Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne
Why did webring quality wane as more sites were added? Because they became a promotion vehicle and those running the rings didn't vet the participants. Quality of experience goes down and webrings are history or at least out of favor as a promotion vehicle because users started associating the experience with the technique ie: webrings are bunch of crap strung together.
|
When? When "search" became a vehicle AND links were given more value above and beyond the simple ability to be followed. This is what spawned a "bunch of crap strung together" across the web and not just webrings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne
Dave, I don't think we disagree on much. I agree the algo is/was wacked or at the very least short sighted. I have watched Google chasing their tail on this one for years. Starting with reciprocal links which they went to extremes when all they really needed to do was have reciprocal links cancel one another out.
|
No, we really don't.
I don't see reciprocal links "cancelling" each other as an option though. There are always "good" reasons for reciprocally. If links command value, there's no reason to remove that "value" simply because a link is reciprocated. If a business makes custom guitars and happens to link to a company that manufactures the strings that the believe to be the best for their guitars, why should a link back to them such as "Preferred strings for..." or the like, be worth nothing?
What if CNN writes a story on a particular company? Should that company receive nothing if they link back to the CNN story?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne
I pretty much agree that we shouldn't have to use nofollow, however, given the choice... then I can place ads I don't neccessarily endorse on a site and a user can find that out by checking my code. That makes sense! Now you have people manipulating PR with it nofollow on internal pages obviously OK with Google but contrary to nofollow's proper use! That I have a big problem with. |
Nofollow has evolved into something very different from its original intent. The problem I have is that it is simply not a solution. It is an attempt to externally manipulate the data being collected in order for their analysis to provide their desired results. When your "product" is reliant upon external resources being provided by millions (billions?) of places, trying to manipulate all those sources in order for your analysis to provide your "preferred" results is like pushing a string.
How many of those "resources" simply don't know they need to tell them? How many of those "resources" were just told flat out "We can't do this ourselves, you need to do it for us"? Now ask yourself whether or not it's the ones that are really not intending to try and manipulate or the ones intent on manipulation that are really going to listen of those that actually know
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne
When Google tries to change things to their benefit only then... it's BS and we should be crying foul! Problem is most of the herd just follow the guys who do the SE's bidding and proclaim that a wiki should nofollow links because thery can be used to spam! That's complete horse manure and just doing the SE's job for it. Wikis and webmasters should not be scolded for making choices that are theirs to make... not SEs when they start changing our methods then someone is going to a place they have no business being in. If the SE chooses to penalize the site well... fine but we don't need to be pointing fingers and saying all wikis should use nofollow!
|
Google doesn't do anything they don't believe isn't going to benefit them. They are a business and that's their ultimate goal. Anything done at their "insistance" is for their benefit. The problem is that "they" are not trying to do it. If they were, I'd really have no problem with it whether or not I agreed with it. "They" are "insisting" it be done for them.
I'm not saying I do or don't agree with what they're trying to do. Their business, their business model, their choice. Any company should be diligently trying to provide the best "product" they possibly can IMO. They should be trying to "outperform" their competition. I take issue with the "how" and not neccessarily the "why"?
Dave