Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > Search Engines & Directories > Google > Google Web Search
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-20-2005   #1
Chris Boggs
 
Chris Boggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near Cleveland, OH
Posts: 1,722
Chris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud of
Thumbs up New "Link Police" in Google Algo?

Jim Hedger wrote what I feel to be a definitive article regarding linking that was posted at ISEDB.com this week. Please take a look at the article and see if you agree with as many of the thoughts that I did.

Time to get together as a big SEO team and ensure our clients are only linking with relevant sites, in my opinion. I am always open to discussions with other SEO's that feel this way. As usual, this all boils down to one thing: providing relevant content to searchers. If we keep this in mind, rankings will follow.

Last edited by Chris Boggs : 04-20-2005 at 10:40 AM. Reason: change link
Chris Boggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005   #2
sully
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 50
sully is on a distinguished road
A link spam busting algo? I hope so. It's about freakin' time.
sully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005   #3
hardball
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 83
hardball will become famous soon enough
So, they use "web spam" as a factor in determining quality? It doesn't make sense to use a known bad metric. Besides I heard they just reduced "web spam by 5%.

How about they hand nuked some highly visible sites to sow FUD.
hardball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005   #4
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
As Sully says, you'd wonder what's taken them so long, and even now I wouldn't hold my breath.

IMO those SEO sites mentioned are the exceptions, two of them were even back fairly quickly.
While their link collecting was aggressive by SEO standards, it appears just about the norm in other sectors.

Haven't really heard that much wailing and gnashing of teeth yet...
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005   #5
seomike
Md_Rewrite Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas but forever a Floridian!
Posts: 627
seomike is a splendid one to beholdseomike is a splendid one to beholdseomike is a splendid one to beholdseomike is a splendid one to beholdseomike is a splendid one to beholdseomike is a splendid one to beholdseomike is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
A link spam busting algo? I hope so. It's about freakin' time.
I don't think you'd be saying that for long if your competition blows your site out of the SERPS with spam links. How would you go after them legally? They're not copying your content or plagerizing you, you can't classify it as slander or liable either, they just think you're a good resource to link to on 20,000 pages.
seomike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #6
Chris Boggs
 
Chris Boggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near Cleveland, OH
Posts: 1,722
Chris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud of
Proof?

It looks like SEO Inc has been dumped from the Google index at least temporarily, as Joseph Morin pointed out in this post. Could this be a result of linking tactics?
Chris Boggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #7
Mel
Just the facts ma'm
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 793
Mel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Boggs
Jim Hedger wrote what I feel to be a definitive article regarding linking that was posted at ISEDB.com this week. Please take a look at the article and see if you agree with as many of the thoughts that I did...

.
Shades of the days following the Florida update!

I do not think this document has been clearly thought out prior to publication. Google applies for a patent and we soon see statements like:

Quote:
According to a number of sections of the patent, (particularly those numbered in the 50s) Google is capable of taking a much wider analysis of links and their purpose than previously thought.
(the emphasis is mine)

This document is based on the assumption that most everything iin the patent application is already in use at Google and accounts for the update of two weeks ago (which to me seems like a continuance of what started in January). IMO this is pretty wooly thinking at best, and the stuff that rumors are made of.
__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO Dont settle for average SEO
Singapore Search Engine Optimization and web design
Mel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #8
Mel
Just the facts ma'm
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 793
Mel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Boggs
It looks like SEO Inc has been dumped from the Google index at least temporarily, as Joseph Morin pointed out in this post. Could this be a result of linking tactics?
Or could it be a result of those thousand of spam emails sent out recently asking the thousands (millions?) to join in a three way link exchange with SEOinc?
__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO Dont settle for average SEO
Singapore Search Engine Optimization and web design
Mel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #9
krisval
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The US of A
Posts: 190
krisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura about
Quote from my brother in-law in last night "What's going on with Google? I have to go to page 10 now to find anything."

It is amazing that Google is focusing so much time on trying to cut down spam rather than focusing on providing good results for users.

Here are some things to think about.

1. So what if the site uses link spam...was it a relevant page?
2. Maybe the companies who can afford to build a lot of links are the web sites you want to visit. If they spend that much money, they probably have something of value when you get to their site.
3. By penalizing sites using excessive text link ads, isn't Google crossing into an area where they may be using "unfair trade practices" by attempting to kill a legitimate advertising medium. Sure the prices for text links are through the roof, but if they didn't have an SEO benefit, they would still have an advertising benefit...maybe at a lower price.
4. How many natural links truly exist today anyway? I have found that no one links to anyone anymore without something in return.

My opinion, unless they change their strategy, MSN and Yahoo will surpass Google within 2 years.
krisval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #10
St0n3y
The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Here. Right HERE.
Posts: 621
St0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to all
From the article...

Quote:
Does that anchor text change?
The next two obvious questions are, when and to what. Google uses this information to track link-campaigns and to determine link-spam advertising from active, organic links. For instance, a link with anchor text that remains static might be judged harshly if other links on the page are also static. If that same link was found on a page where other links changed from time to time, Google would take a brighter view of the value of that link.

When the anchor text of a link changes, was that change relevant to changes in document content?
If the anchor text of a link changes in relation to content on the document linked to, chances are the link was placed with care and consideration. Google would then assign a higher score. If, however, the anchor text is noted to change without any relation to the text on the document linked to, there is a chance the link is part of keyword-link branding campaign.
While I agree with most of the article I don't agree that these quoted above are being, or even would be, measures used. Most sites do not change a link once they place it up. Who's going to go back to their blogs to edit their link texts? How often does a site's content change drastically enough to warrant going back to change the your link text pointing to them?

Maybe I'm missing the point but that just seems pretty silly.

I think krisval has made a pretty solid point. Google seems more focused on getting rid of what they consider spam (anything that games the system) rather than on providing good quality, relevant results. It's one thing to get rid of spam that clutters search results with non-relevant queries, its another to get rid of relevant results that may use spammy techniques.

I'm I really am all for the latter, just so long as it is not at the expense of the former.
St0n3y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #11
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
* Google seems more focused on getting rid of what they consider spam (anything that games the system) rather than on providing good quality, relevant results.*

Can't say I see that, whatever about the relevancy of the results, I've yet to see any real effort to beat the link gamers.
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #12
krisval
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The US of A
Posts: 190
krisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Can't say I see that, whatever about the relevancy of the results, I've yet to see any real effort to beat the link gamers
A lot of people in this forum disagree. check out the threads on links can penalize and some of the items people feel have created a penalty including "repetitive anchor text" and "site wide links".

Everyone has their own definition of relevant results and you may actually think they are very relevant, which is fine. It is a personal choice. However, I was pointing out, that several regular users who I know have mentioned to me that the results aren't very good lately. These are people who don't even know that there are "paid" links in the serps.
krisval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #13
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
*check out the threads on links can penalize and some of the items people feel have created a penalty including "repetitive anchor text" and "site wide links".*

That's all Mickey Mouse stuff, when G seriously cracks down on link "spam" you'll have half the membership of all the SEO forums wailing.

Can't hear it yet....
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #14
lots0
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
A lot of people in this forum disagree. check out the threads on links can penalize and some of the items people feel have created a penalty including "repetitive anchor text" and "site wide links".
Some people may "feel" that penalties have been caused by repetitive anchor text or site wide links (run of the site links), but I have yet to see even one person show any evidence to support this theory.


As far as SEOinc, it looks like a "hand job" to me, poor guys... never knew what hit em...

Last edited by lots0 : 04-21-2005 at 10:36 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #15
krisval
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The US of A
Posts: 190
krisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Some people may "feel" that penalties have been caused by repetitive anchor text or site wide links (run of the site links), but I have yet to see even one person show any evidence to support this theory.
I have seen the evidence. It is happening. Believe what you want, but they are definitely filtering for site wides and repetitive anchor text.
------------------------------------------------
SEOinc...defintiely looks like a manual removal. Check the backlinks, they have a lot of PR7 and PR8 sitewides. I am not buying the idea that they were removed because of the triangle link email. Unless, someone sent it to Google and Google did an extensive check on their BLs and then removed them. It must be killing their business. They have a lot of "Big Company" clients.

Last edited by krisval : 04-21-2005 at 11:45 PM.
krisval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005   #16
Mel
Just the facts ma'm
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 793
Mel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really nice
The real question is will they remain unindexed in Google or will they be able to get back in.

IMO the reasons for the (probable) hand removal are not at all clear, but if someone could provide some actual evidence that Google is removing companies like SEOinc for sitewide links it would be very interesting.

My main question is if they are removing for inbound links how is the new #1 ranker for Search engine optimization able to remain???
__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO Dont settle for average SEO
Singapore Search Engine Optimization and web design
Mel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005   #17
Mel
Just the facts ma'm
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 793
Mel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really nice
Krisval
I would tend to agree with you that if a site has many sitewide inbound links and only links to the homepage with identical anchor text they may be not have what you could call an optimal linking setup.

But I go back to the site which currenlty occupies the #1 position for search engine optimization and they are violating all these "rules" and getting rewarded for it. If it is a rule then all sites should be treated the same.
__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO Dont settle for average SEO
Singapore Search Engine Optimization and web design
Mel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2005   #18
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
To be honest guys, there seems to be enough evidence to show there is no "absolute" position on the ROS question.

As LotsO points out they are obviously still very much in play, on the other hand, and much like Krisval, I tend to view them as potential liabilities if running other link schemes.
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2005   #19
Chris Boggs
 
Chris Boggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near Cleveland, OH
Posts: 1,722
Chris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud ofChris Boggs has much to be proud of
I feel that although they have applied for the patent, it doesn't mean they are using this effectively yet. Manual removal thanks to complaints or egregious red flags seems to be the only current option. However, in my opinion, this type of #1 result is going by the way of bell-bottom pants soon: you'll still see an occasional pair but for the most part they are gone (US Navy not included in this statement-I can say that as a former Marine )

Last edited by Elisabeth : 04-25-2005 at 04:10 PM. Reason: early morning grammar mistake; Elis-removed quote to directtv spam,
Chris Boggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2005   #20
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
When I got to:-

Quote:
To recap the central theme of the patent document, Google compiles document profiles based on the historic data of several elements relating to every URL in its index. The historic data included in that profile plays a determining factor in various scores, or points Google assigns documents when generating keyword driven search results.
I realised that the article is just a piece of imagination, so I didn't go any further.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off