Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Be warned; you'll thank me later.
I see you saying this in alot of posts here, but I don't see anyone thanking you - yet. :P
True enough, link farms are gone and I do acknowledge this. Still the proof of the logics of what I am saying has still to be refuted in this thread.
Since questioning the art of linking is an active part of SEO, my questions still remain unanswered and have yet to be refuted. Because I ask these questions does not mean I endorse or use these tactics, but the fact remain that they are out there for anyone to shed some light on:
If this method is not working, why are many top ton businesses in the genres I see using it?
Why do we not see large scale drops for websites using this method?
I see you saying this in a lot of posts here, but I don't see anyone thanking you - yet.
Hmmm.
Three possible reasons for that
1. Most of the advice I offer does not bring instant results; I build for the long term, and my advice reflects that world view. Maybe I need to state that more often!
2. You don't see my stickymail. I do get thank you notes.
3. Like most 'right' people, I'm simply not appreciated!
Actually, (3) is a joke; most of the advice i give is tried and tested; I rarely go out on the 'edge'; indeed, i often respond to threads where it's all been said many, many times, by people much more experienced than I.
But if it's any reassurance, I very rarely get people coming back and saying "You're Wrong"; and the odd time that I do, it's because the rules have changed, or new info has come to light. Mind you, once or twice, I've completely misinterpreted the question - but I'll always stand up and admit it, if it's my error.
Of course, my opinions are my own, and I'm happy to have anyone disagree - but I'm careful with my facts, and when I have no idea, I usually don't get stuck in!
You'll thank me later ;)
I simply posed these questions in order to get some legitimate responses and this thread seemed the best place to do it:P
T
However, I think in many cases it's a case of "doing well DESPITE spammy techniques, not BECAUSE of them".
Matt Cutts and other insiders have confirmed what most of us had long believed, that almost all 'penalizing' is done by algo, not manual intervention; this means that in many cases, sites known to be spamming seem to 'get away with it'. (At least for the short term)
But what we cannot know is where the 'border' is between getting caught and not; and we cannot know whether, in fact, a particular behaviour IS being penalised, but other activities (good or bad) are compensating.
But what we can be quite clear about is that going against the Google guidelines may work today, may work tomorrow, may work for about.com ... but it's still a big risk for you and I.
I don't want to get into an 'ethics' discussion, because they rarely get anywhere useful, and usually upset people.
But for what it's worth, I respect Google, I have no reason to believe they disrespect me, so I believe it's 'wrong' to try and distort their search results in favour of my sites.
Some argue that ALL SEO is search engine spam; I disagree, and believe that following SE guidelines is fine; twisting them isn't. And I believe that x-way linking is doing just that.
Google's working from an algorithm. So what matters is not the guidelines, it's the algo. If you can do something and not get caught by the algo, then it's worth doing IMO. If it's likely to get caught by the algo, then guidelines or not, it's a risky proposition. Maybe something you want to do anyway, but still risky.
I work under the idea that Google has tolerances when they make algo changes. If they penalize a large percentage of SEO'ers while not hurting too many 'honest' businesses, then they'll do it. If you're doing something that a lot of regular folks do, then they're going to have a hard time touching you - to much fallout if they do it through an algo.
2/3 way links are a good example. How many regular websites would have say 30% of their links as three ways? Probably not many. Do it too much, and while it may work now you can almost certainly be sorted out.
Paid links I think can be an example of the opposite. Buy links all day long, but as long as they don't exhibit signs of full scale link buying, I don't believe they'll ever catch them. They can algo where your link is on the page perhaps, but they can't algo a natural looking link that you paid for (thus the differentiation between the algo and the guidelines. Google says don't buy links unless you note them. Algo says buy links as long as you don't leave a trail). Footer links, you're going to get killed. Directories, they can devalue but not do away with entirely because there are too many solid resource pages that look like a directory page.
On the flip side, this is why keyword rich domains work. Lots of opportunity to spam like crazy, but too many folks get hurt if they stop it.
I would disagree and am interested in why you would think this is unethical
Probably safe to say that Google's guidelines are not the same as ethics, and following them or not doesn't generally indicate whether you are ethical or not.
A risk assessment shows me in my sectors that this is live and well and has been for over two years.
I agree. The threat may be overblown.
Despite silly scare tactics from SEO newsletters, I would like a comment on whether anyone has proved this is detrimental to a website?
Funny thing is that some sites chug along for two years then all of a sudden get shut down. Some are shut down even faster directly on account of their backlinks. I understand that as a fact, that the backlinks were the issue. What happened? Did the algorithm finally accrue enough data to identify a link manipulator? Or did someone rat them out?
We know that both Google and Yahoo are actively identifying link manipulation, or claim to at least, and have put out papers about that. But I agree there does seem to be a disparity between what they are saying and actual results on the ground.
In light of past instances where sites and link trading networks have been shut down, some may decide to be prudent to avoid those schemes. However others may feel the risk (or lack of) is worth the reward.
Different strokes?
The mass circle of links 3-way-link schemes create are what the SEs can pick up on. But if you link to a buddy's site and he links to you from another of his sites your not going to get hurt. I would even call that a natural linking pattern.
Funny thing is that some sites chug along for two years then all of a sudden get shut down.
I would tend to agree. However, the crux of the drop is a heavily debated item as you mentioned.
I see websites going down daily - old, valued websites - possibly only because they changed some links and repositioned H1 tags on their pages, added too many reciprocal links. I cannot say with any certainty over my time that I can with any preciseness say that one way linking was the cause of a drop for any website in sectors I am involved in.
My sense has always been that this is about trusted link ratios. With any link type, once you cross the threshold of build speed or link type, its questioned by the algo.
I have seen websites rank on the first page simply from paid links and a DMOZ directory listing. The SEO in question simply did his /her homework and found paid links that had the least 'footprint'.
With one way links, again it seems logical that it would be difficult to penalized a company i the rankings for too many one way links, simply because I could then throw $2000 at the problem and bomb competitors. My sense is that if one way links are detected, they are not counted. Thoughts?
All ethics aside, has anyone ever seen a definitive example of a website getting tossed back in results due to one way linking? I cannot say that I ever have.
Until we find this link, this matter is purely one of ethics, and not of risk versus reward as far as I can see it.
The forum (bulletin board) one way links all reached the sandbox one day.
And yes, I've seen 1-way paid links on position one for years, noticed, devalued, and down to page 4.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quadrille, you answered the question about the thank me later. (nice one, indeed)
Still missing a precise reply on:
> If this method is not working, why are many top ton businesses in the genres I see using it?
> Why do we not see large scale drops for websites using this method?
thanking you now ;)
And yes, I've seen 1-way paid links on position one for years, noticed, devalued, and down to page 4.
And I have seen sites doing the exact same thing for over 3 years with absolutely no drop and still rocking.
There is no way on Earth that ANYONE can tell what particular item led to what particular plus or minus.
We can ALL make good bad or indifferent estimates, many with confidence.
But to say that 'one thing' (among scores of factors known to matter) caused a fall, or enabled a front page listing is just silly talk.
In many cases, sites doing very well have acres of 1998 hidden text, or dozens of 2004 three way links; we DO NOT know if these are doing harm or not.
But we DO know that many 'industrial strength' three-way-linking scams have crashed and burned, and many of us do know that small three-way linking (eg among my sites), has made no noticeable difference.
But we do not know where the line is between harmless and fatal. And with so many other variables, we CANNOT know where that line is.
And yes, I doubt you've seen 1-way paid links on position one for years, noticed, not devalued, and not down to page 4...
JohnRoy - I am referring to a website who use paid links and have been successful enough to research and purchase the right ones - ones which were obviously not sniffed out as you say - and yes, they still are near number one and have been for years.
But to say that 'one thing' (among scores of factors known to matter) caused a fall, or enabled a front page listing is just silly talk.
Entirely my point - that this is simply an issue of ethics since noone has any proof that they have presented that Google treats one way linking with lowered rankings or SERP's.
[edited by: CainIV at 7:38 am (utc) on July 24, 2007]
