View Full Version : So who was Matt addressing?
glengara
05-19-2006, 06:05 PM
If the Timeline post was written for a wider "un-savvy" audience, it could be seen as simply reiterating traditional Google linking guidelines, if written for a "savvy" audience, it may be a warning shot about a significant change in how G "measures" linkage patterns.
Unfortunately it's not clear which audience he was addressing :-(
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/
AnthonyCea
05-22-2006, 05:31 PM
I think is was an attempt to communicate with webmasters who are generally mad because of the de-indexing of their sites.
There are some major technical problems at Google with computing capacity, this is not just a programming problem as Eric mentioned!
When you are growing into video, email, blogging, indexing images, books and doing maps you need more capacity, I think they need to merge with a hardware provider and data center company like IBM to be honest about it!
glengara
05-22-2006, 06:34 PM
*.. an attempt to communicate with webmasters who are generally mad because of the de-indexing of their sites.*
Possibly, thing I find interesting is it can be viewed either as a typical anodyne statement for the "uninitiated" or a total bombshell for the "initiated" :-)
AnthonyCea
05-22-2006, 06:36 PM
Webmasters that have been around know that reciprocal link directories are scams, the engines are way ahead of us, I think they are just letting us know that we really need to get our acts together and get off of the link spamming train......
PS: You have seen nothing yet, wait until they really take action against automated link networks!
glengara
05-22-2006, 07:34 PM
I've got the popcorn ready ;-)
AnthonyCea
05-22-2006, 08:56 PM
Great because "The End" has not taken place yet, nor is is near! :eek:
PhilC
06-03-2006, 08:39 PM
I think that Matt was simply addressing anyone who cared to read his post - no particular group.
But it's not just about reciprocals and things like that - it's a fundamental change in the way they index sites. I believe it's intended to act against the effects of link pollution in their index, but it's nonetheless a fundamental change in the way they index sites. And it affect all sites, whether or not they are involved in link pollution. That's my view of it, anyway.
Perhaps the change is also intended to address the problems of storage with the ever increasing Web.
While many web masters and seo firms encourage linking, the repetition and frequency will have effect on performance. Considering too what degree the links are published and in a manner which is organic in nature, while benefitting sponsored marketers is the ultimate goal to provide the most focused user experience while providing the greatest rewards for our advertisers and the most relevant content for searchers. The guidelines will provide you with everything you need to know, and in summary describe that a web site will be of moderate scale and contain a certain number of links while being in effect a good user experience when searchers find your site in the results. Click Here for our User Forums (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34443&topic=8523)
:p I'm practicing for a job in Google's PR dept... How'd I do?
Much to do with nothing... Talking about everything without explaining anything. That's what I love about Google the most. I think their most highly guarded secret is not their data-centers, equipment or algorithms - it's the fancy "word blender", which they use to pre-filter anything that is written for public assimilation.
glengara
06-04-2006, 08:58 PM
*it's the fancy "word blender", which they use to pre-filter anything that is written for public assimilation.*
It's always been the case that statements/guidelines from them have to be "interpreted" based on past experience; I quite liked that, sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong ;-)
Marcia
06-04-2006, 09:16 PM
"interpreted"The truth is there, if you can find it and know what to look for and how to decipher the code. ;)
Webmasters that have been around know that reciprocal link directories are scamsNo, by no means do all webmasters that have been around think that all reciprocal link directories are scams. That is an unjustified blanket indictment, as most over-generalizations are.
It just takes checking them out to see if they're worth bothering with.
PhilC
06-04-2006, 09:54 PM
I must admit that, although I wouldn't use the word "scam" about them, I have no time for reciprocal link directories, because they are not created to be a useful resource for people, imo. Yes, that's a generalisation, and there are no doubt exceptions, but it's how I see them.
AnthonyCea
06-04-2006, 11:56 PM
The truth is there, if you can find it and know what to look for and how to decipher the code. ;)
No, by no means do all webmasters that have been around think that all reciprocal link directories are scams. That is an unjustified blanket indictment, as most over-generalizations are.
It just takes checking them out to see if they're worth bothering with.
Do you submit your sites or your clients sites to reciprocal link directories Marcia or do you run any automated reciprocal linking schemes for them or the sites you manage ?
Marcia
06-05-2006, 01:29 AM
reciprocal link directoriesSince you're indicting them all as spam, how do you define a reciprocal link directory? What makes a site a reciprocal link directory, what is and what isn't a reciprocal link directory?
AnthonyCea
06-05-2006, 01:54 AM
Well I guess it is a directory or a page that gives you cut and paste code to put on your website for a link back in exchange for giving you a link and this is a requirement to keep the link :o
Your turn to answer my question Marcia :)
Marcia
06-05-2006, 03:53 AM
Well I guess it is a directory or a page that gives you cut and paste code to put on your website for a link back in exchange for giving you a link and this is a requirement to keep the linkSo then, you're saying that all reciprocal links are scams? If you're calling something a scam as a fact, and one that's being claimed is something that *all webmasters* know, guessing isn't really indicating why it's a scam. If someone is stating that something *is* absolutely something, they'd better be certain of their reasons, and not just be guessing.
That's how most recips are done, and have been for years. So what exactly about that makes it a scam, in your opinion?
Added:
BTW, this is an opinion thread and it's not about any SEW member, but for giving and discussing opinions about Matt's comments So how about not hijacking the thread off-topic by making it personal.
Just chiming in, but I think the misconception is that all reciprocal link programs are scams. I don't think this is enirely true. While it is probably painfully obvious that the primary reason to have reciprocal linking is for the sake of search placement and page rank, there are porgrams like Linksmanager http://linksmanager.com which simply makes the process of maintaining a good link strategy less time consuming. This program allows you to automate certain aspects of inbound link requests and creates the pages which get uploaded to your website's directory but in no way is it a scam. You still have to manually approve the links and you can customize all the pages so they are entirely on topic. In addition, the guys from Linksmanager hang with Google at conventions and workshops and have an excellent working relationship in terms of understanding one another's reasons for linking. They have a blog and tons of advice that goes into great detail about ethical linking.
PhilC
06-05-2006, 11:37 AM
They have a blog and tons of advice that goes into great detail about ethical linking.Ethical linking? Whatever will they think of next ;)
AnthonyCea
06-05-2006, 02:22 PM
So then, you're saying that all reciprocal links are scams? If you're calling something a scam as a fact, and one that's being claimed is something that *all webmasters* know, guessing isn't really indicating why it's a scam. If someone is stating that something *is* absolutely something, they'd better be certain of their reasons, and not just be guessing.
That's how most recips are done, and have been for years. So what exactly about that makes it a scam, in your opinion?
Added:
BTW, this is an opinion thread and it's not about any SEW member, but for giving and discussing opinions about Matt's comments So how about not hijacking the thread off-topic by making it personal.
No problem Marcia, I think I have made my point and you made your point, let's just leave it there! :o