Forum Moderators: open
The larger question is, when does Google crack "No PR pass" penalty? If the directory were to do any sort of spamming, then the Home page too should have been a 0 PR. Is it possible, if the directory sells links, then Google will crack this penalty? If it were true, then why directories such as Business.com spared?
If any of you like to know the directory I am referring to, please sticky me.
Thanks
Mc
How so?
You have to examine the PR of all sites listed in this category (for a longer time). For example, if the directory page has PR8 and there are about 40 links on that page, all sites/pages should have at least a (high) PR6, even if they don't have any other incoming link. If there are some sites which have a lower PR, this is a clear hint that PR isn't passed.
This is congruent with how I try to figure it out. I thought there would be some better solution :-)
What we're doing is looking at a clock that has been crushed under a boot - and we're still wondering - "why doesn't it work?" "how can we make it work?."
snipped
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 4:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2004]
[edit reason] Deleted inappropriate remarks [/edit]
Maybe this is just part of the proof.
Do a search for your two keyword phrase that is being penalized but append your site name without the .com or whatever to the end of the search.
Example Lakeland Hotels (whitespace) mysite
Then click on the link returned that goes to your site, after that, look at your reffer logs for the hit, and examine the string google presents. It should look like something like this. NOTE: I omited my real site name and changed to mysite.
[google.com...]
NOTICE THE LAST WORD! FILTER=0
Isn't this at least some proof that a filter exists?
Try it with your site!
:)
This is the similar pages filter. You can set it up in the advanced search.
All are you just kidding :-)
As for these - "see the advanced search feature" buttock flexing remarks. Filter off wasn't requested.
You have to examine the PR of all sites listed in this category (for a longer time). For example, if the directory page has PR8 and there are about 40 links on that page, all sites/pages should have at least a (high) PR6, even if they don't have any other incoming link.
I have tried it. The biggest problem here seems to be that almost all of these 40 sites would be getting tens of high quality other links, if not hundreds, and it makes it difficult to judge whether PR from this particular page is counted.
If there are some sites which have a lower PR, this is a clear hint that PR isn't passed.
I am not sure about this. I have even checked Google's directory. There are a few categories I know quite well, and while most of the sites in that have at least, say PR4 that is consistent with calculations, I find 2-3 sites, almost always, that are PR1 or PR2 - that too over a long period of more than a few months. I am trying to figure this out because I don't find anything wrong with those 2-3 sites or even the Google directory.
I would argue that the fact that both the ODP and the Google directory are both indexed and both give off PR is, in fact, a special consideration.
You could make that argument, but it would be a flawed argument, because you're confusing "special consideration" with "normal consideration of a special page". ODP pages aren't influential because somebody at Google likes the ODP, they're influential because a lot of people link to ODP pages.
People who insist on talking about mythical ODP bonuses are missing the forest for the trees. They might as well argue that Amazon's high PR is proof that Google favors bookstores.
Your description is included.
Pages with Google directory listings get 6 lines/result in the google serps versus 4 lines for pages without (760X1028 screen res). Thats 50% more real estate on the most popular bringer of quality targeted traffic in the world. I rarely see this mentioned.
That's probably because few people would dare to claim that showing more information is a bias.
That's probably because few people would dare to claim that showing more information is a bias.
and Google not only counts it twice but also adds the editor's comments (description) and another line (category) in the results as well as the related categories at the top of the serps..
I would say that's a special consideration. You might call it a bias, but I didn't.
[edited by: Powdork at 10:11 am (utc) on Jan. 5, 2004]
You could make that argument, but it would be a flawed argument, because you're confusing "special consideration" with "normal consideration of a special page". ODP pages aren't influential because somebody at Google likes the ODP, they're influential because a lot of people link to ODP pages.
A few months back there was as thread where GoogleGuy answered some questions posed to him. Answers to 10 questions to GoogleGuy. In that thread GG said that they will continue using ODP data in future.
An ODP listing in relevant category always helps. Many believe (and righly so) that google gives high value to ODP links bcoz it's largest human edited directory.
However if an ODP listing is not possible or taking too much of time then time can be better spent focussing on other aspects of SEO.
In that thread GG said that they will continue using ODP data in future.
Was it really that or, Google will continue using ODP data in future as far as I'm aware? I cannot see how anyone can make a definitive statement when the future is involved.
Which directory is this - will keep an eye on it myself!
Sticky me.
TW
Google's relationship with DMOZ has therefore always been an unhappy one. They're historically slow and reluctant to update their directory. Somehow, it doesn't quite 'fit' with Google's outlook.
Trouble is, commonsense says that human edited directories will always be superior to algos (at least for the next 100 years!).
Google have the resources, and money, to set up their own human edited directory. If they charged for it - let's face it we would all pay. But it's not their style. So they're launching increasingly semi-intelligent algos - that are b*gge - whoops - messing up their own SERPs.
In the case of PR8 or PR9 pages linking to domains with no other high PR inbounds, you can see it clearly if you watch for a couple of backlink updates.
Now that the 'can have PR but not pass it on' pages don't show up in backlinks, it's easier to see what's happening.
In the case of PR8 or PR9 pages linking to domains with no other high PR inbounds, you can see it clearly if you watch for a couple of backlink updates.
I wonder if it is specific sites that get blocked or if it is just this particular condition.
In other words, have they just discounted any single link if that link will have a huge impact on your PR?
Do the links to CNN and Google get the PR, but Larry's hotdog stand does not because the link would pop him from PR2 to PR8?
Or is it an automated method of deciding which sites or pages cannot pass PR depending on the number of outbounds that cause this sort of problem?
Is it by site or by page?
I've been wondering the same thing, and remember a thread about it. Talk about skewing the SERPs ...
Have you noticed how long those external links were present?
Mc
The name of the page is at least a future candiate for a penalty.
How about when you frontpage is a mass of archor text links to pages within the site. Will the frontpage be penalized?
Yes pages that are festooned with links are seen as bad. People have varying views on how many links are bad, but it seems wise to keep the number under 100.
However, any attempt to look for a single cause of Google issues since Florida has not seemed to have revealed a smoking gun.
I mentioned yesterday in another thread that what if we were all trying to diagnose a random component? Yup, what if Google added some curve ball into the algo, making it harder for SEOs to get a consistent read as to how to beat the Google rankings.
Also it could be the Algo has many components that trip certain levels in the other components, again something that would be very very very hard to diagnose.
links.* is perfectly ok name for files from my view. Google's algorithm is evolving to look down on any attempts to fools it and naming links/resources/partners pages as something else could be counter-productive.
Would be nice. Have you looked at the way they dealt with guest books?
