Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[google.com...]
It states (in part):
Examples of link schemes can include:Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
I will carefully presume this guideline is more targeted towards some webmasters who participate in full duplex (fully automated) link schemes where links are obtained in high volume with little to no editorial control.
However, I wonder how this will affect those webmasters who obtain links sometimes through relevant link exchange while maintaining editorial control?
Is this Google webmaster guideline over-reaching?
Will this guideline affect how you link with other sites?
Do you think this guideline is fair?
Is Google dictating how webmasters will obtain relevant traffic apart from search returns?
If you are participating in link exchanges on a scale that is sure to send signals, expect those pages to become null at some point if they haven't already.
This is why I wish there was a legitimate way for siteowners to signal to Google that they can ignore with our blessings ALL reciprocal linkage on our own site (PR neutral).
My concern however is that G might lower the PageRank on other pages that I DO care about -- unfortunately, their guidelines do not (for me) make a correct course of action very clear.
...................................
Why not use rel="nofollow" attribute on those recip links, if they are indeed not for PR purposes?
While I don't care about gaining PR for our own page from arranged cross-linking, wouldn't using rel="nofollow" work against the other people linking TO us?
In other words, if they enter into the agreement thinking that their link on our page will send the spiders their way, and then we do something to block that, isn't that contrary to what they'd expect?
Or do I misunderstand what nofollow is meant to accomplish?
.......................................
That's theory - I personally feel (and this is not based on anything other than gut feeling) that inside Google they treat links with "nofollow" as a red flag indicating that a given page MAY contain links (naturally external) that should not be trusted. Maybe they will discount only links explicitly marked with "nofollow", maybe they will put that page through extra analysis - it is not defined in a spec (is there a formal spec actually?) what exactly will happen.
While on the subject - don't be confused with "nofollow" word - it should have really been called "norank".
If you are participating in link exchanges on a scale that is sure to send signals, expect those pages to become null at some point if they haven't already.
Exactly. And once the site goes null, all you need to do is to point these links at your competitor.
don't be confused with "nofollow" word - it should have really been called "norank".
The Random House dictionary gives 11 definitions of "scheme", the first 2 being:
"1. a plan, design, or program of action to be followed; project.
2. an underhand plot; intrigue."
And now we learn that "nofollow" should be thought of as "norank"!
When it comes to my income -- which will greatly impact the quality of my life -- I do prefer precision in language, and I bet that's true for most people.
If Google was a joke site where double entendre was applauded, we'd not care a hoot about the exact meaning of words.
But unfortunately, that's not the case -- if we drop out or significantly down in their index, we hurt, and so these murky guidelines do nothing but cause unnecessary concern.
Memo to Google: You've got the best software engineers in the world, now how about getting some people on staff with highly developed language skills? A little editorial clarity could go a long way in making all this work better.
...........................
However the premise for this attribute came from issue of PR trading and nothing that I have seen about it puts any obligation on a search engine not to follow the link, in fact it is totally up to search engines to interprete this attribute any way they want - it is all a black box.
The only half-logical explanation of choice for "nofollow" rather than "norank" is that "nofollow" already used in robots META tags, however clearly in this case it is about ranking, not following.
#3401201
It is all about intent and I believe it's easy to spot because intention and action breed methodology.
Intention - link to a handful of high quality websites using reciprocated links - I have always seen my sites do well this way.
Intention 2 - Trade reciprocal links for the purposes of ranking better / hoarding pagerank - different methodology, different action and different link profile for the website.
Other website who have many reciprocal links usually stay afloat, if they are, by a balance of positive trust factors versus negative factors. Remove one positive trust factor and you might have -950.
That is stated *gorgeously* and it just about sums up how things folks do get caught up with and end up coming back to bite.
Google is shutting down anyone who is in the "link" business while pushing their own link business EXTREMELY hard. Googles new "refferals 2.0" program is nothing but a glorified link scheme in which you can PAY GOOGLE to get a link on your site to some third party site but GOD FORBID you cut out google and do it yourself. Refferals 2.0 is NOT context based and falls FULLY under their own definitions of what is NOT allowed.
I want my piece of cake back.
Quote of what google deems bad... "Buying or selling links"
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What does adwords/adsense do EVERY DAY? and I just got a monthly notice suggesting I needed to increase to THREE the number of google ads on my pages.
I ask you, and please consider this carefully, when google presents you with a menu of links to chose from, aka refferals 2.0, HOW is that different from looking at a menu NOT from google?
But seriously, I genuinely don't understand how people can complain about this.
Examples of link schemes can include:Links intended to manipulate PageRank
Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
Link exchange and reciprocal links schemes ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
Buying or selling links
If I link to a supplier and my supplier links to me we're not part of a link scheme as we're not manipulating PageRank. We're not web spammers or linking to bad neighbourhoods. We're not part of a scheme and no cash has been transferred. What's the problem? I don't think Google will have a problem either.
I think the problem is that it is hard, if possible at all, to be 100% certain which recip links are okay and which ain't: you know they might be good or bad because you are aware of your context, but Google and other search engines have to process tens of billions of urls very quickly so the level of intelligence that they can afford to apply is not very high.
They're after sharks, not minnows.
Lord Majestic - I think there's a lot of panic for nothing. Of course webmasters can link to other websites if they feel it will benefit their users. These Webmasters won't have to crawl through the other site making sure there's no link back. Google will look at the bigger picture.
it would be logical for a search engine to look at totality of links to a page/site and look at ratios of those that it thinks are not good
The problem is that Google's model is flawed. If I figured out that guys that wear yellow tennis shoes make much better boyfriends and designed a business based on hooking girls up with guys wearing yellow tennis shoes I could make a lot of money. So maybe my business booms and it becomes hard for a guy to find a girl without going through my service. Then guys figured out that all they needed to do was buy some yellow tennis shoes, of course they are going to go buy yellow shoes. At that point I don't have much else to offer. So now I try and restrict guys from wearing yellow tennis shoes unless that would have had I never based my business model on wearing yellow tennis shoes? Or they can wear yellow tennis shoes but must put a sticker on them(nofollow) that says, "These are yellow tennis shoes, but please don't think I'm good boyfriend material because of my shoes".
When you add in the fact that Google is now also selling yellow tennis shoes(a bit of stretch perhaps, but not far from the truth) the situation gets even cloudier. The yellow tennis model was flawed from the beginning because it was not a true method of determining who was a quality boyfriend, it only identified one trait that many quality boyfriends shared. And that trait was something that was easy for poor boyfriends to fake. All this hoopla now just seems to be a lot of time and effort spent on recapturing the glory days instead of figuring out a new better way of teiring potential boyfriends.
The problem is that Google's model is flawed.
I think that Google should clarify exactly what giving a one way link really means to the donating site. There are many that assume that they loose PR and credibility by giving out many links.
Their link policy actually discourages legitimate links reciprocal or one way...
Google should try other shoes on for just a moment.
I'm in the "Ignore what you don't like camp" instead of punish the evil doers camp.
...vast network of sites ... What's Google going to do? I know what I'd do, I'd boot them out of the index.
It seems to me that Google's bottom line constituency is the web surfing public. Webmasters are a part of that but are not the whole of that.
Thus, their top priority should be to provide the best results for each specific query, whether or not the best result(s) has links that Google thinks is questionable.
So in regards to the "vast network of sites", is the implication that those are 100% junk? Are they 50% junk? How about 10%? We don't know and Google probably can't truly know either, because "junk" is a moving target and completely depends on your own definition.
The art world being a prime example of this!
If someone is looking to learn something, buy something, or be entertained by something, then it gives them little comfort to know that many of the sites that would have provided that content will not be presented to them in the SERPs because those sites have "bad links" (in Google's eyes).
It's a slash and burn policy based on the erroneous assumption that everyone with questionable links and etc is trying to "scam" Google. That, to me, borders on corporate paranoia, and hardly serves their constituency well.
.......................
So if I wanted to affect my competitors site by purchasing thousands of links to theirs, it would affect them negatively?
Google says it won't but I tend to believe otherwise.
But if the interpretation suggested in this thread is accurate...
And if the interpretation isn't accurate, this thread is yet another example of collective panic over nothing.
C'mon, folks: Give Google credit for having at least as much intelligence nad common sense as you do. It's all about patterns and probability. Google isn't likely to penalize a link from the BBC to Bubbas-bubble-bath.com just because Bubba links back to the BBC. For that matter, Google probably won't even ignore that BBC link, because it has statistical evidence that the BBC is a trusted, authoritative resource. OTOH, Google may well ignore a hundred reciprocal links between Bubbas-bubble-bath.com and sites like Mikes-mesothelioma-and-debt-consolidation-site.com, because (unlike the BBC) sites like Mike's haven't earned credibility with links from other trusted, authoritative resources. Even I, a layman, can figure that out. :-)
fully automated
I am not sure that they care whether or not the process is automated or manual.
...this thread is yet another example of collective panic over nothing...
Why the concern?
Because the thousand pound gorilla appears to be somewhat changing its feeding habits, and everyone wants to make sure they are standing in the right place when it comes by.
Seems like common sense to me -- thousand pound gorillas can do a lot of damage if you get their attention, and they don't like it.
.....................................
