|
|
||||||
|
||||||
| Index Link To US Private Messages Archive FAQ RSS | ||||||
|
|||
|
I take your comments on board Jawn, and agree in principle. And I am certainly not arguing here about whether or not inbound links can damage a site, which is very unfortunate since the thread is about that! I have got a strong opinion on the matter, but would welcome any proof that I am wrong.
The only positive statements we have in this thread come from Dave or Janeth, who apparently know something that we don't, but cannot be asked to share with us the actual details. Now I believe that providing positive statements without proof is also called spreading rumours. And that's the reason I challenge anyone here who carries out such practice. Specially dave who as a moderator, should be very aware about the impact false statement can have on people unfamiliar with the topic and who could be tempted to trust whatever the moderator says. And I find it worrying that a second moderator such as yourself be ready to give credit to such practice, reinforcing the potential damage false statements are already causing. Unless we all agree that such practice should be discredited, and that since no proofs have been provided, we should stick to opinions rather than "facts (until someone comes actually with examples and facts)", I don't see how the debate can be healthy. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Let the on-topic discussion continue please.
__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Absent proof, I myself do not accept the claim that "bad" IBLs are catgorically "penalized." But, I do have an open mind. If someone can and will provide substantive proof of such, I will change my position. In the mean, for anyone to claim that we should just "take their word for it" is to not understand the concept of rationality.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is a difference between actively acquiring links and passively receiving such. One cannot logically conflate the two, and thereby conclude that the consequences of the latter are presumed to be those of the former.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
||||
|
Quote:
The issue here is the original question. Dave |
|
||||
|
That's an assumption, one which might hold true in some instances, but not necessarily in all, or even a majority of all instances.
And, to conclude that the default response from any SE is to deem any and all "suspicious" IBLs as being the product of an active effort to acquire such, and therefore subject all to a like "penalty," is likewise an assumption. Finally, there remains the issue of the form of the "penalty," as previously addressed by several; i.e., "zero value" vs "negative value."
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com Last edited by deepsand; 04-26-2008 at 09:09 PM. |
|
|||
|
Yes, many have been stung by hiring "directory submission firms" (master link farm promoters) for SEO purposes.
You all remember, send us $49.00 and we will submit your site to 2,000 directories !!!! |
|
||||
|
Quote:
The matter under discussion here is links which are passively acquired, by way of others making a unilateral decision to include an OBL pointing to you on their site.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
|||
|
I thought the title of the thread was "Can inbound links really hurt you"?
The answer is yes, for sure, they can hurt you, especially if you have 2,000 links with the same anchor text and they are all coming from link farm directories, guest books and other seedy pages. Last edited by AVC; 04-26-2008 at 09:23 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
All it see's is a pattern. The form of the penalty? I already posted what Google says they do in this thread so there is no issue there. Any SE? Cmon deepsand. All SE's do their own thing. The original question remains the same... Can inbound links really hurt you? My answer remains the same. Yes they can. No more, no less. I don't know why you want to spin this into something it's not. Dave |
|
|||
|
Google is smarter than you think, they have thought out all scenarios here, they see patterns in linking via sophisticated link mapping technologies that webmasters do not have, they can catch all reciprocal and triangular linking schemes easy, that is their business and they score sites depending on how many rules a webmaster breaks.
They know that in many cases webmasters reciprocate back to directories they used automated submission services with and this is how they can determine you purchased the service from a link farm or link broker or an "SEO professional". |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Were this the case, why has the net not yet erupted in total chaos, as everyone rushes to spam the sites of others, so as to cause them to be discredited? And, no, the OP's question was not about all IBLs in general, as indicated by himself both in his original post and several he later made. As jawn_tech asked at Can inbound links really hurt you? , are you talking about said "penalties" being the rule or the exception? If you mean the exception, then there is no disagreement.
__________________
The Penn State Ticket Man http://www.pennstateticketman.com http://www.happyvalleytickets.com http://www.hounddogtours.com Last edited by deepsand; 04-26-2008 at 10:10 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't how else I can put it deepsand. I've said it a few times now. Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Can you proof that it doesn't rain when the sun shines? Link paterns are like weather paterns. Based on a weather pattern you can say certain things, but it doesn't hold up every time. Link patern analysis is the same. There is no definite good link - bad link analysis any more. (except for some specific cases.). It's the pattern (behaviour if you like that word better) that is analized and based on that the Algorithms decide what to do. So it can happen that a link from site A to site B can have a negative result, while a link from site A to site C is fine. It's not about the links them selves, it's about the link patterns (or link profile.) If you had a talk in the train with a criminal, the police could think you´re a criminal too. But if it's just that one random talk with that one criminial because you happened to be in the same train, then you will not be investigated. However, if 80% of the people you talk with are criminals (including that one in the train) then the police will be investigating you. It's not about the individual incidents. It's about your general behaviour.
__________________
FREE SEO ! Really? YES! All you have to do is implement it! Follow me on Twitter PeterIMC |
|
|||
|
I have got my own little theory on the topic - it's called the "infinite loop" lol
|
|
|||
|
lol @ the drawing
the #2 post in that search are actually hiring their services to do it, albeit maybe tongue in cheek for publicity purposes, but am sure he'd have a crack at it for us if you really want to test it out? I know I wouldnt invite them to try on my sites...
__________________
Small Business Search Engine Optimisation Fitness Holidays Inmobiliaria Real Estate Ibiza Last edited by kevsta; 04-27-2008 at 05:46 AM. |
|
|||
|
Sometimes it only takes a little picture to get things moving
The Saboteurs Of Search - Forbes.com Which after reading stills looks pretty much like the picture! Quote:
Quote:
You end up in the same loop, with some SEO companies enjoying new ways to scam their clients with unprovable tactics. In the old days it was "we will submit your site to 1000s directories and website for a mere £3000". I am really swinging between the idea of taking the piss out of the scam, and playing along, the same way they do it on this forum, which at least is funny, or get out of the infinite loop and stop trying to fight a scam which even google find it hard to fight, or carry on arguing in this thread and break the record of the longest thread in history, never ending! Last edited by galide; 04-27-2008 at 06:48 AM. Reason: typo |
|
|||
|
you know, i see what you're saying, but isn't it rather like saying that since most hitmen will not discuss their crimes in detail, names, dates, places etc, the crimes more than likely dont happen, and assassinating people probably doesnt work anyway?
im also not reading that forum thread you linked as taking the pi$$? they sound like people who know what to do and how to do it, trying to resist the temptation to me.. |
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
lol are you just going to cartoon us into submission now?
they (Google) are hardly going to say: Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Selective quoting. You forgot a lot of Cutts words from that article: Quote:
Quote:
Of course, Matt can't prove it. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Take the example of Google bombing. Getting a website to rank for a keyword which is not even included in the actual page. This is possible, and very easy to verify. And whoever is sceptical about it can be pointed to Step 1: the methodology, such as Word Spy - Google bombing Step 2: an actual example (Google Kills Bush's Miserable Failure Search & Other Google Bombs) Step 3: Google does a public annoucement (Algorithm to reduce Googlebomb impact). We have not even reached step 1 for google bowling, which means that Google bowling is still at speculation stage. And until we have completed step 2, I don't see any point in trying to push positive statements forward. We could have the same debate about ghosts, UFOs, objective WPW moderators, etc .. you can try to prove that they exist, you can have your own opinion about the matter, but whoever says "I know that ghosts exist, you have to trust me" without providing any proof of what they are saying can be considered as a scammer. And the fact that scientists cannot answer the question about whether or not ghosts exist cannot be used as an argument really to prove their existence. Where are we now in the picture.. mmmh .. back to square one. I think we should get a post about "whatever you say is your own optinion, but as I said many times previously, inbound links CAN have a negative impact on websites, trust me I know" very soon... Last edited by galide; 04-27-2008 at 09:10 AM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
this is a possibility you should always consider too. personally i think you should drop the personal crusade on here and on your blog regarding WPW moderators, youre making yourself look a bit silly to be honest. The mods here may not be the world's most highly paid cutting edge SEO consultants (or they may be for all I know) but to the man they are solid, dependable, helpful, and very experienced guys, with the patience of saints. (i know i've tested it from time to time just think how much they see of it all, week in week out on here for years and years. the crap they have to put up with at times is hilarious really, considering they likely do it for no financial recompense (again speculation, but is usually the way) to help people. should we stick to the subject and stop having little digs at people?
__________________
Small Business Search Engine Optimisation Fitness Holidays Inmobiliaria Real Estate Ibiza Last edited by kevsta; 04-27-2008 at 10:02 AM. |
|
|||
|
Nothing wrong with challenging people kevsta, mods or not. Provided that we are all now trapped in the infinite loop of nonsense, maybe worth having just a little fun.
|
|
|||
|
lol. no youre right nothing wrong with challenging at all. ..its knowing exactly where a challenge turns into a crusade
..so what did you mean by "were not at step 1 with google bombing" ? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's an infinite loop for you galide... ![]() Dave Last edited by crankydave; 04-27-2008 at 11:30 AM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
We know the impact of Google bombing. by using the same keyword(s) again and again in your anchor text, you convince the search engines that the site should rank for these keywords. And if the competition is not very high, anchor text will be enough to get you to the top. We still don't even know what the impact of Google bowling would be. Loss of Pagerank power? disqualified for the keywords used in the anchor text? removal of the site from the Index? The actual theory is not even complete, nobody has put together a methodology to test it. And we are already talking about facts??? If someone finds the methodology, they will publish it on their blog, or site, or forum. This is what SEO is all about really. And this is why people like randfish are considered as great SEO - they manage to get huge visibility for themselves. And once you have got this exposure, all your clients can benefit from it. In short, if such methodology existed (not even an actual example), we would know about it, because people who have found it would see there a great opportunity to drive the spotlights on themselves. Until you have actually found a sound methodology and tested it, nothing prevents you form grabbing the spotlights though, raise awareness about the subject and start writing about it (you have provided the coin term, and a search for the term google bowling shows that a lot has been written about it). Even if it turns out to be not true, it was an opportunity to get something exciting to talk about it. It is probably a lot of time wasted trying to go against this stream, but I find it quite amazing that when you try to explain what is going on with simple words, you get a lot of resistance, and see people jumping on the wagon and throw out positive statements, just to bridge the gap between their own perceived value and their actual knowledge. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
My opinion is that in the absence of proof, the argument stating that inbound links can hurt a site doesn't stand. I will try again to understand what you are saying Dave. 1) Do you agree with me that as long as you cannot prove something, you cannot provide a positive statement about its existence, unless it is an act of faith. If not, you are wasting your time, and the time of others really 2) I believe that you don't want to waste your time here (and the time of others obviously), and that the reason why you provide a positive statement is because you have got the proof that inbound links can hurt a site. Am I correct? If I am, we can then stop all the crap and simply challenge you on what this proof is. Because if you cannot provide the proof we are back to square 1, which mean that you cannot provide a positive statement in the first place. |
|
|||
|
see that was a good post apart from the last paragraph so i'll just ignore that. edit - am referring to the post 2 above this one
with regards to google bowling these are obviously black hat activities? how many black hat seos are open and honest about what, where and how they do things? about as many as spies i should think. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Folks are constantly looking for, testing, experimenting, for the next thing that "works". The next thing they can "exploit". The next thing they can "take advantage of". I can assure you, when they find it, they don't run out and tell everybody they can just to get "in the "spotlight". Dave |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you don't take this factor on board, which is a human factor, you miss one of the main reason why scams such as this one can spread so easily. I remember 4 years ago having this exact same conversation about keywords density... and wasted a lot of time trying to convince people on the board (it was on SEOchat at the time) that it was nonsense. Keywords density scam was the exact same think. I should have learnt you will tell me, since I am falling in the same trap today Quote:
Last edited by galide; 04-27-2008 at 12:28 PM. Reason: fixed link |
|
||||
|
Quote:
While the expression is often used to describe an attempt to do something that can be perceived as "negative" (ie miserable failure), the same type of "idea" can be used to simply "bludgeon" yourself up in the rankings. Dave |
|
|||
|
Funny, I typed "301 hijacking" in google and posted the first link available in google. Turns out to be an article spreading rumours about "Spammy Link Buying" as they call it as well as explaining what 301 hijacking.
Let's give them the credit for that and keep the link, they fooled the fool, but here is an other link a bit more "reliable", in case some jump on the opportunity to justify their statement by quoting the page about "Spammy Link Buying": Revisiting Hijacking & Redirects: Moving To A Solution [SearchEngineWatch] |
|
||||
|
Not sure what point you're trying to make galide.
The discussions on whether or not IBL's can hurt you is certainly not an new one. Here's some other opinions... Outsource Link Building? - Search Engine Watch Forums A couple of quotes from there... Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
And for the sake of discussion, let's throw this into the mix as well...
Trusted vs Untrusted Links : SEO Book.com From there... Quote:
Quote:
Dave |
|
|||
|
Please Dave, I am reading all your post in details before I dare challenging you. May I ask you to do the same, in order to avoid having to repeat myself.
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Check out how many posts are available about keywords density Dave btw
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
You call it "bowling"? lol Dave |
|
|||
|
lol, yes I do.
Worth the read How bloggers game Google, before you take these guys too seriously and state things true only based in the trust you have got in your "peers". Eric Ward is obviously more credible, and quoting him Quote:
Nothing prevents you from relying on someone else's opinion to take a position yourself, and relying on what Eric Ward says is a good bet. But even him, who is as you pointed out a "links expert" would not take the risk to say something like: Quote:
Last edited by galide; 04-27-2008 at 03:00 PM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Small Business Search Engine Optimisation Fitness Holidays Inmobiliaria Real Estate Ibiza Last edited by kevsta; 04-27-2008 at 03:29 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Based solely on what I've read? I have already posted I know "first hand". I simply offered up some others who have either seen it done (Aaron), or "know it can happen" (Eric). You've already called me and another member of this community "liars". Is Aaron a liar too? Just making it up as well? How about Eric? Making stuff up? AFAIC you've been, and continue to be, way out of bounds on this galide. You want to disagree... fine. You want to insist it can't happen... also fine. You want to not believe a single word or take it with grain of salt... fine too. Dave Last edited by crankydave; 04-27-2008 at 03:58 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Dave Last edited by crankydave; 04-27-2008 at 03:57 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Here is what I know about first hand.
A site was ranking in the top ten for a certain keyword (the site is not mine nor a client of mine, I can not list the site because I was told in confidence about the site) the site owner wanted to be higher up on the page. The page was optimized for the search engines as far as it could go. They put a very high pr link to the site and the site dropped out of the search engines for that keyword. They removed the link and the site reappeared. They posted about it in a private discussion and then replaced the link and once again the site disappeared then they removed the link and it reappeared. It was a very long thread and I am not going to go back and read through it but from what I remember the site had a low pr and the site linking to it had a pr higher than 6. Had the link been left there maybe it would have eventually reappeared. But most people would rather not do testing on a clients site. I also read on some other forums where some people where testing the Google bowling thing and was having a lot of fun knocking sites out of the search engines. But none of them were high pr sites. I think it would only work on a low pr site. My two cents. |
|
||||
|
Should the topic of this thread be changed to:
"The infinite loop of noise without proof around kgun's theory of IBL's." P.S. For those of you that still do not understand the difference between:
__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips Learn object oriented programming where it started Last edited by kgun; 04-27-2008 at 05:27 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 |