Quote:
Originally Posted by crankydave
AVC... I believe that part of the point that kgun and others are contending, is that in the instances where existing links were found that Google doesn't like that were already passing "value", that value was then lost so "technically" the site simply lost what they shouldn't be getting in the first place. I don't believe there is any real way to determine if it solely lost value or something additional as well in these particular instances.
However... In the instances I am aware of first hand, "losing value" a site shouldn't be getting in the first place was simply not the case. In these instances, just as soon as the links were found for the very first time the target sites suffered across the board.
Dave
|
The problem with first hand accounts is that doing A and seeing B doesn't always equal to C. AB may not be real world every day events.
Example:
You can post a great piece of research and with RSS gain links from blogrolls and according to your test you should lose ranks. [these are sitewide links from natural related or unrelated sources and this allows "ALOT" - there should be a sizable amount of 2nd & 3rd data out there to support your claim.
A Thought:
Quote:
Originally Posted by crankydave
In the instances I am aware of first hand, "losing value" a site shouldn't be getting in the first place was simply not the case. In these instances, just as soon as the links were found for the very first time the target sites suffered across the board.
|
What if any of the following are true:
1. whois same [Google can see the linking site as a manipulation practice]
2. Same IP [Google can see the linking site as a manipulation practice]
3. Domain linking sitewide had links previously that weren't sitewide and these are now included with sitewides this loss of those quality links and ranks
That's 3 off the top of my head that read... "it wasn't the inbound link that cause problems" - it was Google's ability to recognize these weren't votes but manipulation practices.
It's easy to say "manipulation harms" instead of inbound links harming:
1. Same whois is manipulation
2. Same IP links are more likely a form of manipulation
3. If linkiing domain goes from "A LINK" to "MASSIVE LINKS" - the single's link's juice is gone and ranks could decline accordingly.
No matter... there are volumes of false positives that you can be shown in the real world environment which include Google changing datacenters, rollbacks, algo tweaks, fresh crawl data; environmental changes like a node outage, another linking domain 404; competitive changes; either domain being unstable in results; researching knowns and not considered like [as mentioned IP, Whois, duration too short to be meaningful... the latter [noting 3 times you did this] surely then we are talking about 3-6 months for each set and 3-6 month inbetween to ensure old data isn't being observed.
First hand viewing - sounds good but here at WPW that now 2nd hand at best - and no offense Dave... I don't trust my own eyes & ears so I won't take it on faith that yours are any better...
It's safe to say that if something stinks of manipulation Google will certainly spend millions trying to ensure you can't do it... but at the same time they don't want to negatively affect "GREAT SITES"...
If you search you will find this thread on every board out there going back to 2001... and everyone's got an opinion and some have done experiments but the experiment's observations and conclusions are still opinions without the data...
If you think you got something... show the data and allow the interested to scrutinize that... scrutinizing you opinions is like spitting rhetoric back and forth and no one learns.
A great thread:
Natural vs. Un-natural - in SEO and the Google Algorithm [noting if your experiment isn't natural you getting unnatural returns and your conclusions are dead wrong.]