Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I know 3-way linking is very popular now, at the same time people say Google detects them. Also, they say reciprocal links don't work.
I wonder will this sheme work:
For example, there is website directory. If someone wants to get link in that directory, he puts backlink. But backlink, pointed to the another website, not directory.
The only problem here is you need to promote directory itself to have pretty good PR, which is pretty hard (there is no any interesting content there).
Will Google detect it and ban site(s)? Will Google count those links as one way links (link from link partner's website to your website)?
All kinds of linking schemes are tried, and Google usually sees them quite quickly as a non-normal linking pattern on their web graph. If all that is required to get listed in a directory is a backlink, then Google will catch on to that, I'd say.
If the directory begins to gain ranking through any means, there is most likely going to be a manual inspection of the directory. What they will be looking for is evidence that there is a good editorial (human review) process in place. If they don't see that kind of quality, then the directory will not be given much if any power -- no matter what kind of linking schemes are in use.
[edited by: tedster at 10:49 pm (utc) on May 24, 2009]
Will Google detect it and ban site(s)? Will Google count those links as one way links (link from link partner's website to your website)?
It is pretty easy for people to file a spam report on three way directory schemes and to simply forward 3 way link requests on to Google. So if you want to use those techniques you have to take a chance that not a single person who comes across those emails or directory inclusion instructions is going to report them.
It is pretty easy for people to file a spam report on three way directory schemes and to simply forward 3 way link requests on to Google.
Google acts on spam reports for improving their algorithm as a whole, and not on specific reported sites.
If you want to bet any valuable domains on that being absolutely true now and forever in the future, that is certainly your choice. All you can tell from your experience is they didn't act on your particular spam reports.
I have seen many sites disappear not too long after spam reports were filed. The disappearances may or may not have been caused by the spam reports.
Only the Google folks know for sure what they do with each spam report and they tend to not share that information with the general public.
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 4:48 am (utc) on May 25, 2009]
it's pot luck whether they act or not
I don't agree. [ However 1 in 5 is a powerful assertion against what I'm about to say ].
I believe the Google QA editors are systematic and will take reports seriously, especially if it comes from a disclosed source through WMT. Anybody with high ranking trophy terms in competitive sectors is going to be under the eyeball of all and sundry. However, the effects of reporting may not be seen for some time. My feeling is they will prioritise complaints and one way will be to focus on the biggest offenders first - high traffic spikes in a competitive sector may be one indicator for example.
My thoughts would be that if it was a complete SPAM attack , they would act fast. e.g. " Viagra " under the "United Nations" presenting an irrelevant vertical and absolute breach of quality. If it's a more general breach of guidelines, using "shady tactics" Google would likely take the case and somehow document it for algorithmic improvements - and the samples may take time to include. Possibly they may get stored for an abuse pattern over many sites on the web to strengthen the algo.
2.5 / 3 way or whatever scheme of scaled linking is going to be detectable - so I'd avoid it .
[edited by: Whitey at 8:42 am (utc) on May 25, 2009]
It does surprise me sometimes that Google still have problems spotting machine generated spam doorway pages with a Javascript redirect, or a network of sites all with the same owners. Maybe the thresholds are set for bigger networks and smaller ones slip through the net. Or maybe it's been noted, it's on the list and they'll tinker with the algorithm to see if they can zap it without collateral damage.
