Can inbound links really hurt you?

[crankydave]

Read this VERY carefully

From this moment forward...

Any posts complaining about the rep system or red rep you received will instantly get the member(s) a ban.

Any threads that get started complaining about the rep system or rep you received will instantly get the member(s) a ban.

Since some of you seem to find it neccessary to constantly complain and/or whine about this all over the boards, I've started a new social group just for you...

http://www.webproworld.com/groups/red-rep-rangers.html

ANY posts/threads outside of this social group complaining about rep will get the member an instant ban.

Please read this a second time...

ANY posts/threads outside of this social group complaining about rep will get the member an instant ban.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I red repped you becuz you post about stuff you don't know about and do nothing but confuse the facts with BS from a 10 yr. old document. I also red repped deepsand for the same reason ...

Did you miss various mentions by me of the fact that 1) said paper was designed with academic publications in mind, where 2) unlike the web, individual pages within a document are not treated as separate enties; that 3) said paper contains errors of both commission and omission; that 4) we've no way of knowing to what extent the algorithm presently implemented differs from that published; and, that 5) SERP is not controlled by PR alone?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Heay bud I'm sick of this... I red repped you becuz you post about stuff you don't know about and do nothing but confuse the facts with BS from a 10 yr. old document. I also red repped deepsand for the same reason nothing anonymous on my part, if it was anonymous then it was by accident! Nothing faceless here I'd tell you to your face you're a goof and an idiot but fortunately for you there's an ocean and many miles between us. Unfortunately I couldn't red rep you again but I'll be back and when I can... well your precious rep will suffer! Even go out of my way to do it! I'm just that kinda guy... if you're smart you'll shut the F up and let this thread die the merciful death it so richly deserves. Lest some other webmaster get his head filled with yours and deepsand's mindless drivel about a document that is about as relevant today as the horse and buggy is to travel.

Not to be rude, but can I ask you about your background in:

1. Scientific testing
2. Statistics.

[kgun]

Some final question since I see that this subject will continue without end.

1. In 2009, do you think that you can destroy a competitors site / page by throwing bad link(s) (patterns) at it?
2. If yes, what is your programming background?

And

1. What is your opinion about the competence of the programmers in Google's algorithm department?
2. What would the implications be for the worlds largest SE's credibility if it is possible to destroy a competitors site by throwing bad links at it?

Please, be scientific and answer these question with the following words in your statements:

1. This is my theory. Can that theory be tested? If not, why?
2. This is my opinion. Do you have proof that will stand a stringent statistical test?
3. This is my speculation. The reason is that so many say that IBL's can hurt your site. Who are those persons or SEO specialists?

[williamc]

kgun: are you talking to yourself again? You may want to seek some help for that. The only ones I see posting in here in days are you and your cohort. Maybe you should go back and retake statistical data 101 as the more times you feel the need to post just to reopen a thread, due to not liking the end result, you tend to lose more and more credibility in that subject.

[kgun]

On page one we could read the following.

Originally Posted by dave9713

In my opinion no. If that was the then the web would be a huge mess, think about all the big companies who have thousands and thousands of spam links everywhere just because there brand is known. This would also make SEO a case of damaging your competitors rather than outranking them naturally. Google knows that you can't control 100% who links to your site and unless they see that your buying links or consider yourself to be spamming then they won't punish you for it.

That amount of links won't even appear on there radar.

Dave

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I agree Dave.

I agree Dave and incrediblehelp.

Williamc, do you remember the other marathon thread, the meta description tag thread. How long time did it take for us to come to an agreement.

I note your answer. Not very constructive

[williamc]

So... you answer by topping it again without an answer... yep, I was right...

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by kgun

Some final question since I see that this subject will continue without end.

1. In 2009, do you think that you can destroy a competitors site / page by throwing bad link(s) (patterns) at it?

1. Certain web sites, under very specific conditions, yes.. Not all web sites.. Not even 'most' websites.. But the few web sites that meet the required conditions, yes..
   
   

   If yes, what is your programming background?

Irrelevant to the discussion, but more than most.. I've been writing code in various languages since my cobol / fortran days in the late 70s.. So, nearly 30 years worth.. But you do not need to be a programmer to be an SEO.. It may have helped the early bulk site builders and spammers, but the tools are there for anyone to sign up for these days, thus removing the need to code your own tools..

And

1. What is your opinion about the competence of the programmers in Google's algorithm department?
   

1. Better than most, but still programming by committee..
   
   

   What would the implications be for the worlds largest SE's credibility if it is possible to destroy a competitors site by throwing bad links at it?

Very bad.. Hence their replies tend to be "almost never" or "almost all the time", always qualified as a remote possibility rather than a cut and dried yes or no..

Please, be scientific and answer these question with the following words in your statements:

1. This is my theory. Can that theory be tested? If not, why?
2. This is my opinion. Do you have proof that will stand a stringent statistical test?
3. This is my speculation. The reason is that so many say that IBL's can hurt your site. Who are those persons or SEO specialists?

No teacher, I will not restrict my answers to your set out format.. I have made my opinion very clear in this thread several times, and if you care to look for it, I even gave out some information that a talented person might use to maybe replicate our testing that demonstrated the possibility..

We see too many threads started where people have issues tied directly to their link profile to think that it is a non possibility.. The algorithms are relatively smart, but in the end they are simply sets of filters that can be discovered and cheated to make certain things occur..

As always, you can choose to take what I say as at least a possibility or not, I don't really care, just putting tested information out there for other people to make their own decisions with..

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Irrelevant to the discussion, but more than most.. I've been writing code in various languages since my cobol / fortran days in the late 70s.. So, nearly 30 years worth.. But you do not need to be a programmer to be an SEO.. It may have helped the early bulk site builders and spammers, but the tools are there for anyone to sign up for these days, thus removing the need to code your own tools..

No.

Do you know what the link matrix of the web is? Would you be able to set some of the elements in a matrix to zero? Would you be able to invert that matrix and set some of the elements in the inverse to zero? Do you think some of the elements are negative?

Again reread my restart of this thread was post #893. It was topped by a member that said something like this:

IBL's can not hurt your site.

That post was deleted. I don't know why and you made your own meaningless comment post #895 based on that fact.

[Tubby]

An observation I made many years ago.

I was throwing a ball, My dog was racing out into the garden chasing it, The dog would leap into the air and the ball and the dogs flying body would intersect when my dogs mouth snared the ball in mid air.

Many people are incapable of working out a problem like this on paper, it probably involves an understanding of gravity, speed and velocity. . it is quite complex - "on paper" But your average cat or dog can do it in their head. just watch where the ball goes, the brain recognised the consistent aspects.

I do distinctly remember sitting down with the dog panting at my side waiting for me to throw the ball again . . I was getting a slight buzz from the realisation that you cannot do anything in maths that the brain cannot understand before you start.

The brain has to already be able to solve the problem - before you can solve it with maths.

I have quite often mentioned this observation. . but I have never really pursued it, But it has left me with a sound conviction that if a mathematical answer looks and feels wrong, If it contradicts everything you know to be true . . . Then the math is wrong.

I emptied my head of maths many years ago. . I no longer believe in it. I will use it as a tool if the absolute need arrives.

I am on neither side of this argument. I observe it the same way I observed my dog chasing the ball that time in my garden. Maybe I will learn something, Maybe It will help confirm something I already know.

To observe something, that is an honest observation, is second greatest teacher that exist in this universe. Personal observations should never be dismissed.

If a personal observation is wrong . . this is the first greatest teacher that exists in this universe.

[deepsand]

The brains of ourselves, cats, dogs, and a myriad other species contain robust analog computational circuitry, and are quite capable of performing complex mathematical PID (Proportional, Integral and Derivative) calculations without either concious awareness or understanding.

That we may be unaware of such, or unable to conciously perform such calculations, in no way speaks to the validity of the underlying mathematical concepts and their written expressions.

[Tubby]

I shall not be returning to argue the invalidity of "Concepts"

Deepsand. you may simply accept as my personal view. If you place that word (concepts) in a sentence the argument is invalid. Just because it can be conceived is no validation of any truth - and never will be. maths is a concept.

I have no concerns about right or wrong in this matter. . There is no argument. This is a core belief that I shall die with. The universe is either real - or a concept. I merely prefer it to be real. (on the mere acceptance that it feels real)

Sorry Deepsands. I am not prepared to argue my beliefs in this thread, I am merely content to state what they are (as it applies to the current discussion). There is plenty of past posts that demonstrate my views on topics like the 'concept of infinity' and others.

[deepsand]

The point was that our not being aware of what the brain is doing is irrelevant to its so doing.

For example, you and I see and read this post, with no necessity of conscious thought or understanding of the interaction between the photons emanating from our displays, the lens in our eyes, the retina within, etal..

Oft times at night, when the world outside is less well lit, I think about and marvel at the fact that what I "see" is merely electro-magnetic radiation within a particular bandwidth; and, wonder what the world might look like were I able to perceive other wavelengths, such as some other species are capable of.

[cz]

This is getting silly you guys IMHO

Does this apply? I don't know if it's math, opinion, a matrix, a concept - but I like the title and it appears to describe what I'm reading above.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/u...s/entropy.html

[pervezalam_mzn]

Everyone knows irrelevent link can be harm your Page rank and your keywords ranking on SERPs.... There is no excuse that irrelevant link will give you popularity as "dave9713" is saying..all links gives popularity.

According to me 1000 link is not equivalent to 100 Quality Relevant link, Quality link Improves you PR with Keywords ranking on SERPs.

I am facing a problem in webmaster tool will any one help me out to solve this problem??

Google webmaster tool - Preferred domain Setting

[inertia]

I emptied my head of maths many years ago. . I no longer believe in it.

Definitely quote of the week! I never trusted minus, he's just too negative all the time and divide really needs to pull herself together! Plus is OK though, i like a guy who's always positive.

[Tubby]

pervezalam_mzn said
"Everyone knows irrelevent link can be harm your Page rank and your keywords ranking on SERPs"

pervezalam_mzn , You do not know what 'everyone knows'

never start a sentence with 'everyone knows'

If you are going to make statement that is wrong, try not to begin the statement with 'everyone knows'.

I myself am only mildly sure of what I myself know, but I feel fairly confident in saying You do not know what everyone knows

For those readers that wonder why I wrote 'Everyone Knows' and bolded it 5 times. The reason is that hopefully None of you will ever write it again - that you are sick of the phrase 'EVERY ONE KNOWS' . .

Besides if everybody realy did know, there would no point in telling us. . because we already knew. (pointless)

[inertia]

Everyone knows that not everyone knows everything!

[Tubby]

ineria said
"Everyone knows that not everyone knows everything!"

evidently not yet Inertia, but hopefully pervezalam_mzn might be a little bit more aware of this.
So we should be at least one closer to everyone knowing. . .

*Chuckle*

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Personal observations should never be dismissed.

Agree Tubby. A theory often start with that. But that theory should be able to be tested, rejected and falsified with scientific methods.

To me it is elements in a matrix until proven otherwise. Until proved otherwise these elements can not be negative in the meaning of IBL's carrying negative weight.

The rest is speculation to me personally.

A theory can start with speculation.

Good post.

Originally Posted by cz

This is getting silly you guys IMHO

Does this apply? I don't know if it's math, opinion, a matrix, a concept - but I like the title and it appears to describe what I'm reading above.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/u...s/entropy.html

Closely related to information theory, but not to Google's concept of the link matrix of the web and its inverse as far as I know. Entropy may be part of the whole algorithm, though. I think most of us would be chocked if we saw that animal.

Originally Posted by inertia

Everyone knows that not everyone knows everything!

Agree, and very few has exact overview / knowlerdge of Google's algorithms in 2009.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

To me it is elements in a matrix until proven otherwise. Until proved otherwise these elements can not be negative in the meaning of IBL's carrying negative weight.

Individually, no. Collectively however...

You can put enough rocks in a bucket where it will have a negative effect on your ability to carry that bucket.

Individually, no. Collectively, yes.

Links are no different.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Individually, no. Collectively however...

You can put enough rocks in a bucket where it will have a negative effect on your ability to carry that bucket.

Individually, no. Collectively, yes.

Links are no different.

Dave

A DDOS (man in the middle) attack would be far more effective. Some of those collective links could even improve the ranking of a site.

"no. Collectively however..."

So you have observed that?

If yes, you are 97.5 % sure that you don't mix the real cause with any other of the more than 200 variables?

So you have proof of that?

So you agree that it is not possible for

n=1

and perhaps n=2.

May be not even for n=k,

but for n=k+1.

How large do you think k is?

Can you prove that IBL's will hurt your site for n=k+1?

What significance level did you use in your test to draw that conclusion?

What do you mean by hurt? Overload network, bandwith, server capacity or something else?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

A DDOS (man in the middle) attack would be more effective. Some of those collective links could even improve the ranking of a site.

"no. Collectively however..."

So you have observed that?

If yes, you are 97.5 % sure that you don't mix the real cause with any other of the more than 200 variables?

So you have proof of that?

Certainly it's possible for improvement as well.

You know I have repeatedly said yes to having made observations. And yes, I am as sure as I can personally be.

Google has long said this about links...

However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results. Examples of link schemes can include:

• Links intended to manipulate PageRank
• Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
• Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")

In your opinion... can any of these things that can negatively Impact a site be done to a site by a "bad" SEO or company? By someone other than the site owner with less than honorable intent? By a site owner that doesn't know any better?

Dave

[kgun]

Nothing new there Dave.

Answer my questions below, please.

Originally Posted by crankydave

You know I have repeatedly said yes to having made observations. And yes, I am as sure as I can personally be.

As sure as I can personally be is not a scientific conclusion.

[crankydave]

kgun... I (and others) have repeatedly said yes. Why do you wish me to keep answering that question?

I (and others) have repeatedly said that no, we are not going to share the actual data. The sites used are simply not going to be disclosed.

You're right. nothing new.

Answer my question below please.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

In your opinion... can any of these things that can negatively Impact a site be done to a site by a "bad" SEO or company? By someone other than the site owner with less than honorable intent? By a site owner that doesn't know any better?

"Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web"

Isn't that outbound links?

Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

"Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web"

Isn't that outbound links?

Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

Yes.

Partner pages for cross linking is IBL's.

Links intended to manipulate PageRank Is IBL's.

Dave

[inertia]

Can i just say that its all gone a bit scientific and mathematical here, which is great as the world is built on mathematics and so are SERPs but in this situation its not mathematically workable because we dont know all the variables.

There is no way that one of us could categorically say "links can hurt your site" because every time you say that someone can then say "how do you know it wasnt because of something else"? So rather than finding an unequivocal conclusion all we can do is report our observations.

I have missed some of this enormous thread in the last year so (apologies if you've already provided what im about to ask for) can someone please give me an example (preferably with some evidence not just a "my site dropped because of crap links") of bad links hurting a site?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Yes.

Partner pages for cross linking is IBL's.

Links intended to manipulate PageRank Is IBL's.

Dave

Originally Posted by kgun

So you agree that it is not possible for

n=1

and perhaps n=2.

May be not even for n=k,

but for n=k+1.

How large do you think k is?

Can you prove that IBL's will hurt your site for n=k+1?

What significance level did you use in your test to draw that conclusion?

What do you mean by hurt? Overload network, bandwith, server capacity or something else?

Partner pages for cross linking is IBL's.

Isn't you now mixing OBL's and IBL's? What is the net effect of IBL's?

Links intended to manipulate PageRank Is IBL's.

By IBL's from whom?

You agree that it is not possible for a single link (to manipulate page rank if I understand you correct).

So what is the value of k for which it is possible?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Partner pages for cross linking is IBL's.

Isn't you now mixing OBL's and IBL's? What is the net effect of IBL's?

Links intended to manipulate PageRank Is IBL's.

By IBL's from whom?

You agree that it is not possible for a single link (to manipulate page rank if I understand you correct).

So what is the value of k for which it is possible?

Let me put it this way since you are FAR better with equations than I will ever likely be.

A site has static (or new for that matter) and has 100 IBL's. TB shows a 2

It then receives 2000 links (1000 sitewides on 2 sites). TB shows a 5 on one and 6 on the other.

An attempt to manipulate PR?

Another example...

Same site...

Recieves 4000 links from "dodgy" sites. Link profile shows that it has 100 decent links, 4000 "dodgy" links making that profile 97.5% "dodgy".

Crosses a pretermined threshold and a filter kicks in?

Another example...

Same site...

Receives 2000 links from a site known to have sold links.

Attempt to manipulate PR?

Dave

[crankydave]

Hypothetically kgun... Google determines that in each of the above situations there's a 97.5% chance it's an attempt at manipulation and has the algo act accordingly when it occurs by applying a filter.

Dave

[kgun]

If, it were my SE, not to risk my search engines credibility, I would zero (all) some of them out. It may be as simple as setting some elements in a matrix (matrices) to zero.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

If, it were my SE, not to risk my search engines credibility, I would zero (all) some of them out. It may be as simple as setting some elements in a matrix (matrices) to zero.

I know you would kgun. But Google doesn't. Google tells you things can "harm".

Coming out and saying (or once it get's figured out which it assuradly would) that nothing externally can harm a site or page would be a total and complete disaster.

What if a "Mr Market" came out and said there's nothing that can harm your investment, the worst thing that could happen is you break even?

Dave

[Tubby]

inertia said
can someone please give me an example (preferably with some evidence not just a "my site dropped because of crap links") of bad links hurting a site?

No.
What we apparently have is a dispute - several respected members conducted a test. basically to see what happens if . . This is the sort of thing we all do. we put our fingers in hot water to find out we do not like burns. no dispute so far.

The respected members came to a conclusion, an honest conclusion, a conclusion they were entitled to draw. . because basically the respected members conducted the 'test' on the off chance there there might in fact be a conclusion to draw. good fun, and educational . no dispute so far.

Kgun says Quite forcible - that these three members are not entitled and have no rights, to the conclusions that they have drawn from conducting this test.

Kgun said 'this cannot happen' - where is your proof
The respected members say ' it did happen' where is your proof that it did not happen?

Kgun feels sure that he has logical, mathematical, proof, that it could never have happened.
The respected members say 'But it did?' we observed it.

Kgun says - Kgun is right because it is logical that intelligent people who created the algorithms would not have built it that way.

The respected members say. 'We just reported what we observed' and we should be entitled to draw our own conclusions

Kgun says, You have no right to draw conclusions unless there is a solid scientific basis and you can conduct the experiment several times and get exactly the same results.

The respected members say- how can we do that there is no way to re-produce the exact links and all the specific circumstances.

Kgun says - Huh. . Then you have no right to your opinion. because my opinion says your opinion is no better than a fabrication to fool the world . I kgun will protect the World. (maybe just Web Pro World)

O.k. I might have got a bit carried away at the end. Feel free to correct.

There is no resolution to this thread. . Other than the Moderator that has the power to stop it all is basically a decent bloke and is reluctant to use admin powers to resolve it while the other party does not have the same powers. (my personal thought)


Inertia. My personal conclusion Is Yes it is likely possible. But I feel that to harm me another person has to personally target and attack my site using the intelligence gathered, If my site was a suitable target. The information merely offers an insight into googles algorythm for those that understand it ( I do not) It is not a real threat for all practical member purposes.
all parties agree, there is no reason for WPW members to fear inbound links.

It is possible an asteroid will land on my head . . (I will try not to worry) There is no great damage done by knowing that this possibility is out there.

[Feydakin]

Several things..

I PMd Intertia in private with a little more info than has been given in this thread.. He is welcome to consider that as he will..

Actually, we can reproduce it.. The given circumstances are not that hard to locate and take advantage of.. We simply refuse to do it in public because I am not a fan of divulging these types of things in public.. Similar to the exploit people in the OS community, I would prefer to keep this information as restricted as possible..

If you are interested Tubby, I will PM you the information as well because I trust you enough to not be stupid with the information..

65 more to go!!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

65 more to go!!

Do not even try to turn this into a number thread.

64

Dave

[Tubby]

Feydakin said
'If you are interested Tubby, I will PM you the information as well"

God no Feydakin. . My site still has hundreds of links pointing nowhere particular. I got pages by the dozen that need updating. I spend hours a day not doing the things I am supposed to be doing. . and I probably would not understand it anyway. no ambition to target other sites. I am so myopic I rarely see past my own pages.

I merely think a long thread that meanders through periferal discussions can sometime need some sort of commentary so that anyone coming in on post say 933 does not need to scour 50 post to find out what it is all about.

Of course my commentary is a from my own perspective . . and inertia did ask.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by Tubby

Of course my commentary is a from my own perspective . . and inertia did ask.

I rather thought your commentary was comical as well as spot on. Kudos. 62 to go.

[Tubby]

WilliamC and Feydakin

Do you realise that If I were a moderator. I would close this thread at post 999, merely because I had the power. . . I would chuckle to myself with absolutely no care in the world of any consequences, and I woulds severely bite (to my best ability) any hand that attempted to stop me.

Crankydave. may just have a humorous evil streak similar to my own. Dave will decide when he will draw a line . . I shall make my best efforts to stay on the safe side of it. ( I will not be in this thread at post 1000 - I heard the hint)

[williamc]

Tubby: I would not be either, except that I know neither Steve or Myself reopened the thread and got it going again after we let it die.

BTW: you just helped it get to 60 and counting

[inertia]

Cheers for the update tubby! That clarified the situation a lot!

[kgun]

Tubby's projections will not be commented.

Two fast answers regarding PageRank and SERP's:

1. Do you know what a recursive equation system is? If not look it up.
2. Do you see the possibility that a zero matrix element feed through to the rest of the system? The system need not be recursive, but it is easiest seen in a recursive system.

[williamc]

Matt: and as you can see kfun is still trying to cloud the issue.

Kfun: of course you wont comment on tubbys post. They are simply how HE sees things, he didn't ask for debate on it, merely gave his own opinion. I know a lot of others feel the same.

I just find it sad that you found the desire to make people think of you as such.

[Terry Van Horne]

kgun... no disrespect but this is not an answer you'll find in a program or programming theory.

Common sense says when Google adds a page to the guidelines and says in that new document that buying links will result in negative repercussion ie: this can possibly hurt you. Then paid IBL's can hurt you. No one at anytime, other than those who shall remain nameless to protect the... said anything about negative PR. So where you are going with this discussion is well... not relevant to the question! Just keep in mind that what in theory should work often doesn't. All we are saying and have said along is there is a potential for an inbound link to hurt a site. I ask that you read the Google guidelines with the following scenario in mind. Especially the new section on paid links.

You are promoting a site and you spot all these wonderful candidates... you don't bother to check for nofollow (most advertising people don't have a clue what that is) you buy 100's of links across a wide variety of sites.

Then say Mr. Blackhat gets a contract to promote a competing site. While looking through your link profile Mr. Blackhat notices you bought all these advertising links that he knows are dodgy. Do you think Mr. Blackhat spends months and lots of dough building a better site or does he get the same dough for buying those links he knows will sink the site. This is not a fantasy example they are everywhere... If you did SEO for a living and know what some SEOs are capable of then... you stop the negative PR FUD and let people walk away knowing it's a possibility.

[crankydave]

kgun... I more or less understand you notion of "zeroing" or a zero matrix.

However, establishing guidelines or rules and not implementing a negative repercussion for violating such, encourages the behavior.

If all you did was tell "spammers" that all that can happen is you get "nothing" you encourage spamming. They've nothing to lose.

Dave

[crankydave]

here's putting it another way kgun...

Your search engine simply zero's out "undesireable" practices. Okay... I now know that.

So... I start autogenerating thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pages that do nothing but link to my target site knowing nothing will happen to it. Thousands upon thousands of other people do the same thing knowing their target site is not going to be harmed in anyway.

How long before your matrix and search engine explodes?

Dave

[williamc]

I Give it 10 minutes if I was the coder doing it.

[inertia]

Am I the only one who doesn't have a bloody clue what all this "inverted matrix" and "recursive equation system" jargon means?!

Am I woefully under qualified as an SEO? Up until now I thought English (or your countries equivalent) was the most important core skill for SEO, after all a lot of what we do is keyword and copywriting based. Now I need to know advanced mathematics as well.... bloody hell! Anyone got a website where I can start?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

kgun... I more or less understand you notion of "zeroing" or a zero matrix.

Fine Dave.

You deserve a green, but I am in a hurry concentrating on PHP 5/6 development.

1. You agree that we ruled out link buying selling that has been extensively discussed (to the boring IMO) elsewhere?
2. Are we talking about penalties?
3. I will not rule out penalties as part of a bad link pattern (triangular /quadruple etc).
4. But again, can we then agree that the link partners got as deserved? In the mean time they may have got positive effects.
5. In the worst case they are completely zeroed out, what we concluded in the beginning of this thread was equivalent to deleted from Google's index. The site / page is still on the internet, though and may be visible in other SE's and directories. This is the Google sub forum.

Regarding zero matrix element feeding through. Equation systems are easily expressed on matrix form. Take this system

Z = something.
X = a Z + b Y
Y = c X + d Z.

We compute Z = 0. What implication does that have for X that we can call the free SERP equation if somebody likes that?

What implication does it have for Y that, yes call it whatever you want.

There is no difference if there are million of equations (rows in the system matrix). Economist are used to high dimensional systems (e.g. world trade models).

Originally Posted by crankydave

here's putting it another way kgun...

Your search engine simply zero's out "undesireable" practices. Okay... I now know that.

So... I start autogenerating thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pages that do nothing but link to my target site knowing nothing will happen to it. Thousands upon thousands of other people do the same thing knowing their target site is not going to be harmed in anyway.

How long before your matrix and search engine explodes?

Dave

Hasn't that happened with article bots and automatic article systems? Do you see an indication that it has been successful?

[williamc]

Matt: dont let the trollers get you down. SEO hasn't changed, the same rules apply in varying degrees, math is not actually needed in SEO besides reporting rankings and other needed metrics, and billing of course. Non-SEO's that do not do this day in and day out always seem to think they know how google would do it. And are generally always proven wrong. What works works regardless of what people who can not see beyond a very narrow beam of perception will always try to confuse the facts, but those facts are still there working regardless of what they would like in a perfect search engine.