|
|
||||||
|
||||||
| Index Link To US Private Messages Archive FAQ RSS | ||||||
|
||||
|
The Bench summarily dismisses the Sea Lawyer's transparent attempt to enter into testimony conclusion(s) based on facts not in evidence.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do you not understand that such brings naught but discredit to yourself? Now, that's an example of a very real negative PR value!
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
|||
|
Do we need tests Neo ??
Just search on Google de-indexed web directories - Google Search DEEPSAND, your continued silly posts are making you look silly, wake up man and figure out that you are on a webmaster forum making a major joke out of yourself. Your vain attempts at trying to moderate this thread and your reporting posts is not going to help someone like you who has no idea of what staying on topic really means. Last edited by AVC; 05-20-2008 at 05:13 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com Last edited by deepsand; 05-20-2008 at 05:37 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I disagree... Of course there's stipulations to my disagreeing... If your submitting to directories purely for the IBL then YES I agree = WORTHLESS! If your submitting to directories because they drive traffic to your site, and you see the value in getting as many eyeballs to your site as possible = DO IT! Plain and simple, every webmaster is going to have to make this decision for themselves when they get to the bridge... do we cross it or not? I've bought links for clients.... do I try and talk them out of it? Yeah... we've had some win's and some losses - what's more important though? Short term success or long term growth and building authority? It's all dependant on your paradigm. So to answer the threads original question - Can inbound links really hurt you? I say no... Can paid links hurt you? you bet your a$$! .02 DB |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thank you for confirming that my initial appraisal of you and your presence here was most accurate. As for your track record, labeling the page at www-internetnamebank-com/softwaredesign-html as "IT, SEO, Web Design, Computer Software, services and applications," and filling it with junk ads touting "Guaranteed Page 1 Ranking," "Free URL Submission," "Free Web Site Traffic?" and free "Search engine submission" suffices to tell someone like myself, whose IT experience spans 49 years, that one should not look to you for IT services and/or applications.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
|||
|
Funny Deepsand, I guess you started punching cards at IBM then ???
I guess that would make you about 69 years old then, or your Information Technology know how started when you were a gleam in your Daddy's eye ? Last edited by AVC; 05-20-2008 at 07:40 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com Last edited by deepsand; 05-20-2008 at 09:07 PM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
1. define "paid links" - 2. define "hurt" - For #1 for me... "Paid Links"... any service offered where a hyperlink is the primary products or a benefit or features of some products added value "AND" a monetary payment changes hands for that service/product including any benefits or features. e.g. almost all industry associations charge dues and provide a link for members... that suggests the link is paid, ppi directories like yahoo charge for a review the link in association is paid for (unlike your reference Yahoo doesn't charge for traffic from their directory so it's easy to misinterpret your context, but even a specific industry resource like a blog can charge for ad space and that can be similiar to textlinkads what's your version of criteria to define what is and is not a "PAID LINK" [Dave suggests a paid link is "sitewide" and "unrelated" -- yours? For #2 for me... "Hurt"... to cause damage to your current exposure to the detriment of any and all good merits or methods used... in short; what Google leans towards when they say [paraphrasing] that wee little bit a competitor can do to harm you. {there is almost nothing...} -- to me that really suggests 'if they're ranking above you - that is harm to your exposure' but as for them doing something directly to you that will influence a ranking drop - isn't what they mean... In your suggested hurt [the way I understand your meaning] if you have volumes of solid content that supports lots of dot.gov & dot.edu links - those do not matter anymore because you have intentional, unintentional, or someone else has placed the worst of any "paid links" to you domain -- e.g. AVC noted bidding directories? To me if I'm on Page 2 and can't seem to get to page one getting 'good links'... you can bet if the wealth of SEO experience says bidding directories' negative values will overpower all other links positive values... it only makes sense to use that... Negative SEO insight [much like Googlebowling did] if for no better reason than the competitor not knowing you did and Google indifferent [according to your talk with Matt that is his suggested stance... I would be "helping the competitor" if Google doesn't detect... or is that merely deceptive dialog so I wouldn't attempt it? These definitions IMHO cover all eventualities, any possible event or occurrence or result... of Paid or Hurt and if yours is something less... maybe that's what's important to convey to the membership. IMHO defining "precisely" what is "paid" and what is "hurt" are the #1 & #2 reasons this remains unresolved. Last edited by fathom; 05-21-2008 at 04:31 AM. |
|
|||
|
Google knows they are paid links (if they are coming out of known link seller sites) or "fake links" (in the case of blog spamming free blogs), they also know you are buying links if 90% of your links have similar anchor text.
That is how incoming links can hurt you, because G knows who is selling links (directory promoters and link brokers), they have taken down entire link broker built networks many times already and all the sites the link broker controlled or created. |
|
||||
|
Fathom...
Quote:
Dave BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it. Last edited by crankydave; 05-21-2008 at 10:06 AM. |
|
||||
|
Wow! You guys are still here?!
Is this becomes the biggest thread in the forum should i feel proud or embarrassed?
__________________
Latest Blog Post: Google Consultant - Should this Job Title be Allowed? - Matt Inertia's SEO Blog - SEOers.org "Carpe diem, seize the day boys, make your lives extraordinary" - Dead Poets Society |
|
|||
|
Yes indeed Dave, Matt Cutts pretty much busted an interlinked directory operation, this guy was one of the main promoters on Digital Point who pretty much purchased everyone's signature links there, spamming the forum to sell links and that lead to the directory crash. This same operator partnered with John Scott and set up the contextual link selling network, so Cutt's busted the right guy for sure.
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm sure mistakes happen... there are always side-effects - things they never intended to do... but to say anyone can point bad links at another domain to negate all their good ones... "isn't what Matt Said"... In fact; the first line was a snippet quote from someone else and not a quote from Matt - [the guy who posed the question]... Matt's only reply was: Hey Terry. We do work hard (and I'm sure the other search engines do too) to try to prevent one site from hurting another site like this. To me that rings the reverse of what you think it says... But keeping an open mind it sure sounded more like "avoiding the question" not answering it.... don't you think - We [Google] - huh well all search engines try hard to prevent "1 SITE" from hurting another "SITE"... that vague affirmation on all search engines isn't a strong metphor for "this is it boys - I'm confirming your worse fears... suck it up boys!" Does MSN & Yahoo penalize in this way [or is his meaning more about common knowldge stuff] But to me that sounds familiar... it sound like what I'll been saying - a link can't USUALLY harm... we try hard to only prevent link value from passing... rather than forcing penalties down the river. He was talking about sites not owners of sites... domains that get penalized don't easily pass their penalties on... [which is true - isn't it?] Last edited by fathom; 05-21-2008 at 04:22 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I realize the first snippet is a quote. A direct statement made that MC chose to respond to. A link can't USUALLY harm is a far cry from a link CANNOT harm. At what point is the threshold crossed and USUALLY no longer applies? I personally think that to suggest that a webmaster can do anything they want externally and the worst thing that can happen is nothing is rather short sighted. If you can do it to yourself, it can be emulated. In this thread MC suggested that a site owner contact all the "undesireable" sites that placed "sponsored" links and ask them that they be removed. Why bother? Why go through all the effort if they simply provide nothing? Another possible "suggestion"? Personally, I think a lot of folks are looking through a microscope and not taking a satellite view. Looking at the individual instead of the aggregate. Enough "bad stuff", enough of an "eggregious pattern" and they will lose confidence in a site. I think most of the, how shall I put it, "disagreement" in this thread is due to some folks that have resigned themselves to CANNOT happen and therefore are unable to consider any conditions under which it CAN/MIGHT happen. So, did I read what I wanted to see in the comment? No, not really. I considered, and have considered, more than a single point of view or perspective. Dave |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
An interest read here on Matt's comments points to this: Quote:
What does Matt mean when talking organic links and ranks associated with those? Paid links must be removed so organic links work or maybe he's hinted at the difference... if all you got are paid links - your ranks are doomed... but paid links can't harm organic links thus good organic results can't be harmed either. It's the same bloody post with 2 totally different vantagepoints... Quote:
If you have offenses that actually got you penalized... your case looks alot better if your profile is "SPOTLESS"... Matt's comments didn't say the guy was penalized for the spammy links though... he was commenting on how to be reincluded... you can only infer these are the same... but how then does the rest of his post make any sense? Quote:
Some givens in this topic are: Bidding on PageRank is a problem... and the spoils these produce are poison to any ranks they develop. Text Link Brokerage is a problem... and the spoils these produce are poison to any ranks they develop. Dave noted - sitewides [regardless of paid or not] is a potential problem... and the spoils these produce are poison to any ranks they develop. Dave also noted unrelated possibly inclusive with sitewides [regardless of paid or not] could be a problem... and the spoils these produce are poison to any ranks they develop. Fake links - not sure what these are? Blog spamming free blogs - I assume just another version of sitewide links? But nowhere - not even in Matt's quotes do you find him saying "bad links overpower all good links" to reduce ranks to below your natural organic position. Quote:
That said Matt's comments tend to focus on a common theme ... selling PageRank gets you into trouble and any domain selling loses ranks [because they lose their PageRank] Buying PageRank by association to a domain [or many] will find you buying nothing... but I doubt any domain that uses a mized approach for link development will ever see the delisting loses some have reported here. In short - you have proven that you lose what you never should have gotten... you haven't shown anything that support [as Matt suggests] organic link loses/organic rank loses. Last edited by fathom; 05-21-2008 at 07:12 PM. |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So no, I've not proven that you lose what you should have never gotten because it can not be demonstrated that there was anything being gotten in the first place, nor do the comments take into account the aggregrate and their effect on the whole. Dave Last edited by crankydave; 05-21-2008 at 09:17 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
||||
|
Having several times reviewed the MC post in question, as well as those posts which preceeded it, it seems obvious to me that we are lacking the requisite context, with respect to both place and time, for making any reasonably certain determination as to its intended meaning.
As it stands, its seeming appearance at first glance is but an illusion, one that changes when viewed from different perspectives. In short, a typical cryptic remark.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
...and my view is a microscope because I point out the flaws associated with your 'suggested claims' rather than looking for my own MC reference to vaguely matching my position? ...or something else? I don't believe a satellite vantagepoint is overly useful if your attempting to determine what you can and can't do... a satellite view says "don't get any links as they all could hurt or be harmed by you doing or not doing anything... "if you build it - search engines will rank it because all great sites are easily found so they are easily link to naturally"? Quote:
Trust lost - sure but the way I understand trust it isn't a ranking variable but what value a page passes to other pages. ...and this is what happens to your aggregates... Last edited by fathom; 05-22-2008 at 12:34 AM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dave Last edited by crankydave; 05-22-2008 at 09:42 AM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
<cite> Now every bad guy out there can kill the competition with a well targetted link campaign. To think that doesn't happen is welll... about as forward looking as not seeing that paid links would be a problem. </cite> Why not
I wrote on my blog Sunday, August 14, 2005 <cite> A natural modification is this PR(A) = (1-d) + (d1*(PR(T1)/C(T1)) + ... + dn*(PR(Tn))/C(Tn)) where d1+d2+ ... + dn = d. </cite> That was about the classic PageRank algorithme. It and related filters should be much more advanced today. Note this is about Bayesian hierarchical filtering where I have a master course with fairly good result (see lower left corner of my Blog for more info). From the classic paper. "There are many other details which are beyond the scope of this paper". It is also consistent with the the Wisdom of Crowds view to settle this dispute with a large enough independent poll. Related WPW link (also note the related links in my first post, post #5): NEWS!!! Google re-introduces PageRank Hurt your SERP position is much more difficult to confirm because of the many factors involved. So what do the different posters mean by hurt you? Hurt your pagerank or hurt your SERP postion or your online reputation Online Reputation Monitoring & Brand Tracking Tool | Trackur.com ?
__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips Learn object oriented programming where it started Last edited by kgun; 05-22-2008 at 12:30 PM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
But that still doesn't show your conclusions as being accurate... e.g. how can your experiment be about paid links if you didn't test the satellite view of them all... or about incoming links if you didn't test the satellite view of all those? ... surely your conclusions are based on your observations about unrelated sitewide links... I've also seen that done [add sitewides and lose ranks] but drawing a line from that limited vanagepoint to be a satellite view for all paid links or: At the start of this thread you said the short answer was yes incoming links can harm... and really that short answer should have been "it depends". ...and I still don't see anyone or anything collaborating your 'harm version' -- threshold or not... how long is the string? How many different domain versions did you test [different thresholds] ...if you did 3 identical experiments you seem to have tested 'only one threshold' and that doesn't make for a great case for different threshold based on trust. Again, it's great to debate - each time you post you broaden my view. Last edited by fathom; 05-22-2008 at 05:18 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, I probably should have worded my first post as it depends. But then again, had I done that, we'd probably not be on page 12 and you may not have been so inclined to jump into the fray. Dave |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In any case I have seen the same results as you but have a completely different perspective on the matter. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
And you my friend, could have worded your post in that manner. I wonder who rubbed off on whom? Something did occur to me about the loss of "ill gotten gains" position. This assumes that rankings would return to exactly where they were after the links were discovered or be in exactly the same position if they were never there in the first place. I don't believe this is known. Dave |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
or that the association lists it's members for the public to use as a reference/resource. You are assuming that links are the only reason the member joined and selling links is the "reason" for the association. The members and the association executives are idiots if that is their sole motivation!
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. Last edited by Terry Van Horne; 05-23-2008 at 11:44 AM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips Learn object oriented programming where it started Last edited by kgun; 05-23-2008 at 01:15 PM. |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
[what did you see] "it" [what's it] "what we're discussing" [please provide more details] "like what"? etc. You don't get to the meat of the claim... "that's total crap..." works much better... People without specifics or ones with a cause will always dance around and provide minimum details and in particular how they came across this information... "A friend, who knows a guy, whose roommate is in the top 5 SEOs in the world said... "4th hand knowledge being passed by 3 people that don't have a clue... or someone read it in an article and that's why it's true... Doesn't make for a strong argument. Be that as it made... I challenge people to defend their positions not because I'm right and they are wrong... but because I want them to be defensive... you get more details that way. Last edited by fathom; 05-23-2008 at 07:10 PM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
That said: I highly doubt related or unrelated has much to do with paid link detection... surely a text link ad on a news domain for a news portal gets the same treatment as a text link ad on a marble domain for floor tiling [marble being one] and all other 'less related text link ads'. Quote:
Surely Google employees don't go domain to domain to detemine if a link was part of a value added package or the root product... Googlebot can review patterns (like sitewide, page location - in proximity of other similar link types, etc. ] Back up... define a "paid link for me"... not your definition but Googles? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
But in keeping with the threads ideals... If you post alot... it can be considered a "paid link" by Google and damage your ranks? |
|
||||
|
Depending on your definition of hurt, that in theory IBL's can not hurt your site, but algorithms and human beings are not perfect, so they may.
|
|
||||
|
I think it won't hurt as long as you don't link to illegal sites.
__________________
Hawaii Events|Oahu Events|Honolulu Events |led signs|outdoor led sign |
|
||||
|
Is that an inbound link to your site?
|
|
||||
|
Google hasn't defined what a "paid link" is. They've got some opaque definition but it's not usable and has been left opaque so they can keep everyone guessing and staying away from anything that could be deemed paid by definitions like your definition. Of course those who are incapable of figuring out a way to beat people using paid linking are leading the charge to make that definition be anything they don't do! I don't think paid links are bad, I think they are short term solution to long term problem so... no problem for me.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. |
|
|||
|
A paid link is anchor text within editorial content that is unnatural (not organic, placed by a shill) and sold by a text link broker or any purchased link without no follow tags.
Fake blogs loaded with links are considered search engine spam and most of these are created free by "so called SEO's", many of these link farm blogs have hundreds of links on a page. Some affiliate marketers place affiliate links within these "fake blogs" and load the content with unnatural links, they could be talking about a TV show and place DVD software affiliate links within. What ever way you look at it, once Google finds out about it, paid links or search engine blog spam, or forum spamming for that matter, you will hurt your website or it may simply be de-indexed by Google. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Users are the only important factor. If they know the link is paid then... god damn it it's up to the SE's to figure it out! They should not require broken HTML to figure it out! They should at least make a f'in effort to make it compliant and add a 3rd party manager (W3C) to manage what that attribute is and what it should be used for, otherwise SE's can/will use it any way they want and we all know how well robots.txt and <indexing> mata tags work. No Thank You!
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. Last edited by Terry Van Horne; 06-02-2008 at 12:34 PM. Reason: added comment on bloggers network |
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. |
|
||||
|
That also was in reference to the meta tag for indexing not the rel=nofollow in the href. We are talking about the element, attribute and attribute value in the href no the wonky meta tags!
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
HTML 5 |
|
||||
|
My apologies for the "stooge" remark but it is getting very frustrating. My particpation in this thread is about trying to make the point that the opaque rules and the persistance of some to re-inforce that are threatening the free choice for monetization of webmasters resources and sustainability of Net based associations. Yes I'm obviously biased but... that bias wouldn't influence my view if I thought that there was a real need for the attribute to protect users. I see the opaque rules scaring webmasters into decisions that are primarily only befitial to SE's and making results relevant is solely their job they shouldn't need anyones help to determine motives because as the poster above mentioned intent shouldn't be part of the equation and obviously Google has made it so by telling me how to use the attribute.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. Last edited by Terry Van Horne; 06-02-2008 at 02:01 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. Last edited by Terry Van Horne; 06-02-2008 at 01:58 PM. |
|
||||
|
Also note the 5 version is still an RFC and far from being a true spec I saw where they thought it might take years. Now is the time to address this but obviously SE's want to act like browsers and do whatever they wish. No follow is a value not an attribute rel I didn't see anywhere as a compliant attribute of the href. Yes it is but nofollow may be an iffy value for the rel attribute.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! On the Trail with SOSG How I became a Social Media Convert and Twitter and Agents of Influence and now regular poster at Cloudmixer where We're Mixing New Media Ideas. Last edited by Terry Van Horne; 06-02-2008 at 02:34 PM. |
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Do reciprocal links hurt? | Kloans | Google Discussion Forum | 40 | 02-19-2008 12:20 AM |
| Can links to me hurt? | stuart888 | Other Engines/Directories | 23 | 10-05-2007 04:50 AM |
| Boser On Reciprocal Links & Whether Inbound Links Can Harm | WPW_Feedbot | Search Engine Optimization Forum | 0 | 11-22-2005 08:30 AM |
| One-Way Links - Do they Help or Hurt? | Songwriters7 | MSN Search Discussion Forum | 12 | 11-16-2005 12:54 AM |
| can links IN hurt my site? | tcady | Search Engine Optimization Forum | 5 | 04-30-2004 03:30 PM |
|
WebProWorld |
Advertise |
Contact Us |
About |
Forum Rules |
MVP's |
Archive |
Newsletter Archive |
Top |
WebProNews
WebProWorld is an iEntry, Inc. ® site - © 2009 All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy and Legal iEntry, Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509 |