Forum Moderators: open
I created goodgooglebomb.com as a site where PageRank can be shared for a good cause. Hopefully forum members may choose to support it and have some fun at the same time. I would like to get feedback on the concept as well as suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks in advance.
BAD IDEA:
500 general in bound links --> You --> One focused Link --> non-profit
GOOD IDEA:
500 descriptive in bound links --> non-profit
I can definitely see your point re direct linking. But if the site were designed this way, why would anyone want to visit it in the first place? Plus part of the fun is seeing how high we can go! Remember if you link to the site I can list it there - your choice. It just won't be linked.
What I wanted to say is that if PageRank could be artifically inflated by means of a "middleman" intervention, then PageRank is flawed. Perhaps it is flawed, and perhaps the PR zero penalty is Google's back-handed attempt to correct a flawed concept.
In the end, a system such as you propose should not work well, and Google will be the first to be on top of the situation. If it's not a PR zero, then it might be some sort of PageRank tweak.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the PageRank lost by sites linking to you, and gained by a handful of sites that are voted in for a couple of months, actually works for a while.
Let's even assume that Google gives you carte blanche, and isn't doing anything to tweak PageRank without telling us. Let's even assume that the PR zero penalty is a figment of all of our imaginations.
After assuming all of this, I still have questions:
What does a voter get from you other than the right to vote? Is a vote for a site worth it to anyone? If the voter is interested in a forlorn site whose issues deserve more exposure by way of increased traffic, how effective will their one vote be? In terms of cost-benefit to the voter, wouldn't it make more sense to slap up an extra page on this issue on their own site, and perhaps even link directly? That's much more powerful than the right to enter a single vote out of many. That's true even if your site blows the voting site out of the water with superior PageRank.
From the perspective of the voter, you have to divide your PageRank by the total number of votes. That's because a single voter will experience numerous instances when the vote doesn't go his way. Why should a voter even participate, when slapping up a new page on the issue is less risky, allows much more control, and is much more efficient?
When you add the liklihood of Google's disapproval into the equation, I think you have a non-starter.
The value in your idea is that if it's properly done (a name change is necessary, for sure), it will highlight the shortcomings of PageRank in a dramatic way. But you haven't made the case that PageRank needs improving, so the entire idea is backwards at this point.
All I'm offering is the ability to participate in what could be a fun and worthwhile exercise. It certainly could be a non-starter but you don't get anywhere sitting on ideas. Brin & Page didn't sit on theirs and IMO the world is slightly better off as a result.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of the "middle-man" in itself.
Analogy:
I can invest directly in 2000 different international stocks with complex weightings.
I can invest in a stock-fund and let others do it for me.
The problem lies more in the efficiency.
- A stock-fund may ask a 2% fee.
- Danthemans set-up, may consume a much larger (voting) discount.
It just is an interesting, differently presented, very explicit and direct concept of collecting and redirecting votes (even if it may be inefficient), which can be set up by anybody with good or bad intentions (with less compromising names) - and that makes it interesting.
Some use JavaScript to horde PR.
Some adjust their robot tag to horde PR.
Some people place a friendly topical box at there website (or hub) and say "hey! use this to link to me, knowing full well the value of PR and the drain at the other end.
Not once have I every seen a disclaimer attached letting the "uninformed" know the gains and their loses. "BUT THEY DO SELF PROMOTE LIKE "Show your support for the Open Directory and get the word out with one of the helpful links below" ... and get that PR on all the top level pages to boot.
It's perfectly ok to hide this, because the person at the other end doesn't know any better, and what they don't know won't hurt them!
Not once have I seen anyone indicate on their web site "don't link to me" because you should be giving that PR to this non-for-profit organization.
dantheman concept is accomplished everywhere (almost) by everyone (almost) that knows the value of PR but I suppose it's ok as long as you hind it from the unknowing.
How does a not-for-profit hub with millions of outbound links get fairly good PR. NOT INFORMING THE GREATER PUBLIC I GUESS!
This is a perspective thing, hide it or as dantheman suggests don't hide it. Think of how many NFP outbound links there would be if goodgooglebomb.com had 47,000 volunteer editors.
Same, same.
Just one opinion.
Rod
* PR0 (ignore links to the domain). PR0 penalties are generally believed to be automatic; with no hidden text or links and no crosslinking it would be unusual.
* Penalise the PR of sites linked from Dan's site. Google saboteurs would rub their hands with glee if they saw Google penalising a site for the actions of other sites; most people would not like Google for doing this. Not good for Google.
* Penalise sites linking to Dan's site. It would seem to be within Google guidelines to do this, but it would look rather mean, especially if Dan picks very fluffy causes. "Google penalises sites for linking to good causes". Not good for Google.
* Subtle PR manipulation. For example, Google could allow URLs on the domain to inherit PageRank, but not pass it on. It doesn't look like a penalty, so it reduces discussion about it. This is what happened earlier this year with guestbooks.
* Ban the site. Easy, just remove the domain from the index.
* Complain about trademark and/or copyright, with a view to getting rid of the site, or at least making it less blatant. Whether Google could do that is a matter for the lawyers, and outside of our scope here.
* Leave the site along, give it no special treatment. This would seem quite hard for Google to do, seeing as it is so blatant.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
- this set-up will not work for commercial redirect middle-men sites:
it will be very difficult to beg so explicitly for any substantial amount of quality links, therefor PR will remain low and effect limited.
- this set-up has a very good chance for strictly "non-profit" or "anti/pro movements"
If such sites request you for a link and you are innocent, how can you refuse a link to your good cause or your life-long ideal?
But it also has a potential for abuse (it could start with the link from a profile). Ratting and spam-reporting will then follow.
As Ciml pointed out, Google however does not like singling out penalties.
They want automation and they want it to show and be clear to the outerworld.
How to differentiate this from a normal Non-profit directory?
One way would be to look at the following ratio:
Total site number of inbound external links compared to number of outbound external links.
If such sites collect PR they will only have a substantial voting effect towards other sites if they keep their outbound external links limited.
Should they increase the number of outbound external links, the effect of this PR collection will be limited and they will look like a normal directory.
Google could look at this ratio and decide to discount the value of actual-, passed on and/or shown PR on the toolbar (ideally Google has to show to the outer-world that this has no effect).
Would this have a detrimental effect towards other innocent sites just being very authorative (getting many citations=links from other sites)?
No, maybe the pagerank is a bit lower than normal or shown, however, remember these authorative sites can still rank high on SERP's as Google's ranking is mainly based on the links and their anchortexts and the PR of the page of that link, with most probably a tiny bit of context involved. Also normal high PR sites would probably have more pages on their sites, which could be another criteria.
Or to put it differently, it could or might, sooner or later, pay to be generous with links from many of your pages and be more "hub-like" as Googleguy casually mentioned in this thread: [webmasterworld.com]
Another way would be to also try to label sites as "non-profit" and discount their PR if they also (start to) link to "profit" sites.
inconspicuous-site.com was taken. As has already been pointed out, goodgooglebomb is probably a misnomer in any case. I just thought it had bit of a ring to it.
Why the aversion to dot-org names? There's a lot more available there. For example, rankbank.org is available.
Plus part of the fun is seeing how high we can go!
I'm just trying to have some fun with it....
Okay, now I understand. Interesting thread anyhow. Helps us look at PageRank in a new light.
That, as they say, is... That. ;)
>Maybe setting the example of where, how and who to link to on your site for others would be more of a good cause.
The first thing I thought about this is what's stopping me linking to the good cause directly? I could even write about why I linked to them and encourage other people to do the same. I've done this before (although unintentionally) and it actually worked. I just didn't realise the page rank implications at the time.
I can definitely see your site playing an important role in teaching people why to link and the best way to go about it (anchor text etc) as I know a lot of people don't fully understand this. It would encourage them to link to the page themselves rather than just go and read it, which is what generally happens now. You could also play a useful role in highlighting worthy websites and giving attention to causes I/we hadn't thought of. I don't always have a lot of time to go web searching and like things handed to me on a plate sometimes.
I just don't see the point in linking to you when I can use my vote directly for the site myself, particularly as I generally choose to support local charities instead of international ones.
Shelley
I would like to see you try to continuing to promote your site in a little different way (if it is still possible without G). By asking people to link directly to the charitable sites, you can still accomplish your same goal without becoming a middleman.
Their should be a place for such an organization to promot the sharing of links to promote charitable sites, but with any power such as this would cause the possibility for corruption (No one in here is naive enough to think PR is not power).
I agree that their should be a forum to promote "good causes", but what is a fair way to do this? Can we start a discussion on this topic? Is there a possible way to accomplish such a program as was suggested that would be legitimate in the eyes of Google?
My suggestion: A similiar forum to this for altruistic webmasters. All suggested sites would have to be non-profit organization sites, or users are banned. The forum would have no affiliation with the actual organizations, but rather would just be a non-biased forum for SUGGESTING the promotion of non-profit organizations. Any other ideas?
(edited to add my suggestion)
"He's dead, Jim." ;)
1>No linkbacks to incoming links.
2>No linkbacks from the outgoing links.
But technically, yes, it IS PR manipulation and it may get penalized.
PR is Green!
Stop the madness!
I don't think Google will do anything about this site.... I doubt he'll ever get enough PR amassed to matter.
Thanks, Savvy1, for plucking this discussion out of the realm of fantasy and planting it firmly in the ground of reality.
I don't know if you are correct in saying that Google will do nothing, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are. In any case, as your second sentence says so well, it is largely irrelevant.
Given I've paid for 2 years of hosting (all of $20) I'm open to any suggestions on how it could be put to good use. The domain name may turn out to be a misnomer, but big deal.
The PR Morgue for failed PageRank Manipulation schemes.
On another note.....you might as well trash that domain and start from scratch.
