Forum Moderators: open
However, the day Brett changes the ratio of outbound / inbound links at WebmasterWorld i'll do the same with my sites.
<added>Brett, if i were you i'd forward this questions to google or send GG a feature request. (Too late to add to the 2003 Wishlist [webmasterworld.com]?)</added>
[edited by: Yidaki at 7:01 pm (utc) on Jan. 9, 2003]
However, the day Brett changes the ratio of outbound / inbound links at WebmasterWorld i'll do the same with my sites.
Notice anything different in the WebmasterWorld home page in the last coupla' months :)
I don't have anyting in concrete but the way chatter has been going around here, to me the algo is leading that way. For two years I have been making sites based on the premise "whatever is best for users, the search engines will favor", especially Google, an engine that knows its success is tied to the satisfaction of its users.
So ask yourself, what kind of site does a user want?
all rumours are very interesting and logic but quite too speculative.
This is not a rumour, or speculation, to a certain extent.
GoogleGuy made direct reference to Authority-like score (based on incoming links) and hub-like score (based on outbound links), in the context of how the algo assesses a web site, and identifies web sites that are stingy with their outbound links.
I've had my panties in a twist about this for weeks ever since.
it doesn't matter for them if you link to other sites through a hidden or a direct link.
If Google takes the position that 'every vote counts' then it would make sense for them to try and coerce us to make our links visible to GoogleBot. That way they can get a more accurate representation of the link relationships that exist.
This is not a rumour, or speculation
It most certainly is. You're taking what GG said as being "possible" as an indicator of what is.
GoogleGuy made direct reference to Authority-like score (based on incoming links) and hub-like score (based on outbound links), in the context of how the algo assesses a web site, and identifies web sites that are stingy with their outbound links.
The key misinformation in your statement lies here... "in the context of how the algo assesses a web site".
GoogleGuy did not say or even suggest that this is how their algo assesses a site. He simply pointed out how it could be done.
I've had my panties in a twist about this for weeks ever since.
I'd suggest an untwisting celebration. ;)
Here is the entire uncensored quote as posted in this thread. [webmasterworld.com]
(Regarding Javascript links instead of classical links.)Of course, folks never know when we're going to adjust our scoring. It's pretty easy to spot domains that are hoarding PageRank; that can be just another factor in scoring. if you work really hard to boost your authority-like score while trying to minimize your hub-like score, that sets your site apart from most domains. Just something to bear in mind..
If you carefully read the above statements again they actually make it pretty clear that at the time of the posting such factors were most likely not in place. He was pointing out how they could be implemented.
Also keep in mind that his post was specifically addressing the artificial hoarding of PR by using javascript to mask outbound links.
I've pointed out this post many times when folks have expressed their ridiculous paranoia about ever linking out from their sites.
I believe it's just as much ridiculous paranoia to believe that Google would ever penalize a site for not linking out to other sites.
There are just too many contextual considerations for such an automatic filter to be put in place.
There are many sites in the Media Metrix top 500 that do not link out simply as a matter of corporate policy. The key here, is that the policy is not based in PR manipulation.
That is what Google is primarily concerned about. Far above and beyond any hub vs. authority scoring.
Sure, hub and authority scores may come into play at some point. They may even be used to a limited degree right now... but I can assure you that there will never be a "no outbound link" penalty used across the board.
There are simply too many definitive, relevant, and information rich pages on the web that do not have any outbound links. Ruling them out would severely damage the quality of Google's SERPs and that is their number one priority.
OTOH, I'm sure tha Google would gladly slap down every site that intentionally hides their links purely for the purpose of PR manipulation.
Think about it. From a user centric standpoint... what benefit are you offering your users by only selectively linking direct to certain sites while using javascript for others which could just as easily have been standard links?
This is what I would be more concerned about if your site came under manual scrutiny.
At worst there may be automated flags raised for what appears to be "unnatural" linking, to then be reviewed by humans for abuse.
It is priceless that we have GoogleGuy here to give us little insights into Google's approach to the web... and when he talks, I listen.
That said, listening is not a simple skill. It takes focus to hear exactly what someone is really saying. Reading between the lines is also a priceless skill, but we need to know the difference between what is said, and how we have chosen to interpret it.
However, that wasn't my concern. His reference to a hub-like score is a confirmation that it exists.
I did not mean to imply that the hub-like score was being used to judge web sites. Only that it exists as a part of the function. GG's reference was that the algo could be tweaked to emphasize the hub-like score.
My interest here was not in the degree that hub-like score is used, but only to point out that it does exist, it exists as part of the algo, and is definitely not a rumour or speculation.
I remembered that Teoma offers with its search results something they call "Resources: Link collections from experts and enthusiasts." I've used them for research and they're sometimes useful. Perhaps these are hubs, I thought.
So, I ran a search I've been monitoring recently and checked out the first "link collection." Hmmm, I noticed. Completely white tool bar. Not many links on the page, but this page is a frameset. Where else could they be? Check the noframes.
I got tired of counting, but I came across something like 150 links to keyword-keyword-keyword type domains in the noframes before I stopped. Some of the links used keyword phrases in the anchor text... some were transparent gifs (in noframes yet... these people are extra thorough about hiding their tracks).
Now, I've observed that the special search features of many engines provide clues to the engine's algo. Google shows allinanchor, allintitle etc etc. Teoma, which considers the relevance of backlink sources, offers us what appear to be hubs.
The linking partners of this hub, which is almost redefines the word spam, are all over the place in Inktomi, Fast, and Teoma... but not in Google.
Anyway, I'm not really going anywhere with this... just making some observations about what the reliance on hubs might do.
I think it is safe to assume that there is no way to determine the outbound links of a site with Google.
Thanks!
pretzel brain time again.
instand1 you say:
>Hub = A Site with many out-going links, typical example: a specialized directory, no own content.
Hmmmm does that mean my ecotourism subsite, which has a lot (100s if not 1000s, I've lost count!) of outbound links is a hub?
>Authority = A content-rich site, but it is all original content, therefore the Authority can not quote (= link to) any other site.
Hmmmm does that mean the rest of my site, which is unique rich content and all original can't link to other sites?! Oh dear, I'll have to remove those useful related (and reciprocal) links to all those .gov, .edu and .org sites.
Egad ... ;-]
"... documents that have high authority scores are expected to have relevant content, whereas documents with high hub scores are expected to contain hyperlinks to relevant content. The intuition is as follows. A document which points to many others might be a good hub, and a document that many documents point to might be a good authority. Recursively, a document that points to many good authorities might be an even better hub, and similarly a document pointed to by many good hubs might be an even better authority."
but I do know one trick to finding out how many pages Google has actually indexed of your site
try
site:www.site.com inurl:*
so.. no Brett, I don't know the answer to your question either.. though it would be handy... though for myself a total number wouldn't be so handy as a list of where to. so maybe I should try the xenu software that was mentioned.
Larry
Does it not make sense that good sites have a balance of outgoing and incoming links? So wouldn't that be what google is looking for?
Google might like outgoing links, but I don't think it's looking for a balance of outgoing and incoming links. Google likes things natural, and a "balance" sounds artificial (like a collection of purely reciprocal links).
[mydomain.com...]
I doubt any spider can be smart enough to figure out that's really external, unless perhaps it actually follows the link and realizes its being redirected offsite. If that's correct, then almost all the external links on webmasterworld look internal to Google, no?
href="/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?http://www.anothersite.org"
and
href="http://www.yoursite.org/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?http://www.anothersite.org"
as the same thing too (assuming your domain is yoursite.org)
