Forum Moderators: open
I just want people to know when they're skating on ice that's pretty thin. If a site gets tagged as a bad neighborhood or having bad linkage, you don't want to be associated with that site. That goes double if a site gets sloppy and leaves referer info out in the clear. Even experts will want to think twice about this.
But he has also said (paraphrase) "there is nothing anyone else can do to hurt your page rank." and "Webmasters are responsible for their own sites"
If I buy an ad for x.com on this IMHO Spammy site, do they somehow get excluded from penalties of bad neighborhood because I bought the link?
with all due respect GoogleGuy, there is just to wide a difference in the 2 stances.
In all fairness I tried to find a direct quote from GoogleGuy saying that no one could hurt pagerank for a competitor. I seem to recall reading that in here, but perhaps it is urban legend or a figment of my imagination. If so here's alot of egg on my face.
Todd
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:15 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2002]
If I buy an ad for x.com on this IMHO Spammy site, do they somehow get excluded from penalties of bad neighborhood because I bought the link?
You've got the penalty backwards. Google doesn't penalize pages for being linked from spammy sites, they penalize them for linking to spammy sites.
It's not the sites that buy ads who are in immediate danger, it's the page carrying ads -- they sell too many ads to spammy sites, they can get themselves penalized.
He said be careful getting links FROM that site in case it is deemed a "bad neighborhood"
Implying you "could" suffer because of it.
Todd
That leaves it open to debate.
That said, I have read in numerous articles, forums, etc... that Google has been pretty adamant about making sure a competitor cannot harm your site. Thus...I tend to agree with the idea that your links on other sites will not harm you...but linking back TO those sites will.
Really it boils down to this...no sense in having a link on a "bad" site...even if it doesn't harm you, it's certainly not going to HELP you...so it's just extra work for no pay-off.
That's why it's always best to stay away from anything questionable...long-term results are much easier on the mind and the pocketbook. :)
"Fact: There is nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. Your rank and your inclusion are dependent solely on factors under your control as a webmaster, including content choices and site design."
Is on Google's own site. [google.com...]
Fact #2.
But I agree, the quote above it threatening. Also makes me wonder if he posted prior to checking out the program. Based on all prior information you cannot be harmed by a site linking to you, only if you return the link.
I can see Google not liking the verbage of the SK site, but his comments only make sense if he's thinking a return link is required.
The person buying ads is in danger of wasting their money.
Imagine the case of Seller, who is paid to link to someone desparate to get good rankings. A while ago, he linked to Buyer-A and now has a penalty. Most of the people who read here, and almost all of the general webmaster population can't see the penalty (Seller's site still shows PR). Buyer-B now spends $$$ each month on nothing. I've seen this happen.
For most of us, the biggest dangers are loosing money and not making money.
Most of the people who read here, and almost all of the general webmaster population can't see the penaltyUm, I must be missing something here.. If you can't see it, how do you know it's there?
Also, PR is not the only thing gained by these text ads. What about direct traffic? That will still be there. Tho it's importance would be more of a case by case basis.
I know it's there, but you have to look quite hard. Most people who know about PR0 assume that if the URL shows high PR it's clean. They need to look deeper, at whether the pages linked get the PR they should.
> Tho it's importance would be more of a case by case basis.
Absolutely. The main thing here is that a link from a high PR page about popular topic X can boost a site about profitable topic Y. The PageRank is worth more than the direct traffic.
The main thing for google is that PageRank is distributed in these types of relationships, not created. In the old link pop days you could just fabricate PR.
The only surprising thing recently is how cheap PR is getting. Google will probably want to stop us (sorry, "them";)) from doing this if it doesn't get more expensive soon. This requires either topic sensitivity or a mass scare campaign.
I think this setup requires those involved to stay honest. If they don't they 'shoot themselves in the foot' in more ways than one.
Remove the brokerage aspect.. what makes it better, or different, than what's current going on today?
I know it's there, but you have to look quite hard. Most people who know about PR0 assume that if the URL shows high PR it's clean. They need to look deeper, at whether the pages linked get the PR they should.I agree, there is more than what you see at work. That's the other reason I think this is, while not 100% safe, not flat out spam either. For the most part it's just shedding light on what already exists. If Google doesn't like it, they will adjust for it - just like they do for everything else. As for this causing PR0 - I will be the first to stand in shock as my chin whacks my desk.
I agree. They would probably like to adjust for PR bartering, just as the editor of a music magazine would like to adjust for bad acts with good PR (public relations).
I'm not sure that they need to deal with it, they just need to deal with the perception if that becomes a problem.
There is a limited supply of PageRank and most of the people who have high PR won't sell it to anyone that they shouldn't link to anyway. On the other hand, Google don't want their reputation for unbiased results tainted.
Todd mentions that "there is just too wide a difference in the 2 stances". This shouldn't be surprising.
