Forum Moderators: open
Now my site is still very new (still stows PR0). I have some outbound links to some big conglomerates that certainly don't need some of my tiny bit of PR. So, do I lose PR via these links?
I think yes. For instance if a given page has 5 links to other docs on my site, and 5 links to these outside sites that don't need my PR, (like PR9 sites) then only 1/2 of my PR would be kept within the site. If I could block PR from leaving through the outside 5, (like plugging some holes in a leaky pipe), would more of my PR flow down through my site?
(FYI - Now I don't want to squelch PR from people whom I trade links with...)
I haven't seen anyone confirm or deny if PR actually leaves your site through outbound links, only that they receive it. ( I don't imagine the PR is copied to their site, I would guess it is transfered ).
Are my suspicions correct? TIA
Using the simple seo tactic of having your inbound anchor text say Red Widgets instead of RedWidgets is perfectly legitimate and (in this case) tremendously helpful.
But Google says don't cloak. If you want to cloak your site, that's fine, free world (mostly). But when talking about Google it is cheating. It's not legitimate and deserves harsh penalties.
There is a world of difference between helping Google within the rules, and tricking Google by cheating. Of course some folks couldn't care less, and I hope they all get PR0ed, just like I hope the guy who shoves me on the basketball court gets called for a foul.
From what I understand, Google cloaks their own sites - else how to they geo target so well ;) that, friend, is cloaking.
There is an expression: what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
If cloaking is good enough for Google, it's good enough for me.
Sometimes it can make sense to exchange some PR for some other factors that help you in the ranking algorithm. That's just a tradeoff. Don't think of it only in terms of PR.
Tell that to the hundreds of people that have complained, HERE, that their geo location content serving was fouling up their ability to reach the Google location of their choice :)
Different results, and the intention was to further their ad sales. Google is a business.
Yet, this irritated lots of users whom you seem aweful concerned about. In my book, any "cloaking" that irritates you users is "evil" NOT that which gives bots different stuff.
*cough* ever noticed WebmasterWorld's source code?
Take a stroll through how this site appears in different search engines some time...and then tell me, the content lines up 100%. But, you are here, right?
Content different to a search engine than a user.
Back on topic, though -> this discussion is far afield, and I've got $$$ to make. Spend your time moralizing business how you like, it's still business, at the end of the day.
Worry more about the interaction of your site - with the audience, as I said before, than what gets to which IP address & user agent combination, and you'll do much better. Trust me, in the end, every professional I know says the same. The user experience is priority number one.
If you choose to cloak though,<snip>
[edited by: Marcia at 11:58 pm (utc) on July 8, 2003]
[edit reason] TOS #4 [/edit]
If you think cloaking is evil then why did you recommend cloaking the links page at the beginning of this thread? Pick a side of the fence, please!
If I caught you doing this, I would drop you in the "mud" with Google the very second after and feel especially good about doing it. Also, if this is what you do. What you do is self defeating. As Google likes portals.
I hope GG will have seen this thread and speaks to his colleagues to make sure their cloak detection scripts also look out for robots.txt tricks.
The point I was trying to make was that quality content isnt necessarily enough with these recent indexes. I dont cloak or cheat in any way and I live with the results. I too would like to see cheaters get PR0ed, but when Google doesnt call the foul consistently, one can expect to see a a lot more elbows thrown. To continue with the sports analogy, if the ump calls the belt-high strike a ball frequently enough, the strke zone eventually changes, even when the rules don't.
IMO, if Google consistently enforced their rules, most would stop worrying about saving a few unknown percentage points of PR at the expense of natural linking.
Hiding links from search engines is hardly a new trick (just look at the links in the user's profiles on Webmasterworld - no joy there for the long term poster). Of course, these links are given freely, not as part of a trade, so they can be constructed however Brett feels like. There are plenty of examples of links that don't give any PR to the site in question (a lot of which you actually pay good money for :) ).
The reason I think it is unwise to hide external links in your recpricol links directory, is because you stand less chance of getting good incoming links (because those webmasters are often a little more savvy than the sites with less PR). The incoming links are of course a LOT more important than any 'leaked PR' (a theory which I have seen no proof of yet, just speculation).
Take Jeremy's GOOD piece of advice though: "Worry more about the interaction of your site - with the audience, as I said before, than what gets to which IP address & user agent combination, and you'll do much better."
Oh please!
"If someone comes to you asking to trade PR, then the story is completely different".
What are you, a divorce lawyer?!
You know, in some countries you have to be careful when you buy land. As the cheat who sells it to you cuts down all the palm trees and sells them before you arrive a week later to build your dream house. When they do that, the roots die and the soil washes away, until you have no land.
When I trade links, I trade with full rights, in every respect. What you say is cheating, and may your karma come back at you with a vengeance if this is what you do.
What you say is cheating, and may your karma come back at you with a vengeance if this is what you do
First, I don't block PR in any way on my site at all.. If someone gets a link from me they get the PR. Like I said, I think it's an UNWISE tactic because it will almost certainly backfire when trading links. Please read my posts properly next time before accusing me and calling me names (ie.. 'lawyer' ;) ). I think it's clear from that post that I wouldn't go down that road.
HOWEVER, when I go to someone asking for a link swap - THAT is what I am asking for! It is MY responsibility and MINE ALONE to check whether that link will get me any PR gain (if indeed I care about that). I can do that easily by using link: in google, checking the source code and seeing how it affects other sites linked to on that page. I can always decide not to do the link swap if I don't feel it is beneficial enough to me.
You absurdly refer to the 'cloaking' of links pages as 'cheating' - show me the rules book for the internet that says I can't do that if I wanted to :-0
Your example of buying land completely illustrates the point I was trying to make. If your purchase contract says nothing about the trees or alterations to the land and is only a sale of the land itself, then clearly the person selling it to you has all legal right to do what they like before they hand it over. That's why you have a contract - because it states EXACTLY what you will be getting. Similarly, if all you are swapping is a LINK, then that's all you can expect - don't cry foul when you don't get something that you never requested.
I think you are a lawyer (or worse, a realtor / estate agent) ;-)
You say you don't do these things, yet you stand up for those that do!
Thank God, in most countries, it is not buyer beware. And that if you buy land, you buy everything standing on that land except for anything expressly excluded.
My experience is that only countries rife with corruption is it buyer beware. Thank God also most of the Internet is in the first world. And that anyone who limits what they give in a link exchange without clearly advising the partner site are CHEATS (except according to their own unsustainable sense of pride).
Unfortunately, as I have to deal with corrupt countries, I double check everything. But I feel sorry for those that cheat, and those that get taken in by cheats.
Google is its own company and technically has nothing to do with a link exchange between two sites (although we all know it is the primary reason to chase links). Call it a PR exchange or an 'incoming link text' exchange and I'll agree.. but as long as you call it a link exchange, there is no cheating if they are getting the link they asked for. Don't call people cheats, lawyers or real estate agents without showing them exactly which rule they are breaking ;-)
In regards to the original question though.. I personally don't see any benefit in stopping spiders from indexing your links page and following the links. I don't believe there is ANY PR drain as others claim and I think if there is it is SO minimal that you are much better served by having a good open and transparent links directory that will help you get better incoming links.
