Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
So I pinged Google, and they confirmed that PageRank scores are being lowered for some sites that sell links
and
In addition, Google said that some sites that are selling links may indeed end up being dropped from its search engine or have penalties attached to prevent them from ranking well
and
Google stressed, by the way, that the current set of PageRank decreases is not assigned completely automatically; the majority of these decreases happened after a human review.
Seems like big news to me. Did I miss someone pointing this out already?
[edited by: tedster at 5:32 am (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]
[edit reason] copied from another location [/edit]
2. It's the link "seller" who is getting nailed
Will adding no follow get back the PR?
Any idea if sites with nofollow also lost some PR?
It's the link "seller" who is getting nailed
IMHO:
Well, and the link buyer also; and rightfully so.
As the higher PR paid links have zero value and have for a very long time now.
So the buyers kick out thousands per month for useless links, never knowing which ones work and which ones don't.
If they had put those funds into some good content, they might just get a few free links...
The game is not over on paid links, it is just going to get more stealth, but only for the small guys.
But the game for the whole cottage industry of link brokering is hurting, I'am sure, as they festered on high profile sites that will not continue on here.
newspapers and magazines .com will not be in this game any longer.
Google has given a warning, actually, two warnings.
It will not just be a TBPR issue next time, it will be much more than that...
In two - three weeks time, Google will come down even harder on the remaining flaunting offenders, IMHO.
Despite Google's current domination (particularly here in the UK), I don't much care.
That's...
So relax. It's our Internet, not Google's. If Google does its job right, our Internet will reward them. If they keep getting it wrong, our Internet will punish them..... just as it does for us.
* squeaky clean.
IE it complies with Matt Cutts criteria for judging...
- Does the directory reject urls? Oh yes!
- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Near perfect (that's why I refuse to use Google link condoms)
- If there is a fee, what’s the purpose of the fee? Strictly review only.
... and goes further...
- Every description in every link is written by us, not the company.
- Regardless of what a submitter wants, we decide in which categories a listing is placed.
- The future of any link and where it appears is not assured. It can be dumped or moved at any time.
- There is no 'side door' onto the site. Eg, it is utterly impossible to get in by offering a link exchange.
And mainly because I've spent much too much time in previous years Google-watching & reacting. Time that is more productively spent getting on with my business
...........................
Yes, agree, Reno. Focus on visitors first and SEs after.
There are billions of sites around, and Google is not perfect yet. In every algorithm/policy change, it is normal to expect that a lot of innocent people will be hurt and lots of guilty will get away.
What is clear though is that stated aim of Google.
There are not even one fourth of a billion sites around. In Feb 2007 Netcraft published there are 109 million sites in the world. I think you might have meant billions of pages around,,,"Google not perfect yet," LOL, not even close nor will it ever be. In fact, they keeping making things worst for themselves by hurting the community that built them. Goodwill towards Google is gone. Myself, I was not affected, but as I have seen the sites that are not selling links which have been penalized, I clearly see there are at least 3 factors that can hurt the PR, but not the actual ranking of the site.
I clearly see there are at least 3 factors that can hurt the PR
Please say more about that.
They are not so bothered about sites selling links that they refuse to take adwords money off the sites that sell them.
Caveat emptor.
I have never given in to what Google determines should and should not be regarding selling topically related links. And I don't feel that I should be penalized if I choose to do this.
I will mention that the ranks on that same site are better than ever despite the pagerank drop.
That kinda stinks, cause I have a new product coming out, something that is EXTREMELY newsworthy in this market, and was hoping to send some samples off to some newspaper sites (in specific areas), to do a review on the product.
I would think that an article in this sense is perfectly legit, reviewing an actual product... something that these folks have been wishing for, for the past 20 years or so. And now I'm not gunna get any link love because OTHER news sites were posting BS articles?
[edited by: tedster at 6:26 pm (utc) on Oct. 25, 2007]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]
Not sure about forbes, but wapo was selling links. They actually had a link on their site where you could request to be considered for a paid link.
Today both Forbes and the Washington Post had their PR drop to 5!
That happened yesterday. If you look on some of the larger SEO blogs (some of them hit also...) they have lists of the big name sites.
Today both Forbes and the Washington Post had their PR drop to 5!
I'm assuming Google's attorneys have their arguments in place.
Gonna be interesting how some of these big players with full legal staffs (and definitely a better understanding of the law than previous suits) respond to Goog's bullying.
(Also assuming that at some point, Goog actually penalizes the sites in SERPs instead of just "threatening" them with meaningless TBPR drops)
I'm assuming Google's attorneys have their arguments in place.
They've done pretty well in the past. (Remember SearchKing v. Google or the Kinderstart case?) And those newspapers and magazines will want to be careful--they have a vested interest in First Amendment rights, just as Google does.
Side note: I wonder if there were any manual adjustments to "TrustRank," not just PageRank? That could be a bigger issue than a real or displayed PR drop.
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 7:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 25, 2007]
(Also assuming that at some point, Goog actually penalizes the sites in SERPs instead of just "threatening" them with meaningless TBPR drops)
My feeling is, their outbound links have already lost all value and the serp drop will happen in a few weeks, IMHO.
(Remember SearchKing v. Google or the Kinderstart case?)
lol of course i remember the Searchking case.
You mention it in every thread as if it was a Constitutional Amendment as opposed to a single case in an uncharted legal arena. ;)
This goes way beyond the Searchking case for various reasons.
The primary one being the point made above:
Repeat - do you think the Washington Post et al., that deals with laws everyday against the government and has a full staff of Constitutional lawyers, might plead their case a little better than some no-name attys hired by Angry-Joe-Blow.com?
This gets into monopolistic arguments as well.
A good attorney will have no problem making their case much more "legitimate" than any case you've seen thrown at Google before.
[edited by: whitenight at 7:29 pm (utc) on Oct. 25, 2007]
My feeling is, their outbound links have already lost all value and the serp drop will happen in a few weeks, IMHO.
This is my guess too. (Although it wouldn't surprise me if this was all for show)
I suppose, when they do the full TBPR rollout (and subsequent rerankings) in the next few weeks, we'll have our answer.
Repeat - do you think the Washington Post that deals with laws everyday against the government and has a full staff of Constitutional lawyers might plead their case a little better than some no-name attys hired by Angry-Joe-Blow.com
That's a straw-man argument. And in any case, a federal court (not a no-name attorney) has ruled that Google's "PageRanks" are opinions which are protected by the First Amendment.
Somehow I don't think the WASHINGTON POST would want to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit that attempted to restrict freedom of the press. Think of the possible outcomes: movie and record companies wanting to know why their products aren't being reviewed while others are, restaurant owners claiming that the POST's near-monopoly in the D.C. newspaper industry gives the POST's food section too much power over the life or death of restaurants, and so on. Also, the POST isn't likely to care as much about toolbar PageRank as most of the people here do: Its success doesn't depend on Google referrals.
A legitimate case would NOT be attacking TBPR or PR as the main issue.
I'm trying to keep this thread on topic, so I'll let you research what other arguments (or reread my posts to Adam in the "Get rid of TBPR" threads) would be made for why it could be considered "unlawful"
Again, mentioning 1, 2, 3 decisions made by any judge as completely "set in stone" is utterly laughable to a learned attorney.
If it wasn't, we wouldn't be discussing Roe v. Wade and how liberal/conservative the Supreme Justices are every 4 years.
Sigh. You're making the same mistakes that other attys made.
Don't forget the judges, who were looking at the law, not just at the lawyers' arguments. But in any event, this forum isn't a courtroom, so maybe should avoid pretending that it is unless we want Tedster to announce a deadline for depositions. :-)
This gets into monopolistic arguments as well.
I think this should be the key and will restrict google to go beyond the limits.
I'll keep you posted
