Forum Signatures.

[Dave Hawley]

My signature is there to let people know what I do and it's not SEO!

That's the right way to look at it IMO. Those (in the SEO business) that are under the false assumption they count toward PR should be looking for a new line of work. I BET many SEO companies suggest to clients that posting to forums with a signature is a good way to boost Google rankings. I know at least one that very likely does and it's not ethical :)

[greeneagle]

Well put chrisbowd!
Looks like this is finally getting sorted out Dave, I am glad you pursued it from the other forum.
Ken

[Dave Hawley]

Looks like this is finally getting sorted out Dave, I am glad you pursued it from the other forum.

Haven't seen Fathom and Mel have you :)

Have you read this thread
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=21427

In particular,

I found it interesting that, in addition to link farms and guest book entries, forum posts are "increasingly counting for nothing."

[greeneagle]

Dave,
At first glance, I really thought that it all got wrapped up in ; http://webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=19547 . So when I saw that you continued here, I initially asked myself; "What in the heck is Dave doing and what are his intentions with this new thread?"

That other thread was pretty bloody - Does he just like the taste of blood?, But then I realized that you carried on, having a genuine distain for webmaster forum spamming and realizing the tenacious character of spammers, just wanted to make d___ sure that the issues were settled!

Hat's off!
Ken

[Dave Hawley]

Ken, unfortunately there are many here that will simply not allow facts to cloud an issue.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Haven't seen Fathom and Mel have you :)

Have you read this thread
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=21427

In particular,

Observation:

Matt Cutts (Google Senior Software Engineer) recently stated that forum sig links are increasing becoming worth "nothing". Many people read that as "absolutely worth nothing"...

Over the course of all the threads you seem to change "precisely" what you are attempting to observe thus conclude.

1. Does Google crawl "sig links" -- YES

2. Does Google index "sig links" -- YES

3. Does Google pass PageRank via "sig links" - YES

4. Does Google use the weight/relevancy for ranking the point to page - specifically via "sig links" -- YES

5. Is Google attempting to reduce the effectiveness of this particular benefit -- YES (as Matt Cutts stated)

6. Has Google been 100% successful in the reduction of this "benefit" -- NO

More importantly, I have repeatedly suggested "change the linking pattern you change the results".

Matt Cutts' statement suggested the pattern of "all" the same link (and anchors) is easily detectable by Google and as these go external from the resident website to another site they can be easily discounted or "worth less" as apposed to "absolute nothing".

This also includes external "site wide links" normally associated with "purchasing PageRank".

Unfortuately your experiment is flawed, thus your conclusions and research is flawed as well and you are merely posting an opinion and not concluding based on sound observations to prove or disprove anything.

My opinion: Personally and professionally what you conclude is fine as long as you maintain that you are "not experience in SEO, SEO research, and everything you state is merely an opinion, and you haven't proved or disproved anything.

[Dave Hawley]

Over the course of all the threads you seem to change "precisely" what you are attempting to observe thus conclude.

Wrong.

1. Does Google crawl "sig links" -- YES

Agree, have always said that.

2. Does Google index "sig links" -- YES

Agree, have always said that.

3. Does Google pass PageRank via "sig links" - YES

Dissagree, have always said that.

4. Does Google use the weight/relevancy for ranking the point to page - specifically via "sig links" -- YES

Dissagree, have always said that.

5. Is Google attempting to reduce the effectiveness of this particular benefit -- YES (as Matt Cutts stated)

Agree, have always said that.

6. Has Google been 100% successful in the reduction of this "benefit" -- NO

Agree. I doubt Google has been 100% successful in many things with their algo.

More importantly, I have repeatedly suggested "change the linking pattern you change the results".

Why, because you say so?

Matt Cutts' statement suggested the pattern of "all" the same link (and anchors) is easily detectable by Google and as these go external from the resident website to another site they can be easily discounted or "worth less" as apposed to "absolute nothing".

Don't you think Google can tell a forum sig link from any other type?

Unfortuately your experiment is flawed, thus your conclusions and research is flawed as well and you are merely posting an opinion and not concluding based on sound observations to prove or disprove anything.

Bit rich coming from someone with nothing more that words, not even your own at that. As far I'm concerned the test was done in a proper and controlled manner. If there was a flaw why was no PR, no rank boosting passed?

My opinion: Personally and professionally what you conclude is fine as long as you maintain that you are "not experience in SEO, SEO research, and everything you state is merely an opinion, and you haven't proved or disproved anything.

When/if you come up with proof to the contary I'll listen. Until then, you only paying lip service.

More Evidence (not proof) here
http://www.business-talk.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474

[mj2043]

I like, hope most of you, let users to use signature with post from the begining, I found some other forum, where members are fighting for signature, some whao had signature loss with a new rule.. not a nice place to see. I like friendly look here...

[greeneagle]

Why does it continue to take 2 active threads to discuss this?

Ken

[Will.Spencer]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Don't you think Google can tell a forum sig link from any other type?

Dave:

This is one point in which I am interested.

How would you code this algorithm?

My current thought is that this may be the exact same algorithm which dampens multiple links from one source site to one destination page. It may not be forum related or signature related at all. (Proof? None... yet...)

[greeneagle]

Has this thread just gone too far for the admins to lock it and redirect to the other?

Ken

[Dave Hawley]

How would you code this algorithm?

Like I keep saying, I don't know, but Google do a lot of things that we, and other SE's are unable to do. My experiment showed that Google somehow can tell a forum sig link from a natural one though.

[greeneagle]

Dave,

I am not even going to post the fact that I have seen more value for Forum Member Profiles and URLs linked in the body of Forum discussions than Sigs, because that might bring the dogs out!

LOL - Here comes the next GOOGLE alg bomb - RUN!

Join 30, 40, 50, - 500 forums for the member profiles, or any other unreasonable number and find out what happens in the next GOOGLE alg BOMB!

GOOGLE - Did you hear that?

LOL again
This is great fun, I love every minute of it!
Maybe we do need 2 threads to discuss this s___ afterall!
LMFAO
Ken

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Like I keep saying, I don't know, but Google do a lot of things that we, and other SE's are unable to do. My experiment showed that Google somehow can tell a forum sig link from a natural one though.

Let me help you out with this one... "external link pattern"...

...ever notice that some people change there sig monthly???????

Is there a rational reason to...

[Dave Hawley]

Fathom, why is you guess any better than anyone elses? Rhetorical!

If what you say were were true, the experiment, that used totally unique anchor text and URL, would have done something. The fact is it did zip.

Anyway, I'm done with this issue now. If you wish to use forum signatures to boost PR, go for it. I'll focus on the real stuff for long term prosperity. Which going by my PR7 seems to work :)

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Fathom, why is you guess any better than anyone elses? Rhetorical!

If what you say were were true, the experiment, that used totally unique anchor text and URL, would have done something. The fact is it did zip.

Anyway, I'm done with this issue now. If you wish to use forum signatures to boost PR, go for it. I'll focus on the real stuff for long term prosperity. Which going by my PR7 seems to work :)

Dave I haven't been here attempting to convince you of anything. You say "proof" and "fact"... I say "consider this", and "do some homework".

You ask for "absolute proof"... why?

If you are not willing to listen should I continue to write?

I offer hints to consider to get you thinking - you don't (or at least you don't project that).

Your intent seems to simply be just to prove others wrong - not to educate the membership with your wisdom.

You've prove your case to yourself - great!

Congradulations! :-)

[Will.Spencer]

Originally Posted by fathom

If you are not willing to listen should I continue to write?

Hey, don't forget the rest of us here!

Not everyone is as vocal as Dave, but others of us here are reading your posts and using your insights as inputs to create potentially useful models of search engine behavior.

Learning is an iterative process. You learn sometimes, and then you build upon that to learn something else. I believe that if you are too stubborn to learn, you are just wasting your time here.

Don't let Dave get you down.

[fathom]

Unfortuately, you must be as vocal as he.

Actually this is being worked on... and not to take anything away from Dave - he had the right idea (and got "me" thinking).

Research however, if implement incorrectly is nothing more than "inconclusive" thus any observations are bias simply because there is nothing to observe.

Conclusions therefore suggest -- he's incorrectly correct or correct but incorrectly! :-)

A nil isn't proof of anything - it's just the opposite - the absence of proof.

We are attempting to do this proper but that takes a little time to setup so that results can actually be observed.

[greenkey]

Seems to me after reading all this
that nobody knows for sure (thats been said before)
So consider this.
Even if forum posting did count to build PR how much would a post on a forum be worth in downstream PR
with about 350 links per page on a PR3 page probably nothing anyway. If you spent time posting in forums to build credit from backlinks your time would be better spent getting links from sites with real content that would count. (thats not a slight on the content of this forum, you know what I mean).
Not only that but if relevancy of links is be believed and it seems ok to me, then links in your sig to a pigeon shooting site from a forum about seo have got to be worth zip.

[Dave Hawley]

something else to consider. Even if forum sigs do help with PR, rank boosting ect (which they dont't) why focus on such a spammy method for SEO. If not now (which it is), it's only time before they are discounted totally.

You are falling into the same trap that Guestbooks spammers once did. Those that ignore history are over-run by it.

I strongly suggest to take heed of what I have offered in this post for long term prosperity.

BTW, no need to say thanks, the personal attacks are just fine :)

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

something else to consider. Even if forum sigs do help with PR, rank boosting ect (which they dont't) why focus on such a spammy method for SEO. If not now (