Can inbound links really hurt you?

[AVC]

Page rank is one of over 100 factors used to determine how sites rank in the SERP's, read up on it, this is an old topic going back to 2003 kids.

Start reading here

Page Rank fanaticism and focusing on it actually can hurt webmasters when they chase it, make your sites for the users and quit your worries about PR and you will be much better off in the end, buying high PR links and trading links to garner PR will actually harm you and is against G's guidelines.

Matt Cutts on the 100 factors Google uses in ranking websites for the SERP's

[inertia]

Originally Posted by AVC

Page rank is one of over 100 factors used to determine how sites rank in the SERP's, read up on it, this is an old topic going back to 2003 kids.

Cheers for the explanation of what PageRank is kid. Id almost forgotten! One correction though, it goes further back than 2003, more like 2001 when the pagerank patent was granted.

Originally Posted by AVC

Page Rank fanaticism and focusing on it actually can hurt webmasters when they chase it, make your sites for the users and quit your worries about PR and you will be much better off in the end, buying high PR links and trading links to garner PR will actually harm you and is against G's guidelines.

Thanks for that, but its got absolutely nothing to do with this thread...

By the way...dont pull on supermans cape!

[AVC]

Don't go loony on us man, get real and have a nice day !!!

[deepsand]

Re. "Simple and irrefutable 'PROOF' has been provided ":

"I'm reliable sources, I'll tell ya anything you want me to know." -- Tom Waits

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Inbound links can hurt if they are irrelevant. Thats it. No more comments

Proof, please.

BTW, you may want to read the published algorithm that defines Page Rank, giving particular attention to the facts that 1) it's essentially a "voting system," one with weighted votes, and 2) the lowest weight given any vote is zero.

[Feydakin]

There is no where in the published algorithms that says they will hand job your site for selling links either..

[Terry Van Horne]

Yeah... and back then that published pageRank algo paper indicated they counted every link... recip unrelated or otherwise... to think that paper is very relevant today is IMO, a giant leap of faith, it is relevant only in that it was a starting point but... lots has changed and that could include the zero value since back then they pretty much did penalties with hand jobs and all or nothing banning.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

There is no where in the published algorithms that says they will hand job your site for selling links either..

There are an infinite no. of things not mentioned in the algorithm in question; does that mean that it is invalid, irrelevant, inconsequential or otherwise immaterial?

Or, might it simply be that 1) all algorithms deal with a specific set of conditions, and 2) any given system may comprise of multiple algorithms?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Yeah... and back then that published pageRank algo paper indicated they counted every link... recip unrelated or otherwise... to think that paper is very relevant today is IMO, a giant leap of faith, it is relevant only in that it was a starting point but... lots has changed and that could include the zero value since back then they pretty much did penalties with hand jobs and all or nothing banning.

It must be borne in mind that the PR algorithm is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.

Said algorithm, as published, remains mathematically sound regardless of what other algorithmic and/or non-algorithmic processes are employed by said engines.

[Feydakin]

It must be borne in mind that the PR algorithm is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.

Then why did you site it like it supported your argument??

mmmmm, smells like breakfast in here and I love waffles..

[AVC]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Yeah... and back then that published pageRank algo paper indicated they counted every link... recip unrelated or otherwise... to think that paper is very relevant today is IMO, a giant leap of faith, it is relevant only in that it was a starting point but... lots has changed and that could include the zero value since back then they pretty much did penalties with hand jobs and all or nothing banning.

Exactly, and Google is not telling webmasters what they do or the changes they make, it is in their interest to keep SEO's off balance, especially Black Hat SEO's.

Today there are a lot more webmasters following Google guidelines, many of them are also looking over their shoulder a hell of a lot more since the spam reporting form was introduced to the webmaster community in regard to reporting shady webmasters and link brokers.

Your friend of today may be your enemy tomorrow in the new environment.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Then why did you site it like it supported your argument??

mmmmm, smells like breakfast in here and I love waffles..

The PR algorithm cited does explicitly support the premise that there is no negative PR value; the lowest value employed in it is zero.

[Feydakin]

So you are using selective examples, in a vacuum to try to support your point?? In one post you use the patent algo to support your view yet in another post you say "is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.". When the topic is not the math of the algo, but whether someone can hurt your website by pointing links at it..

I'm done playing, you are boring and can't put together a well supported, logical, explanation, and conveniently ignore things that don't support your point of view, like my post explaining a possible way of harming a website that I see you choose to pretend does not exist..

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

So you are using selective examples, in a vacuum to try to support your point?? In one post you use the patent algo to support your view yet in another post you say "is not the sum total of either Google's indexing or search results display engines.". When the topic is not the math of the algo, but whether someone can hurt your website by pointing links at it..

Precisely where is there any logical contradiction in my statements?

Said algorithm provides an explicitly stated premise that contradicts the claim of a "penalty," i.e. of a "negative" value being assigned to "bad" IBLs.

To return to an election as analogy, votes cast by "dead" persons are given no weight; they do not result in any legitimate votes being taken away from any candidate.

To make a very fine point of it, a "Zero" value does not constitute a "penalty."

Therefore, any such "penalty" that might accrue must lie outside of said algorithm. And, as Google has provided no substantive definitive statement to support the claim that such has ever occurred or might occur, the claim requires empirical evidence of its having occurred.

While there have been claims to such effect, but no supporting data has been presented, the only "evidence" for such is anecdotal, which does not serve as substantive proof.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I'm done playing, you are boring and can't put together a well supported, logical, explanation, and conveniently ignore things that don't support your point of view, like my post explaining a possible way of harming a website that I see you choose to pretend does not exist..

As I and others have previously stated, the only effect that can be predicted is that the PR value passed from the "bad" sites via IBLs is zero. Therefore, your question has already been answered.

[AVC]

Deepsand, have you heard of Google's spam reporting form that they request webmasters use to report paid links directly to the Google anti-spam team ??

Are these incoming links that may hurt a website or get it deindexed ??

Can you answer the original question instead of trying to convert the thread into a PR analysis thread ??

[Varshen]

From Reading Every Post on this topic i see that
noone knows how google ranks pages.

[kgun]

It started here.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Can IBL's hurt you? The short answer is yes. I've see it happen first hand. This is why it's important to build and establish a solid link profile from the very beginning. Don't look at the individual links and don't worry about them. Remember, it's the effect of the aggregate.

Dave

Originally Posted by deepsand

If not "probability" then what? Absent 0 < P(X) < 1, all that remains is P(X) = 0 and P(X) = 1, which are "certainties." In that case, either the event in question is certain to not occur or certain to occur, respectively.

I do not believe that you are arguing for the latter; and, I know that I am not arguing for the former. Therefore, we are indeed speaking of "probabilities."

And, to say that something is improbable is not to say that it is impossible.



Firstly, as earlier stated, the taking away of that which was never rightly gained is not a penalty, but simply the restoration of equity. In the case at hand, a true penalty would be to incur the effects of a negative PR, as opposed to a zero PR, being passed.

Secondly, given that we are speaking here of practical matters, not abstract or theoretical ones, and that the preponderance of empirical evidence gives no sign of a negative PR being in play, then, from a practical stand point, my statement cited by you is correct.

That is an exact description that has not been answered.