutts as much as said the links are worthless from a seo perspective, as they should be. Some folks might get traffic or even make a buck if the "stuff" of their site is generic enough, but the next great thing should be to open up a website to charge $1 to listen to the whining of people who actual spent money on these various sucker sites.
<rant>
Buying and selling advertisements and links has been a part and parcel of the media for many years now, if they really think they can ban that they have another think coming. Having said that banning sites because they don't like what they are saying is quite frankly unauthorized censorship, that for a legitimate moral site ... not based on porn or mass destruction, they do at a whim. "unauthorized censorship" in these terms means I didn't vote for this policy and neither did any majority I know of.
Now how about the case of for at least a level playing field?
Travel. What they are doing is picking on sites that they believe to be "doing things wrong" and kicking them. No looking at content. No looking at the amount of time and research that has gone into its development just they decide its wrong and kick it.
Back to the playing field. So sites that have a massive user base already and sites that are well linked and are not gaining links in any way apart from naturally are at the top? I don't think so.
The site that are at the top and are gaining ground are those that have been link farming for years. That is, before it was called link farming. They had professionals seeking links and link swaps selling link for years before most of us got the idea that it would be worth while to farm out this business to a professional firm.
The other type of site that is at the top is the "official" tourist board site. These are government funded, that is tax payer funded, to sell a city and in the UK they are now selling accommodation. That level playing field. What ever happen to fair competition? When I get a budget of 5 million to develop a site on a city I can assure you it will be good. Not only that but, when I get a site that is linked to by many people naturally because it says it is "the official" site believe me it will make money through booking accommodation.
This is unfair competition from the government only to be helped by Google.
It is quite frankly all disgusting. Banning of good quality sites seems to be the best google can come up with at the moment. Personally there is only one real way forward for me. I use MSN as a political statement which has everything I need there and ... not unlike google ... sells links.
</rant>
Penalties would be unfair because at $1 a pixel, it would be too easy for competitors to get a link to your site with subsequent penalty. I imagine the links will eventually simply be discounted.
Good to know. So even just for one month's traffic, that's only about $.13 per click. Much cheaper than AdWords already. Assuming you get traffic for 3 months thats $.04 per click. Hell, what are we all waiting for! :)
The other type of site that is at the top is the "official" tourist board site. These are government funded, that is tax payer funded, to sell a city and in the UK they are now selling accommodation. That level playing field. What ever happen to fair competition?
Why not take up the issue with your M.P. instead of expecting Google to intervene on your behalf?
Matt Cutts as much as said the links are worthless from a seo perspective, as they should be.
If Matt Cutts said that the world was flat, would you believe him?
Okay, so you get the traffic from that site, then what?
Also the main guy claims to of sold 650k + pixels but I am SURE that many many many of those are his own affiliate links to various casino programs. I'd bet that he has only sold a couple of hundred thousand. Still a great haul for a great idea! But not reproducable.
