Page not in Google for "Blue Tomatoes"

[Dave Hawley]

Do forum signatures really help with Google ranking?

I have set-up and page which is orphaned except for some forum signature links which all use the anchor text "Blue Tomatoes". I think we all agree that anchor text is a powerful means of being found for a specified term in Google. Also, "Blue Tomatoes" is highly unlikely to be competitive.

The page has been spidered and added to Google's database. In other words it can be found via a search.

I can find one of the forum pages that has the sig link by searching Google for "Blue Tomatoes".

I can find the page, being linked to, via a Google search for some text on the page or in the Title.

However, the page itself cannot be found via a Google search for "Blue Tomatoes".

I know this goes against common belief, but I'm looking for some contructive debating only and don't want the common 'shoot the messenger' posts.

[I, Brian]

Dave, you have two potential issues here:

1. link indexing

Forum posts are on a continual conveyor belt into deep and less-regularly spidered content. So you would have to ensure all of the forum posts were indexed before maknig a statement on their ranking impact.

2. Google Sandbox

Even still, you then have the issue of the "Google Sandbox" - ranking of the pages with the link, rather than target page, is a common sandboxing symptom. There's a lot of debate as to whether it is the actual links, or the target page that is sandboxed - but whiever way it is, Sandboxing can last a good 3-4 months.



Ultimately, you would have to run the test a good few months to be able to say that the results were meaningful.

Also - for a SEO test, I would not use an orphan page, just to be on the safe side.

2c.

[Dave Hawley]

I totally agree it's likely too early to draw any definite conclusions. However, I interested know why the forum pages show (are indexed) and the page itself can be found via a search for the Title or some on page text, but not the anchor text from the forum pages that are already indexed.

I hear what you are saying about 'sandbox' (not fully convinced there is such a thing though), but this does not happen when/if the same test is done via a normal page. That is, a link from a web page that is not a forum signature. At least it never happened this way a few months ago when I tested.

I think tomorrow I will set up another orphaned page and link to it only from another page on my site. It would be a good idea perhaps if this was done from a page that is not on my site. Any takers?

I would not use an orphan page It's not really an orphaned page as it has link from many forum signatures. IMO, it is vital that it stays this way else one could never be conclusive.

[I, Brian]

It's certainly a worthwhile experiment - the issue of the links ranking for the term, rather then target page, is something I've seen on pages other than forums.

[dannysullivan]

Dave, it would help to have some specifics here. What are the pages, what are the searches and so on.

Do forum signatures really help with Google ranking?
I think the bigger problem is the idea that Google even knows what a forum is. There are certainly clues it can use to identify content that comes out of common forum settings. But there's plenty of non-standard forum software, as well.

I think it's more likely that Google and other search engines try to identify commonalities in links. A forum signature will be repetitive, same anchor text, same domain name and so on. Fairly easy to say, "I see this link to page A over 100 times, but since it's all in the same style, same words, same domain, I'm going to combine all references into one."

[Chris_D]

Dave - how old is the page; and how old are the forum links?

[Dave Hawley]

I think the bigger problem is the idea that Google even knows what a forum is. There are certainly clues it can use to identify content that comes out of common forum settings. But there's plenty of non-standard forum software, as well. I don't doubt for a moment that Google can identify a forum. It may well not be 100% accurate but that is not really relevant. It was not all that long ago that Google had a hard time with dynamic URL's etc and it now gets into most of this stuff.

I think it's more likely that Google and other search engines try to identify commonalities in links. A forum signature will be repetitive, same anchor text, same domain name and so on. Fairly easy to say, "I see this link to page A over 100 times, but since it's all in the same style, same words, same domain, I'm going to combine all references into one." Yes, that is very likely indeed. This is one of the reasons I'm of the belief that Forum sigs are largely ignored when it comes to passing any credit for a SERP boost and/or PR. One theory I have is that Google will take one forum sig only and pass any credit, if there is any to pass.

However, at this point, I'm interested only in the reasoning to the points I have made in my first 2 posts. There are some glaring contradictions there if we are to believe, what at least the vocal majority/minority say. That is, all forum signatures do pass PR and give a rank boost.

[Marcia]

Dave, there could be a problem with an orphan page that doesn't link OUT to anything at all. Indexing those as normal pages would open the door to doorways getting into the index and ranking - even when linked to with hidden links, if you get my drift.

How about setting up two test pages, both linked to from the same place. Page one would be an "orphan" page that does not link out to anything. Page two would be a page that links out to anything at all - even Google or Adobe - just so there's a flow of Page Rank through the page.

I know this is not about PR, that it's about anchor text. But having a dead end page that impedes the normal flow of PR might be a factor that could skew the results of the basis of the test, which is for measuring whether anchor text links from forums work.

[ThouShaltSeo]

Hi Dave,
try it with &filter=0 and see what happens

[Dave Hawley]

Marcia, sorry I should have stated more clearly rather than said 'orphaned'. The page has no other links to it other than the forum signatures. The page itself however, does have a link back to our home page.

ThouShaltSeo, I have/did try with &filter=0 using "Blue Tomatoes" as the search phrase. The page in question is nowhere to be seen.

When searching Google for "Blue Tomatoes", the forum pages (that have the sig link) are all throughout the SERP's though. The page (being linked to via the sig link) can only be found when searching for some on page text and/or the Title. In other words the Forum sig pages and the test page has itself been spidered, indexed and placed in the SERP's by Google.



I would really like to set up a very similiar page and have it linked to only via one normal page (again using "Blue Tomatoes" as the anchor text) that is not on my site. I'm thinking that this page, when indexed, will show in the SERP's for "Blue Tomatoes".

If someone will drop me an email I will send them the URL that can be linked to. Any takers?

[Dave Hawley]

The page set-up to prove if forum signatures count for anything toward ranking is looking VERY much like my last 2. That is, forum sigs do little/nothing toward Google rank boosting. Not news to me, but is for a lot of SEO "professionals".

Re-cap;

I can find at 2 of the forum pages that has the sig link by searching Google for "Blue Tomatoes".

I can find the page, being linked to, via a Google searching for some text on the page or in the Title.

The page itself cannot be found via a Google search for "Blue Tomatoes".

Looks like Google are not as silly as some would have us believe :)

[I, Brian]

Dave, you've only been at it for 2 weeks.

The "SEO professionals" usually work no much longer timescales than that. I've already warned you this sort of experiment is going to require *months* before you can draw any potentally useful conclusions.

Danny Sullivan has also warned that even then more information is required on your experiment to even see if it is an appropriate methodology.

All you are concluding so far is precisely what you have been advised - that new links will not impact immediately on Google.

Your logic so far:

1. SEO professionals state links can take a very long time to impact.
2. I've set up some links and they haven't impacted in a very short time.
3. SEO professionals must therefore be wrong.

Come on, Dave - you seem an intelligent enough bloke, but less of the trolling and try actually listening to what people tell you.

Otherwise all you're doing is throwing about your own ignorant self-convictions on SEO about. You can do better than that on an SEO forum that covers the spectrum of the industry - you can benefit from it if you really want to.

[Dave Hawley]

The experiment is not completed and I have done similar on pages that were left much longer than one month. The results are always the same.

All you are concluding so far is precisely what you have been advised - that new links will not impact immediately on Google.You are ignoring the facts that the pages are being indexed and ranked by Google. This happened within 48 hours, so the "new links" theory doesn't seem to hold any water either.

Come on, Dave - you seem an intelligent enough bloke, but less of the trolling and try actually listening to what people tell you.I'm sorry you see it that way Brian. I always listen to others, however I rarely take what I'm told on face value only. It is your suggested 'way' that has caused so many myths about Google to perpetuate.

Otherwise all you're doing is throwing about your own ignorant self-convictions on SEO about. You can do better than that on an SEO forum that covers the spectrum of the industry - you can benefit from it if you really want to.Far from it, in fact it yourself and others that are "ignorant" and I believe you could do much better.

If you wish to believe that forum signatures will boost your Google rankings that is your prerogative, but it is certainly not I that is being ignorant.

[DaveN]

Funny when I did a search for "Blue Tomatoes" sew was number 2

DaveN

[I, Brian]

You are ignoring the facts that the pages are being indexed and ranked by Google. This happened within 48 hours, so the "new links" theory doesn't seem to hold any water either.
Nope - this was stated that it was a common phenomenon of the Google Sandbox (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3062).


I'm sorry you see it that way Brian. I always listen to others, however I rarely take what I'm told on face value only. It is your suggested 'way' that has caused so many myths about Google to perpetuate.

Far from it, in fact it yourself and others that are "ignorant" and I believe you could do much better.


Dave, this is my point. You walk into a community of SEO's, then smack them down with pointless comments about how you "know" best because you ran a 2 week experiment that "proved" all the experienced commercial-level SEO's wrong.

The bottom line is that you are not listening, yet you are perpetuating your own self-created convictions. Your conclusions prove nothing - other than what you have been told is justified, and that your own interpretations are unsustainable.

You are definitely right that it's worth learning for yourself - but it's also worth being careful not to jump into premature conclusions, and not be overly dismissive of experience.

Just 2c.

[Dave Hawley]

Dave, this is my point. You walk into a community of SEO's, then smack them down with pointless comments about how you "know" best because you ran a 2 week experiment that "proved" all the experienced commercial-level SEO's wrong.No Brian, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you yourself had listened, you would realize just how wrong that statement is. I'll let you work that one out.


Nope - this was stated that it was a common phenomenon of the Google Sandbox.You want me to prove something by using an unproven theory and a theory that differs among the SEO "pros"??? Ok, well I just did and going by the "Are you in the Sandbox?" test I'm not.

You are definitely right that it's worth learning for yourself - but it's also worth being careful not to jump into premature conclusions, and not be overly dismissive of experience.Then please share the results of your tests Brian.

[seobook]

just a friendly reminder to everyone that there is a handy ignore feature.

[dannysullivan]

And another friendly reminder that everyone can debate, but don't get personal. Deal with the facts presented.

As for those facts, Dave -- you're not showing us anything we can look at. What are the pages you linked to? What is the exact query on Google? Did you use quotes, not? I can't tell any of this from what you've posted so far.

[Dave Hawley]

These answers are in my original post, but here they are again.

What are the pages you linked to?
There is only one and its orphaned except for the many forum signature links with Blue Tomatoes as the anchor text.


What is the exact query on Google?
"Blue Tomatoes"


Did you use quotes, not?
Yes.

[Marcia]

Whether or not this thread ever comes up with any answers, which I seriously doubt it will (and I do think argument for the sake of argument is a waste of time unless it's backed up by something substantial) - sometimes I think raising questions can have value in itself. For that reason I think this thread has value - not for argument's sake - but because the topic raises some good questions about which factors actually go into computing scoring for links.

Do forum signatures really help with Google ranking?
If they do, would all count,the total number, or just one or a fraction?
How about multiple instances of anchor text - for all the pages, or just one from one particular forum?
How about PR? Add to PR of linked-to page from all, or discount all but one PR vote?
Does placement and location on the page of the link make a difference?
Does the topic make a difference?

[Dave Hawley]

I, as you know, am of the belief that Google will give no credit at all for anchor text in forum sigantures. However, having said this, it is possible that perhaps Google will pass on credit for 1 siganture link from each forum.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that it makes perfect sense that Google would not give any/much value to forum signature links.

Ask yourself the question, if you were Google would you see forum signature links as a unique democratic vote for the page being linked to? Surely the answer can only be no :confused:

It honestly seems to me that the SEO "pros" are relying on very old test results and hear-say to state that forum signature links are credited as any other page. Or, using the tests, where there has been un-natural manipulaton of the forum signature links and thus skewed the results. Or put simply, these tests show one can manipulate forum signature links so that some credit is passed.

[I, Brian]

I, as you know, am of the belief that Google will give no credit at all for anchor text in forum sigantures. However, having said this, it is possible that perhaps Google will pass on credit for 1 siganture link from each forum. You offer no supporting justification for this, though. You simply presume that Google will work in a manner of your preference, rather than observe how Google actually works.

As before, your 2 week link test is far too prematurely executed to draw any real conclusions, but if you're serious about running it, here's a couple of recommendations:

1. Don't link to an orphan page - link to it also from your sitemap (or somewhere else in the main body of your site), using non-keyworded text.

That's just to be on the safe side - I never link build to orphan pages, in case any processing flags the page as a possible doorway.

2. Expect results to take up to 4 months (includes indexing time, plus possible sandboxing, if applicable)

3. Use sig links from multiple forums, too, for best effect.


On the topic of Google assigning value to multiple links within the C class - this is addressed on both the Hilltop and LocalRank papers. Whilst it's difficult to determine if either these algorithms in their raw - or a derivative form - are currently applied, both are implicit on devaluing links within the same C class IP range. That means devaluation of multiple links from the same website, and also for cross-linking between sites within the same C class IP range.



The more I think about it, the more I believe that it makes perfect sense that Google would not give any/much value to forum signature links. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Google devalued signature links extensive around September 2004. In fact, I'd actually suggest forum pages in themselves were signficantly devalued, rather than the signatures - certainly in vBulletin and probably phpbbs, so that the dynamic pages generated have a much lower inherent PageRank value assigned than general webpages, reduces the impact of such links and their influence on the wider web.


Ask yourself the question, if you were Google would you see forum signature links as a unique democratic vote for the page being linked to? Surely the answer can only be no :confused:
At the end of the day, SEO is simply about working with how Google works, not how we think it should. And as above, Google has, in my opinion, already gone some way towards devaluing such links quite significantly.


It honestly seems to me that the SEO "pros" are relying on very old test results and hear-say to state that forum signature links are credited as any other page.
That's possibly a disrespectful thing to say - especially as you are claiming no real SEO experience. But if I may answer as a general point in public, Google *does* currently assign some value to signature links.

I ran a test approximately 10 minutes ago and results are definitely there and up to date. This is obviously not heresay either - I have established signature links on towards 100 forums that I have been a regular participant of over the past 3 years or so. So I am able to observe the effect of large-scale signature linking.

Certainly the links are not full valued, and I've certainly suggested before that PR parsed is minimal if at all - though others strongly disagree. Ultimately, I would personally suggest that sig links are going to be of limited use in the commercial environment - though if you have a lot of them, you may as well use them for something constructive and useful.

Never forget the human element, though - signature links can be very useful for generating clickthroughs to your site from other forums. This is actually where they are possibly most useful.



Or, using the tests, where there has been un-natural manipulaton of the forum signature links and thus skewed the results. Or put simply, these tests show one can manipulate forum signature links so that some credit is passed. I'm afraid I'm not sure of your reasoning here - you determine that signature links have no effect - now you say they can. I'm uncertain of what you mean by "un-natural manipulation" of signature links - are you talking about cloaking issues??

[Dave Hawley]

I have made mention many times that that I have done this test on 2 other occasions as justification. You seem to think that by ignoring this it will all go away.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the results of your tests that prove your stance and how your test was conducted? I have asked this qestion many times now I, Brian and you always avoid it. I guess that itself is the answer.

I find it ironic that you would question this as you have not done any tests and are relying on.....? I have no intention of disbelieving my own eyes from my own tests because a username on a forum states otherwise.

I, Brian Said"you would have to ensure all of the forum posts were indexed before maknig a statement on their ranking impact."
You are now backing well away from your own statement I, Brian .


The page is not truely orphaned as it has many many forum siganture links to it and the page has a link back to my home page. However, I have no problems placing a non-keyword link on my Site-map. Perhaps you could explain why you feel this should be done?

EDIT: Just gave some thought to linking to this page elsewhere and have decided not to. The reason is the link will end up passing PR to the page and may skew the results. However, about May next year, I will do so. About 1 month after that I will change the anchor text to the same as the forum signature. I'm betting that within a week of doinf this the page will show in the Google SERP's for "Blue Tomatoes".



What I find the strangest of all from you I, Brian is that you believe so blindly in the "sandbox" effect yet have no proof. Even your "Pros" cannot agree on this and can offer no proof. Yet you wish to use it to try and justify your stance. That does not look too good from where I sit.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Google devalued signature links extensive around September 2004. In fact, I'd actually suggest forum pages in themselves were signficantly devalued, rather than the signatures - certainly in vBulletin and probably phpbbs, so that the dynamic pages generated have a much lower inherent PageRank value assigned than general webpages, reduces the impact of such links and their influence on the wider web.You proof for this is?????? Please don't offer the Google Toolbar as proof as we all know it cannot offer proof. I would really like to see you offer proof just like you are insisting of me.

that's possibly a disrespectful thing to say - especially as you are claiming no real SEO experience. But if I may answer as a general point in public, Google *does* currently assign some value to signature links.

I ran a test approximately 10 minutes ago and results are definitely there and up to date. This is obviously not heresay either - I have established signature links on towards 100 forums that I have been a regular participant of over the past 3 years or so. So I am able to observe the effect of large-scale signature linking.I have my signature link on no less than 6000 posts on different forums I, Brian and have observed the results over 5 years.

Google *does* currently assign some value to signature linksTo make that statement you must be able to tell me what "value" and about how much?

I'm afraid I'm not sure of your reasoning here - you determine that signature links have no effect - now you say they can. I'm uncertain of what you mean by "un-natural manipulation" of signature links - are you talking about cloaking issues??When a proper test is conducted it must be done in a controlled and often isolated way and one must make very sure they do not do something that will be un-natural. I

To round-up I, Brian I would really appreciate it if you would at least try to answer my questions this time.