Can inbound links really hurt you?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

So what is the thread really about Deepsand ??

Is is about the issue you attempted to divert the subject to ??

Please explain to the readers what this thread is really about if you would.

The Bench summarily dismisses the Sea Lawyer's transparent attempt to enter into testimony conclusion(s) based on facts not in evidence.

[Ne0]

you know what this thread needs? MORE COWBELL!


Seriously though... maybe you guys should arm wrestle?

What I don't understand is how arguing is helping anyones website... for that matter, why don't you guys both run different tests and share your findings for the betterment of the community.

That I could get behind! And I would be interested in the results of your tests!

Then if someone can be proven wrong based on a set of tests... the other side concedes shakes hands and Viola! We're all better for the thread

get my drift?

DB

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Now it is time for Fathom (Moses) to used diversionary tactics (pathological lies) that he dreamed up, assuming that I was involved in Bidding Directory link farms in a vain attempt to save face.

That is great Fathom, try to get to the promised land (Moses) by fabrication of lunacy and unfounded lies, and at the same time insult the intelligence of the SEO community by thinking they are dumb enough to fall for your ineptitude.

To repeat, why do you persist in making juvenile ad hominem attacks?

Do you not understand that such brings naught but discredit to yourself?

Now, that's an example of a very real negative PR value!

[AVC]

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.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Ne0

you know what this thread needs? MORE COWBELL!

Seriously though... maybe you guys should arm wrestle?

What I don't understand is how arguing is helping anyones website... for that matter, why don't you guys both run different tests and share your findings for the betterment of the community.

That I could get behind! And I would be interested in the results of your tests!

Then if someone can be proven wrong based on a set of tests... the other side concedes shakes hands and Viola! We're all better for the thread

get my drift?

DB

Those who claim to be able to use passively obtained IBLS to cause such harm have declined to provide empirical proof, of any kind, claiming that their's is information too dangerous to be divulged!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

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.

This from one who tried to suck up to Dave by assuming the role of Moderator's Pet?

[Ne0]

Originally Posted by AVC

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.

So because a lot of the directories got hit last August... and got de-indexed that means that you shouldn't have links in directories anymore?

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

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

Hard to answer simple questions that 99% of webmasters already know the answer to Deepsand, I know, I posted such already in this thread about "your side".

I will allow other members to fill you in, because I for one am not looking for you to give any proper responses on this forum, I know your track record here.

Thank you for publicly admitting that you have no intent at engaging in rational discourse.

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.

[AVC]

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 ?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by AVC

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 ?

Not quite; I started punching tape, in octal machine code, for PENNSTAC, at age 12. See pennstac

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Ne0

Can inbound links really hurt you?

I say no...

Can paid links hurt you?

you bet your a$$!

.02

DB

Here's my problem with you understanding of things... maybe we merely view the meaning of words differently:

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.

[AVC]

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.

[crankydave]

Fathom...

Matt Cutts said...
"Now every bad guy out there can kill the competition with a well targetted link campaign."

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.

December 5, 2007 10:40 AM

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Information about buying and selling links that pass PageRank

Pretty direct suggestion that it *can* happen no?

Dave

BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

[inertia]

Wow! You guys are still here?!

Is this becomes the biggest thread in the forum should i feel proud or embarrassed?

[AVC]

Originally Posted by crankydave

BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

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.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Fathom...



Pretty direct suggestion that it *can* happen no?

Dave

BTW... An interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

Are you sure you got your "suggestion correct"? I'm absolutely positive you're wrong... Matt never said the word "CAN" ...and IMHO you read what you wanted to see in the comment.

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?]

[fathom]

I don't have a clue what Matt actually meant... but if you rephrased the question to far better specifics I think you'll get a different answer.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

Are you sure you got your "suggestion correct"? I'm absolutely positive you're wrong... Matt never said the word "CAN" ...and IMHO you read what you wanted to see in the comment.

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?]

I believe I have the "suggestion" correct. Google has never said CAN'T either. They have always been consistant with "Try hard to prevent..." Why put preventative measures in place if it can't happen?

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

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I believe I have the "suggestion" correct. Google has never said CAN'T either. They have always been consistant with "Try hard to prevent..." Why put preventative measures in place if it can't happen?

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

Reviewing Matt's posts to support a specific slant isn't something anyone can do very effectively... Matt tends to stay in the grey area 90% of the time - being vague enough to support a wide variety of conclusions... thus jumping from quote to quote to back up research isn't research.

A link can't USUALLY harm is a far cry from a link CANNOT harm.

I "ALWAYS" tend to use words that suggest "I don't know all the facts"... when people post examples they don't normally post every single detail. In Matts post he also hints that he doesn't have all the facts that played their part...

An interest read here on Matt's comments points to this:

"If you want to mention queries where you think there's sites that
shouldn't be ranking based on their links, I'd be happy to ask someone
to check it out. But bear in mind that just because you see some
spammy-looking backlinks to a competitor's site using a backlink tool
doesn't mean that those links are working. It could be the organic
links that are causing a site to rank.

...There's a difference? I thought Matt confirmed that paid links harm a domain - so how can organic links continue to keep an otherwise spamming linked-to domain ranked?

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...

Originally Posted by crankydave

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?

If a murder occurred and the neighbors saw you rob the house [but you didn't kill anyone]... why bother clearing your name of the murder -- you robbed the house? ...comes to mind.

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?

Originally Posted by crankydave

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.

The greatest problem with forums and offering advice [particularly in the SEO realm] is "no one knows anything absolutely"... we all must connect the dots to make a picture but without any clear frame of references... is a 6 a 6 or actually as upsidedown 9? Is a 3 just a fancy backwards E or is it really a 3?

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.

Originally Posted by crankydave

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

The norm of things "it can't happen"... you can compile a million different versions and find 5 that make it appear that it can... but I like to examine only those 5. Absolutely a site owner that claims "harm is done to all links thus ranks" using his selling PageRank domain as an example can be refuted... he lost everything beause he sold PageRank and since you can seel what you don't own - that's the harm and not the act of buying Paid Links.

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.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

Reviewing Matt's posts to support a specific slant isn't something anyone can do very effectively... Matt tends to stay in the grey area 90% of the time - being vague enough to support a wide variety of conclusions... thus jumping from quote to quote to back up research isn't research.

Of course he's vague. There isn't any "research" that demonstrates can't that I'm aware of. Doesn't mean there isn't, but "can't" is a pretty definitive statement that the posts don't support. "Usually" it's not possible to support "can't".

Originally Posted by fathom

I "ALWAYS" tend to use words that suggest "I don't know all the facts"... when people post examples they don't normally post every single detail. In Matts post he also hints that he doesn't have all the facts that played their part...

Agreed. When people post, they don't normally post every single detail for a variety of reasons.

Originally Posted by fathom

...There's a difference? I thought Matt confirmed that paid links harm a domain - so how can organic links continue to keep an otherwise spamming linked-to domain ranked?

In the aggregrate. Surpassing the threshold. What is deemed "agregious"?

Originally Posted by fathom

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...

One vantage point through a microscope and another from a satellite. At what point, if at all, do the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Never?

Originally Posted by fathom

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.

The assumption you are making is that these "givens" produce spoils in the first place, and again, you're not looking at the aggregate. Google is aware of sites that sell PR they do not reduce the PR for so they can track "buyers". Do you think they allow such sites pass on "spolis" to begin with? The big assumption I see be made here is that all links pass "value" to begin with and that value is simply lost. Let's look at the glass half empty... That these links are not creating an "ill gotten gain" and eventually surpass a threshold in their aggregate where trust is lost.

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

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by inertia

Wow! You guys are still here?!

Is this becomes the biggest thread in the forum should i feel proud or embarrassed?

Yes

[deepsand]

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.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

In the aggregrate. Surpassing the threshold. What is deemed "agregious"?

??? So if DMOZ, YouTube, Yahoo, or Webproworld started buying paid links in order of there aggregate to pass the theshold of bad links over good links define how much they can get away with before their 'good links' are extinguished?

Originally Posted by crankydave

One vantage point through a microscope and another from a satellite.

How does this work... your view is a satellite because you'd throw out vague Matt Cutts references to support a claim that they are not really about [your point on "Can" that wasn't a Matt quote & a reference to asking sponsor link page owners to remove so a guy can be reincluded... where neither comment was a direct response to paid links harm abilities

...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"?

Originally Posted by crankydave

The assumption you are making is that these "givens" produce spoils in the first place, and again, you're not looking at the aggregate. Google is aware of sites that sell PR they do not reduce the PR for so they can track "buyers". Do you think they allow such sites pass on "spolis" to begin with? The big assumption I see be made here is that all links pass "value" to begin with and that value is simply lost. Let's look at the glass half empty... That these links are not creating an "ill gotten gain" and eventually surpass a threshold in their aggregate where trust is lost.

I don't care about your aggregates... the linking page is the part that is where the issues start at... and before we explore any "big assumptions that all links pass value" - all links pass value that isn't an assumption it's a tried & true confirmed variable of Google's ordered ranks and Google itself admits it prevents links from passing some or all values for specific reasons... and when Google does this, without the knowledge of the website owner who is expecting a positive return and that comes and then disappears - they often concludes, rightly or wrongly, that this is harming their ranks... that is a true representation of the overall effect...

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...

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

??? So if DMOZ, YouTube, Yahoo, or Webproworld started buying paid links in order of there aggregate to pass the theshold of bad links over good links define how much they can get away with before their 'good links' are extinguished?

How long is a string? I don't know precisely where the threshold is. What about sites with less than 50 "good" links that find themselves "acquiring" 2000 that are deemed "bad". Nothing? They're simply going to rank based on those few "good" ones? How about 4000 "bad" ones and 100 "good" ones?

Originally Posted by fathom

How does this work... your view is a satellite because you'd throw out vague Matt Cutts references to support a claim that they are not really about [your point on "Can" that wasn't a Matt quote & a reference to asking sponsor link page owners to remove so a guy can be reincluded... where neither comment was a direct response to paid links harm abilities

...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?

The quote was one made by Matt. Would you prefer I omit the question he was responding to when I quote? No Fathom... I choose to not only look at the individual parts but all of the parts as a whole as well. What is a pattern of 1 likely to tell you? How about a pattern of 100? 1000? 10,000...? If all one does is look at the individual parts they'll never see the whole and what it might have to say.

Originally Posted by fathom

I don't care about your aggregates... the linking page is the part that is where the issues start at... and before we explore any "big assumptions that all links pass value" - all links pass value that isn't an assumption it's a tried & true confirmed variable of Google's ordered ranks and Google itself admits it prevents links from passing some or all values for specific reasons... and when Google does this, without the knowledge of the website owner who is expecting a positive return and that comes and then disappears - they often concludes, rightly or wrongly, that this is harming their ranks... that is a true representation of the overall effect...

Wait a minute. I seem to remember a conversation we had about "authority and/or ranking". I believe the analogy you use involved a "sandwich board". You were looking at the aggregate then. The totality of the whole and simply the individual parts. Have you changed your position on this or does the aggregate only apply to this example and nothing else? Why?

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by fathom

IMHO defining "precisely" what is "paid" and what is "hurt" are the #1 & #2 reasons this remains unresolved.

Very important.

Originally Posted by fathom

Are you sure you got your "suggestion correct"? I'm absolutely positive you're wrong... Matt never said the word "CAN" ...and IMHO you read what you wanted to see in the comment.

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?]

Very easy to find with a page search (CTRL + F): Terry Said
<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

1. Make this thread a sticky.
2. Agree on definitions to vote over.
3. Make an online poll that is difficult to manipulate.

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

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 ?

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

The quote was one made by Matt. Would you prefer I omit the question he was responding to when I quote? No Fathom... I choose to not only look at the individual parts but all of the parts as a whole as well. What is a pattern of 1 likely to tell you? How about a pattern of 100? 1000? 10,000...? If all one does is look at the individual parts they'll never see the whole and what it might have to say.

...admittedly you are correct on that point you need to look at the whole.

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.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

...admittedly you are correct on that point you need to look at the whole.

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.

Yes it is Fathom. And you, as you always have, broaden mine.

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

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

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

LOL! Actually it was inertia; armed will 8 pages of ammo that arrived at SEOChat and posted some advice for someone claiming -60 penalty problems and when I challenged him he pointed "read this".

In any case I have seen the same results as you but have a completely different perspective on the matter.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by fathom

LOL! Actually it was inertia; armed will 8 pages of ammo that arrived at SEOChat and posted some advice for someone claiming -60 penalty problems and when I challenged him he pointed "read this".

In any case I have seen the same results as you but have a completely different perspective on the matter.

ROFL!

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

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Ne0

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!

Show me a site getting 1% of traffic from directories and you'll have shown me an astounding feat of skill. No directory beyond the top 1% sends no more than a handful of visitors a month. The only reason to do directory submission beyond that was for links. Anybody who says differently just has low expectations for their activity or is selling a linking service. Now there is no reason to do more than maybe 4 or 5 general directories and the top 20% in a niche. The rest is just a low value activity.

Originally Posted by Ne0

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.

Buying links can be nothing but a short term proposition as they often have a limited/short life span. They can't build authority because they have a limited life span, they can provide exposure that leads to permanent authority but that is just rolling the dice. Personally, I don't gamble with my clients budget whether they will go for it or not. Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves. Take that time and money and spend it on high quality content and that generates real authority gains. The rest is like going to Vegas with the rent money hoping to win your way out of a monetary shortfall. You're odds are even but... you could end up homeless and penniless!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by fathom

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.

Thank god what you think means nada, zip is inconsequential and IMO, just a myopic wishlist. What is seen as paid by Google is not even remotely close to your opinion. See Yahoo!, WWW3.org and a myriad of others.

Originally Posted by fathom

e.g. almost all industry associations charge dues and provide a link for members...

Generalities like that will stifle some info sites and useful associations. General rules/guidelines like that are assinine to even consider. IMO, this should depend on the quality of the link, motives of the link ie: was the link "in the spirit" of the SE expectations of it being a vote. Are the links relevant. Orgs/associtions should be treated no differently then if they were just a niche directory offering a review/listing.

Originally Posted by fathom

that suggests the link is paid,

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!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

ROFL!
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.

Ideally (related to money loss / penalty),

1. if they earned 100 $ on the manipulation they should loose 100 $ inflation adjusted.
2. Since they have put burdens on other companies, that should also involve costs to get a net effect. On average the involved companies get what they lost back.
3. Then, if it should hurt that this thread is all about, a markup should be used to get a gross estimate. I use to multiply by 1.2. Some may mean that that is a too mild penalty.

[AZCO]

Im confused, call me a beginer how can my signature affect me ranking?

[kgun]

The Value of Signature Links

[fathom]

Originally Posted by crankydave

ROFL!

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

The best way to learn is putting people on the defensive... you learn nothing from people merely saying "I saw it first hand"

[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.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Thank god what you think means nada, zip is inconsequential and IMO, just a myopic wishlist. What is seen as paid by Google is not even remotely close to your opinion. See Yahoo!, WWW3.org and a myriad of others.

Wow Terry I'm sexually aroused!

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Generalities like that will stifle some info sites and useful associations. General rules/guidelines like that are assinine to even consider. IMO, this should depend on the quality of the link, motives of the link ie: was the link "in the spirit" of the SE expectations of it being a vote. Are the links relevant. Orgs/associtions should be treated no differently then if they were just a niche directory offering a review/listing.

Whether or not motive is a factor isn't something that can be turned into a mathematical equation very easily nor can 'in the spirirt' and "related" is an issue of degrees... at the extreme is a domain full of porn... can be related to any domain that supports contraception information or 'getting pregnany' "BECAUSE" motive of the information provided isn't easy to detemine via an algorithm... a site for Christmas Trees and a Garage could be related... rubber are what tires are made of and there is a rubber tree... and both are associated with winter... "christmas occurs in winter and winter tires are a breed abreed from regular ones or all-seasons...

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'.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

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!

I'm not assuming anything... can you detemine if a payment was made or not; what that payment was for; and what other things were involved in the transaction that aren't listed on the page?

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?

[fathom]

Originally Posted by AZCO

Im confused, call me a beginer how can my signature affect me ranking?

In general, nothing.

But in keeping with the threads ideals... If you post alot... it can be considered a "paid link" by Google and damage your ranks?

[kgun]

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.

[full house]

I think it won't hurt as long as you don't link to illegal sites.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by full house

I think it won't hurt as long as you don't link to illegal sites.

Is that an inbound link to your site?

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by fathom

Back up... define a "paid link for me"... not your definition but Googles?

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.

[AVC]

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.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC

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.

So a webmaster should have to use an attribute that is not part of the spec and is subject to the whims of SE's not the specs and who between them are not united on what is paid and when it should be used! Right, that seems more than a little chaotic to me and not a real solution benefitial to anyone except inept SEO's and SE's who wish to possibly use it to eliminate competition or the ability for site owners to stop using monetization sources not provided by SE's. That's really what the paid links BS is about. Anyone who thinks it's about relevancy are SE stooges or benefit from the elimination of competition. It is no co-incidence that the bloggers implementation of another network was seemingly a catalyst to the change in policy. I don't blame Google for taking action on this as it was all about manipulation and only a fool would thinks that would last long or wasn't misleading to users.

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!

[AVC]

W3C discussion group came up with the no follow tag long before Google started using it or telling others to use it.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC

W3C discussion group came up with the no follow tag long before Google started using it or telling others to use it.

If the "google implementation" is compliant then why on the w3C sponsorship page are they not using it?

[Terry Van Horne]

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!

[AVC]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

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!

See this:


HTML 5

[Terry Van Horne]

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.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC

See this:


HTML 5

The nofollow keyword indicates that the link is not endorsed by the original author or publisher of the page.

From the spec and bolded for effect

So if the link is endorsed/vote, does the author need to use "nofollow" because it's "paid", no way and that is my argument! SeoPros lists sites we endorse, we have never seen our directory as "selling links" they are vetted and a listing is a recommendation, endorsement whatever, no amount of cash gets you in or even gives you access to advertising because all advertising is vetted to protect the public. This is the problem I have with many of the argumants I see here that all payments where links are part of the package are or should be Google unfriendly! I know that to be a complete distortion of the facts!

[Terry Van Horne]

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.