Links-Do they have too much weight?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Dave, I agree and that's why I've been posting on this topic. IMO, there is a lot of misleading information being spread by a few who have been posting here and in the Google webmaster blog discussion as well. IMO, Google does everyone a big favor by just saying "the W3C nofollow definition is the best guide". One sentence and then it's not about paid but whether authors' are "voting" or selling ads or both. I have mixed feelings because I can take either side of the "Google is killing competition" or trying to protect relevancy. If they took the W3C path then much of this discussion is moot. It's all pretty straight forward and the guidelines are IMO, crystal clear!

Source:Can inbound links really hurt you?

<rant>
A majority of what's placed a "bur under my saddle" about all of it, including Google's stance, is guess what, not my job. If your business model doesn't work the way you want it to, change it. Don't expect me to change mine so it does. It's not my job to "code" anything to satisfy a business model that is not mine.

Business models need to adapt the environment. Trying to change the environment so it meets the business model is destined to fail.

Voting? Only if someone places some kind of "value" in what they consider a "vote". When they place a lot of "value" in a "vote" then perhaps they should look harder at not only that "value" but what they freely choose to place value in and/or on. If they can't do that without me telling them so, there's a problem with them, not me.

SE's are not the end user. They are the middleman. If the information they are providing to the end user is somehow "tainted" or "misleading" then they need to change how they evalute and present the data and NOT try and change the data they are evaluating so that their model works the way they want it to.

Any company that comes to me and says... "Dave, the way you are conducting your business is hampering the way way we are conducting ours. We're not going to change the way we do business so you'll have change the way you do yours or else" is not likely to get a "blue sky and sunshine" response from me.

How about if SE's place zero value on links? Then there's no concerns at all with me having to tell them. How about if I get to tell the SE's just how much value they should place? They (one in particular) need me to tell them what links to place no "value" on how about how much value to place on the rest? Should I really have to tell them that an empty shopping cart is a really shi**y page to include in a search result or index in the first place? They can't figure that out on their own?
<rant>

Dave

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by crankydave

How about if SE's place zero value on links?

Be careful what you wish for! Link analysis was the single biggest innovation the search industry has seen in the 15 yrs. I've been doing this. PPC was big in that it solved the monetization issue, not the search quality issues. Links were citation/votes when Google released the algo that changed the net. People linked to stuff or research that mattered to their users (endorsements), not, because they were manipulating a SE algo. Googles problem up until recently was the link analysis seemed to be the whole algo to many SEOs. Now, that analysis IMO, is not so much evident in the blended results. I agree with Mike Grehan and believe in a few years that a lot of SEO will be very ineffective. I don't agree with him on the SEO Textbook being obsolete... just the chapters on reciprocal linking, linking schemes and other linking techniques more suited to the promotion 101 book. SE's will IMO, always be weighting Titles, copy and other appropriate on page "elements" because that is the core of relevancy, the rest is a crapshoot and will always be a moving target because of unwanted manipulation by the tykes who'd rather build a crappy brochure site and link the crap out of it rather than building something that actually deserves to be in the top position because of the content.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Be careful what you wish for! Link analysis was the single biggest innovation the search industry has seen in the 15 yrs. I've been doing this. PPC was big in that it solved the monetization issue, not the search quality issues. Links were citation/votes when Google released the algo that changed the net. People linked to stuff or research that mattered to their users (endorsements), not, because they were manipulating a SE algo. Googles problem up until recently was the link analysis seemed to be the whole algo to many SEOs. Now, that analysis IMO, is not so much evident in the blended results. I agree with Mike Grehan and believe in a few years that a lot of SEO will be very ineffective. I don't agree with him on the SEO Textbook being obsolete... just the chapters on reciprocal linking, linking schemes and other linking techniques more suited to the promotion 101 book. SE's will IMO, always be weighting Titles, copy and other appropriate on page "elements" because that is the core of relevancy, the rest is a crapshoot and will always be a moving target because of unwanted manipulation by the tykes who'd rather build a crappy brochure site and link the crap out of it rather than building something that actually deserves to be in the top position because of the content.

I can't agree entirely.

Once upon a time it was webrings. Sites linking with the right sites for the right reasons. You can throw directories in the mix as well. Links to drive targeted traffic from targeted sites. Along came Google and their heavily weighted link analysis, which by the way they claimed could not be spammed, and the sh** hit the fan. Let's also not forget that at that time the ability to place links at all was very limited and those with that ability had just been handed a real reason to place them above and beyond an "endorsement" on a silver platter. What "mattered" had just been drastically changed.

The problem as I see it is not in the links but in their analysis and weighting. Fine... analize and weight what you want. That's entirely up to them. That's their business model. The very basis for their existance. Expecting the web to weight links for them (ie nofollow on paid links) without being very precise in exactly everything they want weighted and in every instance is destined to fail. Needing the web to to "manipulate" the data for them so that their business model works the way they want it to is a recipe for disaster IMO.

All this approach serves to do is drive those intent on SE manipulation underground making them even better at what their trying to accomplish and harder to find. Isn't this what their really after? The folks they "catch" or "comply" are either being extremely transparent, not really intent on maniplation in the first place, or simply don't know. I suspect the latter is by far the larger group.

As I see it, a SE does very basically 3 things...

1. Collect data.
2. Analize that data.
3. Produce a set of results based upon that analysis.

If your business model is not is not meeting your expectations in regards to #3 above, you change #2 until it does. You don't try and get millions of people to manipulate the data you are collecting in the first place to try and meet the expectations of the end result of your business model.

Let's face it, all links are intended to "manipulate". Whether that be the end user or the middleman. They are indended to "manipulate someone or something" into going to or discovering what you want them to. How much "weight" is placed on links beyond that is up to the individual "someone" or "something".

If you're interested, I blogged about this back in December...

Google on Paid Links - Destined to Fail

FTR... I do not buy nor sell Search Engine Value. People who link to and from the the right sites for the right reasons will always be fine whether of not a SE exists or whether or not a link carries any additional "weight" beyond the ability to be followed so long as the "web" exists.

Dave

[AVC]

Trusted links should carry a lot of weight with Google and they do, I had a well known influential technology executive link to one of my forums and we rank for that term based on the keywords he used in his anchor text, and that is just from one quality trusted link.

It is all about the profile Google builds not only on the website linking to you, but now Google is building profiles on webmasters also, so try to keep this in mind, that all your sites and your trail on the web is quite important, your name means a lot and your history is going to determine what your name is worth down the road.

If you want to protect your name and websites integrity (reputation with Google), use no follow on links contributed by the public, and don't give an editorial link out unless you believe in it and endorse what you are writing about.

Google is making webmasters and their reputations part of the search algo's and if you want your work to show up in Google, clean up your act and follow their guidelines.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by AVC

Trusted links should carry a lot of weight with Google and they do, I had a well known influential technology executive link to one of my forums and we rank for that term based on the keywords he used in his anchor text, and that is just from one quality trusted link.

It is all about the profile Google builds not only on the website linking to you, but now Google is building profiles on webmasters also, so try to keep this in mind, that all your sites and your trail on the web is quite important, your name means a lot and your history is going to determine what your name is worth down the road.

If you want to protect your name and websites integrity (reputation with Google), use no follow on links contributed by the public, and don't give an editorial link out unless you believe in it and endorse what you are writing about.

Google is making webmasters and their reputations part of the search algo's and if you want your work to show up in Google, clean up your act and follow their guidelines.

I had pleasure in adding to your rep points. An excellent post and one which I agree wholeheartedly.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by AVC

If you want to protect your name and websites integrity (reputation with Google), use no follow on links contributed by the public, and don't give an editorial link out unless you believe in it and endorse what you are writing about.

A cite from Ibsen freely translated to English may be in place.

"Don't go with the ideal demad to the best".

Originally Posted by AVC

Google is making webmasters and their reputations part of the search algo's and if you want your work to show up in Google, clean up your act and follow their guidelines.

Is that the reason why non proprietary software like Linux, PHP, MySQL and Apache are so popular?

Any company can set standards, and if they are good they may be followed in the end, but not necessarily (I remember a story with Big Blue and OS/II that run multiple versions of windows better than windows. And a lot meant it was a better OS. But the market wanted the underdog, Microsofts solution.

I still mean that it is nearly impossible for a BOT to identify the agenda behind (no)followed links. IMO guidelines are guidelines and not rules.

So if Newton lived today and did not follw Google's rules, his writings would not be found on the Google SERP's?

May be more people would follow Newton's articles than follow Google's guidelines

Even worse, so few know the guidelines.

The best Guideline I think Google can follow is their claim to: Not be eveil.

That is difficult enough. With power follows responsibility.

[AVC]

SEO today = following Google webmaster guidelines !!

That is why they started webmaster central, to educate webmasters, that is why they created all the webmaster tools also.

Go to Google college to learn proper SEO, you don't need to go to any of the conferences and pay because it is all at Google now days.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by AVC

SEO today = following Google webmaster guidelines !!

You may get most output from your SEO input if you go there today.

How many university professors writing content for the web do you think go there?

[AVC]

Google sends over 90% of organic search traffic to many sites, mine included, so you would have to be a fool of an SEO to break their guidelines if this is the case.

[kgun]

Do you know their Guidelines? Do they know them theirself?

I know one from Matt Cutts mouth: "Make pages primarily for users and not just for users."

[AVC]

Google guidelines are common sense, it helps to know the technical details though.

One common sense guideline is not to allow your sites to become a platform for scams and spammers to use, this happens when you allow folks to comment spam your pages.

What if WPW quit watching things and spam botnets started posting online pharmacy links all day long here, do you think Google would allow WPW to retain their PR or that Google trustrank would place value on this forum any longer ?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by AVC

Trusted links should carry a lot of weight with Google and they do, I had a well known influential technology executive link to one of my forums and we rank for that term based on the keywords he used in his anchor text, and that is just from one quality trusted link.

What makes them trusted in the first place? Links? Power/influence? Size? Money? Marketshare? The information they provide? If it's the information then why weight links in the first place?

Originally Posted by AVC

It is all about the profile Google builds not only on the website linking to you, but now Google is building profiles on webmasters also, so try to keep this in mind, that all your sites and your trail on the web is quite important, your name means a lot and your history is going to determine what your name is worth down the road.

Don't neccessarily disagree. But don't you think the group you are labeling "webmaster" is a very small portion? Not to mention the "professional" portion. What about "John Q Public"?

Originally Posted by AVC

If you want to protect your name and websites integrity (reputation with Google), use no follow on links contributed by the public, and don't give an editorial link out unless you believe in it and endorse what you are writing about.

Can't agree with this at all. Doesn't what the public thinks matter? Matter a lot? Isn't this part of the very definition of "natural"? Since when should the opinion of "the public" not matter? That is exactly what they want and what they should value. The opinions, thoughts, and "endoresements" of anyone who gives it freely. Blogs opened a whole new means for the average person to say what they'd like to say and "endorse" what they wish. Suggesting they and all of their participants "should count" or be prevented from "counting" takes us back to the very beginning when the only people who could "voice" an "opinion" were few AND had personal gains to do so.

Let's take your suggestion to the nth degree... No links count unless you place them yourself on your own property. Not a single link from a forum, blog, news aggreator, counts unless the site owner themself place it and only on their own site. Thats about the most manipulative thing I can think of. He who has the most sites and the most pages wins. Internal navigation and linking to yourself trumps everything.

Originally Posted by AVC

Google is making webmasters and their reputations part of the search algo's and if you want your work to show up in Google, clean up your act and follow their guidelines.

Unless you call every single owner of a blog, site, page a "webmaster" and unless each and everyone of them are aware of the "guidelines" or even particularly care and/or know they exist, this simply isn't enough. Google needs to find and implement solutions themselves and not rely on millions of other people to do it for them.

Dave

[AVC]

Google is doing it with automation Dave, your reputation is part of the score or input just like Page Rank is a part of the algo.

I run a small blog network and it is filled with spam (I try to delete them as fast as spammers make them, but like Blogger is filled with splogs.....) as "so called SEO's" make blogs with tons of links pointing to their pages, this sort of thing is out of control, Google only indexes a small percentage of these "Blogs", the rest are moved to the invisible supplemental index. Maybe the solution is to create a blog network with "no follow" as default !!!

I wrote one blog on the network and Google indexed it simply because it was not filled with outgoing links and it was original content, but I can tell you that 98% of the blogs on that free blog network will never see the light of day because of the way people put them up.

[Terry Van Horne]

Why did webring quality wane as more sites were added? Because they became a promotion vehicle and those running the rings didn't vet the participants. Quality of experience goes down and webrings are history or at least out of favor as a promotion vehicle because users started associating the experience with the technique ie: webrings are bunch of crap strung together.

Dave, I don't think we disagree on much. I agree the algo is/was wacked or at the very least short sighted. I have watched Google chasing their tail on this one for years. Starting with reciprocal links which they went to extremes when all they really needed to do was have reciprocal links cancel one another out.

I pretty much agree that we shouldn't have to use nofollow, however, given the choice... then I can place ads I don't neccessarily endorse on a site and a user can find that out by checking my code. That makes sense! Now you have people manipulating PR with it nofollow on internal pages obviously OK with Google but contrary to nofollow's proper use! That I have a big problem with.

When Google tries to change things to their benefit only then... it's BS and we should be crying foul! Problem is most of the herd just follow the guys who do the SE's bidding and proclaim that a wiki should nofollow links because thery can be used to spam! That's complete horse manure and just doing the SE's job for it. Wikis and webmasters should not be scolded for making choices that are theirs to make... not SEs when they start changing our methods then someone is going to a place they have no business being in. If the SE chooses to penalize the site well... fine but we don't need to be pointing fingers and saying all wikis should use nofollow!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Why did webring quality wane as more sites were added? Because they became a promotion vehicle and those running the rings didn't vet the participants. Quality of experience goes down and webrings are history or at least out of favor as a promotion vehicle because users started associating the experience with the technique ie: webrings are bunch of crap strung together.

When? When "search" became a vehicle AND links were given more value above and beyond the simple ability to be followed. This is what spawned a "bunch of crap strung together" across the web and not just webrings.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Dave, I don't think we disagree on much. I agree the algo is/was wacked or at the very least short sighted. I have watched Google chasing their tail on this one for years. Starting with reciprocal links which they went to extremes when all they really needed to do was have reciprocal links cancel one another out.

No, we really don't.

I don't see reciprocal links "cancelling" each other as an option though. There are always "good" reasons for reciprocally. If links command value, there's no reason to remove that "value" simply because a link is reciprocated. If a business makes custom guitars and happens to link to a company that manufactures the strings that the believe to be the best for their guitars, why should a link back to them such as "Preferred strings for..." or the like, be worth nothing?

What if CNN writes a story on a particular company? Should that company receive nothing if they link back to the CNN story?

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I pretty much agree that we shouldn't have to use nofollow, however, given the choice... then I can place ads I don't neccessarily endorse on a site and a user can find that out by checking my code. That makes sense! Now you have people manipulating PR with it nofollow on internal pages obviously OK with Google but contrary to nofollow's proper use! That I have a big problem with.

Nofollow has evolved into something very different from its original intent. The problem I have is that it is simply not a solution. It is an attempt to externally manipulate the data being collected in order for their analysis to provide their desired results. When your "product" is reliant upon external resources being provided by millions (billions?) of places, trying to manipulate all those sources in order for your analysis to provide your "preferred" results is like pushing a string.

How many of those "resources" simply don't know they need to tell them? How many of those "resources" were just told flat out "We can't do this ourselves, you need to do it for us"? Now ask yourself whether or not it's the ones that are really not intending to try and manipulate or the ones intent on manipulation that are really going to listen of those that actually know

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

When Google tries to change things to their benefit only then... it's BS and we should be crying foul! Problem is most of the herd just follow the guys who do the SE's bidding and proclaim that a wiki should nofollow links because thery can be used to spam! That's complete horse manure and just doing the SE's job for it. Wikis and webmasters should not be scolded for making choices that are theirs to make... not SEs when they start changing our methods then someone is going to a place they have no business being in. If the SE chooses to penalize the site well... fine but we don't need to be pointing fingers and saying all wikis should use nofollow!

Google doesn't do anything they don't believe isn't going to benefit them. They are a business and that's their ultimate goal. Anything done at their "insistance" is for their benefit. The problem is that "they" are not trying to do it. If they were, I'd really have no problem with it whether or not I agreed with it. "They" are "insisting" it be done for them.

I'm not saying I do or don't agree with what they're trying to do. Their business, their business model, their choice. Any company should be diligently trying to provide the best "product" they possibly can IMO. They should be trying to "outperform" their competition. I take issue with the "how" and not neccessarily the "why"?

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Be careful what you wish for!

Amen.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Link analysis was the single biggest innovation the search industry has seen in the 15 yrs. I've been doing this. PPC was big in that it solved the monetization issue, not the search quality issues. Links were citation/votes when Google released the algo that changed the net. People linked to stuff or research that mattered to their users (endorsements), not, because they were manipulating a SE algo.

That's not how I remember it. When I first learned SEO, Alta Vista was the biggest game in town. One of the things we were taught in an online SEO class I took was to exchange links to affect how Alta Vista saw us ... it was not just for traffic.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by crankydave

When? When "search" became a vehicle AND links were given more value above and beyond the simple ability to be followed. This is what spawned a "bunch of crap strung together" across the web and not just webrings."?

Agreed, there is some of that but... IMO, those days are gone because that has taken it's course in the same way the webrings did. IMO, Google is on top of users expectations so it's SERPs rule... the rest... not so much and that is reflected in market penetration.

Originally Posted by crankydave

a business makes custom guitars and happens to link to a company that manufactures the strings that the believe to be the best for their guitars, why should a link back to them such as "Preferred strings for..." or the like, be worth nothing?

What if CNN writes a story on a particular company? Should that company receive nothing if they link back to the CNN story?"

Agreed, intent of the link is the important factor and why general guidelines and general statements will never be a good way to discern intent or value using the spirit/function of links between sites as citations... giving them value is important to just ignore them is in no ones interest, then again, weighting them as heavily as Google were... was obviously not the best solution either. IMO, Google is evolving and I think we will see that link weightings will change or be diluted by newer "Social/behavioural" data. Blended Search is IMO, expanding from the roughly 50% it was a few months ago to something much higher. You see it in the number of one boxes and videos. Audio/Video medias are, IMO, the things to watch going forward.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Nofollow has evolved into something very different from its original intent. The problem I have is that it is simply not a solution. It is an attempt to externally manipulate the data being collected in order for their analysis to provide their desired results..

Personally I don't think paid links affects Google results that much! A lot of the links that should be "nofollowed" IMO, Google already was handling a lot of it. To the degree that it enables me to tell G the directories we linked to we aren't endorsing... it is a solution, to the fact that the opaque explaination mixed up people and people think we could harm them, it is a problem. So, IMO, it's the way the info was diseminated, not neccessarily a bad solution.

Originally Posted by crankydave

Google doesn't do anything they don't believe isn't going to benefit them. They are a business and that's their ultimate goal. Anything done at their "insistance" is for their benefit.

That's true most of the time. The blogger paid posting was IMO, a user issue as much as a Google issue and a catalyst to the "paid link" debate. That is misleading to users when they don't know bloggers are being paid directly for a post. That not only is a Google issue it's a huge user issue.

Originally Posted by crankydave

I take issue with the "how" and not neccessarily the "why"?

Agreed, there should be a limit to the influence they have over webmasters and for me this was "my line in the sand".

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

One of the things we were taught in an online SEO class I took was to exchange links to affect how Alta Vista saw us ... it was not just for traffic.

Pre Google as I remember only webcrawler used links in ranking, and even that would have been put in the context of questionable rather than a definitive fact. IMO, links have always helped crawling engines find you but back in the pre google days you were further ahead to submit new pages as the following links behaviour of crawlers and the frequency of crawl were very poor.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC
Google is making webmasters and their reputations part of the search algo's and if you want your work to show up in Google, clean up your act and follow their guidelines.


Come on that's a stretch... whois info I'd say yeah but webmasters In most cases are nothing more then an email address of webmaster @ ahugemistake.com. Site owners, or rather any contact/owner in a domain registration... a possibility? IMO, very so... just lock you're whois records and see what happens if you are doing anything shady. I would argue you shouldn't be building sites based around or using Google or any SE guideline in the site development process. In 15 years I can name two times I've done anything just for SEs. On an ecom site a mfg insisted this long disclaimer with all these keywords that would do harm be included. My solution... put it in an iframe, everyone is happy and Google has a page it should ignore for a long time. I'll be adding "nofollow" to directories we've reviewed and don't endorse. That's it IMO, the problems start when you start thinking about or enabling SE to influence your decisions.

[incrediblehelp]

Looking at Google results it is VERY easy to see IBL's care to much weight in their algorithm

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kgun

Is that the reason why non proprietary software like Linux, PHP, MySQL and Apache are so popular?

Any company can set standards, and if they are good they may be followed in the end, but not necessarily.
Even worse, so few know the guidelines.

The best Guideline I think Google can follow is their claim to: Not be eveil.

That is difficult enough. With power follows responsibility.

The irony here is that while Google has championed the cause of "open source," and relied most heavily on it to build their success, their flagship product is so very much a proprietary one, one whose inner workings and hidden mechanisms are as carefully guarded as are Crown Jewels!

[deepsand]

The problem inherent in Page Rank is that it assumes that IBLs represent an objective measure of the worth of content; i.e., it assumes that the "voters" are making informed rational choices.

That such an assumption does not hold is evidenced every time a political election is held.

Just as electoral voters cannot know either all of the relevant facts about the candidates or what the consequences of a particular candidate's success or failure will bring, so to is it the case with those whose links are counted and used to determine PR.

The value of information cannot be determined by the application of "democracy." PR serves to provide, not what people need, but what Google thinks they want. By using the easy method of counting votes, Google bows to the tyrannies of majorities.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

The problem inherent in Page Rank is that it assumes that IBLs represent an objective measure of the worth of content; i.e., it assumes that the "voters" are making informed rational choices.

So why bother with elections just give everyone a gun and the last man/woman standing is President.

I would say back in the days PR was conceived there was no reason to give a link unless it was a vote/citation/endorsement of content. There was no other reason to do it... Google made that happen with the link weighting in the algo. Remember back then the theory was you didn't link to anyone because they would just take the visitor away from your site. No one or hardly anyone exchanged links to manipulate SEs.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I would say back in the days PR was conceived there was no reason to give a link unless it was a vote/citation/endorsement of content. There was no other reason to do it... Google made that happen with the link weighting in the algo. Remember back then the theory was you didn't link to anyone because they would just take the visitor away from your site. No one or hardly anyone exchanged links to manipulate SEs.

In academia it can be presumed that citations of other works are of those whose content is directly related to the citing presentation. And, in the early day of the web, perhaps that same presumption held, such that OBLs then were generally to sites whose content was either supplementary or complementary to the citing site.

However, with the advent of personal web sites in general, and blogs and social sites in particular, such presumption most definitely does not hold; the notion that "there (is) no reason to give a link unless it was a vote/citation/endorsement of content" has given way to "anything goes," even in the absence of attempts at manipulating search results.

In fact, a very large portion of OBLs are today [b]not for[b/] the purpose of providing the visitor with substantive verifiable content that serves to benefit that visitor, but rather as dis-benefit to the subject of the cited content and/or its publisher.

The PR algorithm works very nicely for academic publications, where rationalism generally holds. In the remainder of the world, where irrationality holds sway, it has no validity over and beyond providing some measure of an aggregate of "popularity" and "notoriety."

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I would say back in the days PR was conceived there was no reason to give a link unless it was a vote/citation/endorsement of content. There was no other reason to do it... Google made that happen with the link weighting in the algo. Remember back then the theory was you didn't link to anyone because they would just take the visitor away from your site. No one or hardly anyone exchanged links to manipulate SEs.

In academia it can be presumed that citations of other works are of those whose content is directly related to the citing presentation. And, in the early day of the web, perhaps that same presumption held, such that OBLs then were generally to sites whose content was either supplementary or complementary to the citing site.

However, with the advent of personal web sites in general, and blogs and social sites in particular, such presumption most definitely does not hold; the notion that "there (is) no reason to give a link unless it was a vote/citation/endorsement of content" has given way to "anything goes," even in the absence of attempts at manipulating search results.

In fact, a very large portion of OBLs are today not for the purpose of providing the visitor with substantive verifiable content that serves to benefit that visitor, but rather as dis-benefit to the subject of the cited content and/or its publisher.

The PR algorithm works very nicely for academic publications, where rationalism generally holds. In the remainder of the world, where irrationality holds sway, it has no validity over and beyond providing some measure of an aggregate of "popularity" and "notoriety."

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

In academia it can be presumed that citations of other works are of those whose content is directly related to the citing presentation. And, in the early day of the web, perhaps that same presumption held, such that OBLs then were generally to sites whose content was either supplementary or complementary to the citing site.

Were you developing websites pre Google? I preceded Google by 3 or 4 yrs. and know that was much the case for me and most of the webmasters I knew. There was no benefit to link for other than the right reasons. There was nothing to manipulate which IMO, is the chink in the PR algo which Authority and trustrank manage more recently.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Were you developing websites pre Google? I preceded Google by 3 or 4 yrs. and know that was much the case for me and most of the webmasters I knew. There was no benefit to link for other than the right reasons. There was nothing to manipulate which IMO, is the chink in the PR algo which Authority and trustrank manage more recently.

The ability to manipulate is not the fundamental flaw, but rather an artifact resulting from such flaw, a flaw that remains despite Authority and TrustRank.

To return to the analogy of voting, the PR algorithm presumes that links are knowingly and intentionally votes cast for something; in fact, such votes may actually be against something, or simply cast at random, i.e., with no intent to actually vote for or against the recipient.

Therefore, even absent intent to manipulate the results, the vote tally is no more than a total of votes cast for some reason.

Neither Authority nor TrustRank can divine that reason.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

The ability to manipulate is not the fundamental flaw, but rather an artifact resulting from such flaw, a flaw that remains despite Authority and TrustRank..

I disagree I would argue Google changed the bahaviour from links were citations meant to enhance the user experience not manipulate SE's. Why do all that work if all the useless links did was waste disk space and necessitate more vigilence to monitor. I can show you articles that addressed that in particular written back in that time period. That was the behaviour Google counted on for their link algo to work. My point was they likely never expected it to influence the behviour, which, IMO is not really a flaw "It's just the way she goes" where internet marketing is concerned.

Originally Posted by deepsand

To return to the analogy of voting, the PR algorithm presumes that links are knowingly and intentionally votes cast for something; in fact, such votes may actually be against something, or simply cast at random, i.e., with no intent to actually vote for or against the recipient..

Then why link? If there's no incentive why would a webmaster do it? The only reason would be to say...hey I like this stuff here, or my friends site is... or I used this document in my research... a citation. If I used vote anywhere that is not a term I use now. You're right about votes, however, not citations or the use of "nofollow" to endorse a citation. Those are pretty straight forward and put the responsibility where it belongs with the authors who do know their intent beyond a doubt.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepsand
The ability to manipulate is not the fundamental flaw, but rather an artifact resulting from such flaw, a flaw that remains despite Authority and TrustRank..

I disagree I would argue Google changed the bahaviour from links were citations meant to enhance the user experience not manipulate SE's. Why do all that work if all the useless links did was waste disk space and necessitate more vigilence to monitor. I can show you articles that addressed that in particular written back in that time period. That was the behaviour Google counted on for their link algo to work. My point was they likely never expected it to influence the behviour, which, IMO is not really a flaw "It's just the way she goes" where internet marketing is concerned.

As noted previously, the PR algorithm modeled an academic ideal, based on the below re-published presumption, which does not hold true in the real world. The flaw was in making such presumption.

Hyper-links were designed for users, not SEs. For SEs to begin using them for their own purposes, and not foresee that users would in turn seek to game the system, is to have been shortsighted.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepsand
To return to the analogy of voting, the PR algorithm presumes that links are knowingly and intentionally votes cast for something; in fact, such votes may actually be against something, or simply cast at random, i.e., with no intent to actually vote for or against the recipient..


Then why link? If there's no incentive why would a webmaster do it? The only reason would be to say...hey I like this stuff here, or my friends site is... or I used this document in my research... a citation. If I used vote anywhere that is not a term I use now. You're right about votes, however, not citations or the use of "nofollow" to endorse a citation. Those are pretty straight forward and put the responsibility where it belongs with the authors who do know their intent beyond a doubt.

Presence or absence of incentive is irrelevant to the issue of the intent of a particular OBL. My point here is that there is no way for an SE to distinguish between those OBLs which point to content which the originator holds in favor as opposed to those held in, for example, contempt.

E.g., links intended for the purpose of saying "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking about" are indistinguishable from those which say "This is a steaming pile of BS."

[Old Welsh Guy]

Originally Posted by AVC

SEO today = following Google webmaster guidelines !!

That is why they started webmaster central, to educate webmasters, that is why they created all the webmaster tools also.

Go to Google college to learn proper SEO, you don't need to go to any of the conferences and pay because it is all at Google now days.

But there it rests you see, and THAT is my whole annoyance with it all (I am completely against the Gogle concept of no-follow). I have a friend, they are crazy about one breed of dog, they eat sleep breath this breed. I built them a site, (FOC) structured it nicely for them, advised them on how to develop it so it works good for their visitors. People started linking to it. Experts wrote stuff to go on it. The guestbook had to be replaced by a forum as it was growing beyond belief. The site is first place for its breed.

THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT GOOGLE WEBMASTER CENTRAL IS!

Why should they?

The point I am trying to make is that MOST of the good content online, the REAL niche QUALITY content is built by amateurs like my friends, they are NOT webmasters, they just go on doing what they do, building sites that have mountains of information on there.

Google come along and tell them they need to do this that or the other or else they will suffer? Have they got bad links? NOPE! have they got off topic links? NOPE! They build their site for people, they link to information they believe is relevant to users and of a high enough standard to warrant a link. They link to other people crappy homepages on bravenet etc, because those pages carry information about the breed they love.

The above paragraph is how the web ALWAYS WAS! so please can someone explain to me why real people building real sites, should change what they do PURELY so that a business (google) can get a better product?

Do you see my point now?

[ctabuk]

Yes I do, but surely you have said it all? The links may appear crappy to you. But they are relative and that at the end of the day is what we strive to achieve. Links in and links out based not on what a crappy toolbar says but on the 'related topic of site and it's anchor text & keywords.' By having a forum then the added bonus would be fresh content once again based on the above.

[AVC]

OWG, your friends with the hot website will have to watch spammers on their forum too, just like any other webmaster has to watch, if spammers start dumping links on their blogs and forums pointing to bad sites, Google will not rank their pages, just like they will not rank others that allow the same to go on.

So if you want organic search traffic FROM GOOGLE, you have to meet GOOGLE GUIDELINES, it is as simple as that.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Old Welsh Guy

Do you see my point now?

I see it, but of course that is the way i have always felt

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

who'd rather build a crappy brochure site and link the crap out of it rather than building something that actually deserves to be in the top position because of the content.

So you feel that a site that has lots and lots of text on it is more relevant than a site that only has the information I need?

[cw1865]

Without values placed on links, the only way to 'crack the code' would be to make verbatim copies of those sites that are currently ranking well and then tweak it slightly....The one thing that link analysis does indicate is that the person operating the site is actually promoting it, those sites with links are most likely 'active' sites versus 'dead' content.....

Outside of the content on your particular website, really what else do you have to differentiate between the billions of pages out there?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by cw1865

The one thing that link analysis does indicate is that the person operating the site is actually promoting it, those sites with links are most likely 'active' sites versus 'dead' content.....

And the chances are the guy that is promoting his site is also working on conversion. Making his site more relevant to the people that are landing on it. And making the search engine results more relevant at the same time.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Looking at Google results it is VERY easy to see IBL's care to much weight in their algorithm

I guess that's one of the few things I don't agree with you


The whole world is governed by the opinions of others. That's all that links really do. They show the opinions of others and Google follows them.

Ranking pages is a subjective matter, not an objective matter.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

So you feel that a site that has lots and lots of text on it is more relevant than a site that only has the information I need?

No site needs to be just a brochure it is the failure of the authors and site/business owner to make it more than a brochure site. The big problem is too many people enable them to continue having those expectations because they are willing to be just as lame as the next guy. Every new site I've built the business didn't have clue one what was needed beyond the basic information. My job is to figure out what they can do and what will best work for them, not, promote undeserving sites to the top because all you really are saying "Yeah we're just as lame as the other 9 over promoted sites at the top!". No one wins in that game other than the lame sites that were promoted to the top via the $ or time spent finding links. IMO, at some point most links that are the result of "promotion" loose value because that is over manipulated by SEOs willing to push brochures to the top via promotion. Not saying that it's bad or anything it's just my preference to walk away unless the client "get's it!"

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

No site needs to be just a brochure it is the failure of the authors and site/business owner to make it more than a brochure site. The big problem is too many people enable them to continue having those expectations because they are willing to be just as lame as the next guy. Every new site I've built the business didn't have clue one what was needed beyond the basic information. My job is to figure out what they can do and what will best work for them, not, promote undeserving sites to the top because all you really are saying "Yeah we're just as lame as the other 9 over promoted sites at the top!". No one wins in that game other than the lame sites that were promoted to the top via the $ or time spent finding links. IMO, at some point most links that are the result of "promotion" loose value because that is over manipulated by SEOs willing to push brochures to the top via promotion. Not saying that it's bad or anything it's just my preference to walk away unless the client "get's it!"

There are many cases where a good looking site with a little information that gets right to the point will convert better than a long winded site.

If it is converting better it is because it is set up like the site visitor wants. Not sure whose to judge what should or should not be in the top of the results other than the people who vote on the site by placing links to it.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

As noted previously, the PR algorithm modeled an academic ideal, based on the below re-published presumption, which does not hold true in the real world. The flaw was in making such presumption..

Hyper-links were designed for users, not SEs. For SEs to begin using them for their own purposes, and not foresee that users would in turn seek to game the system, is to have been shortsighted...

So basically we agree it was shortsighted not to expect that to be manipulated.

Originally Posted by deepsand

Presence or absence of incentive is irrelevant to the issue of the intent of a particular OBL. My point here is that there is no way for an SE to distinguish between those OBLs which point to content which the originator holds in favor as opposed to those held in, for example, contempt..

E.g., links intended for the purpose of saying "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking about" are indistinguishable from those which say "This is a steaming pile of BS."

Hence the need for "nofollow" and another way that "nofollow" can be used beyond the paid link BS. I'm fine with "nofollow" provided it's an option for authors and not just helping Google fix a shortsighted algo exacerbated by weighting it in such a rediculous manner. They've essentially said what is on the page is less important then the BS that can be pointed at it! Hence content/info which resulted in what they want is replaced with over promoted crap! IMO, if you have to beg for links then... you're lame!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

There are many cases where a good looking site with a little information that gets right to the point will convert better than a long winded site.

Right and it might actually belong in the top ten due to the right choices. IMO, a site could have 30 pages and still be a "useless" brochure site. You're mistaking quantitly for quality. The higher the quality and uniqueness of the content the more deserving. Good research/competitor reviews unearths the real deficiencies in content within a target. The content that fills those niche deficencies will need less pages due to content targetting.

Originally Posted by janeth

If it is converting better it is because it is set up like the site visitor wants. Not sure whose to judge what should or should not be in the top of the results other than the people who vote on the site by placing links to it.

Umm... I can generate an infinite number of IBLs for a site by just generating content which is only constrained by my ingenuity, WPW new directory is a good example. is it a vote if:
1. it's a conspiracy to inflate the vote
2. a vote can be bought

In the old days SE's made the silly mistake of thinking the actual content mattered. When 3 out of the top 10 "search engine optimiztion" results are useless submit to 1000 of SE's optimization firms with little or no information... that says a lot about how well voting has worked!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Right and it might actually belong in the top ten due to the right choices. IMO, a site could have 30 pages and still be a "useless" brochure site. You're mistaking quantitly for quality.

I doubt that is the case.

1. Brochures are normally good looking.

2. They normally have little text.

Makes me think you have a problem with good looking sites with little text.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

The higher the quality and uniqueness of the content the more deserving.

lol, Glad to know the site or business with the best customer service, best price and so on and so on are undeserving unless they have unique content.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Umm... I can generate an infinite number of IBLs for a site by just generating content which is only constrained by my ingenuity, WPW new directory is a good example. is it a vote if:
1. it's a conspiracy to inflate the vote
2. a vote can be bought

It's a vote if Google sees it as a vote and counts it as such. If you can make an infinite number of links how come Google shows less than 100 for your site?

Maybe it is not as easy as you say?

[Peter (IMC)]

The higher the quality and uniqueness of the content the more deserving.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Suppose you wrote the best article on a certain subject. Anybody that you would show it to would be like: "This content is the best! The highest quality and very very unique!" Obviously this page should rank in the first position.

But you didn't put it online. In stead, you just printed it out, deleted the file and put the printout in a safe, locked away for nobody to see it.

Now I ask you: How relevant is that article you wrote now? Does it have any relevance at all? The answer is simple: It is not relevant at all, it has no quality and it has no uniqueness. You might as well say it doesn't exist. Simply because nobody has access to it.


But how is that possible? The content didn't change, the words didn't change, the only thing that's different is access. How can something that doesn't touch the article in any way have such a huge influence on relevance? (It's practically quantum mechanic, properties only coming into existence when you look, )

So we know now that access to a document somehow has a huge effect on relevance. The more people that have access to a document, the more relevant it becomes. Quality and Uniqueness have absolutely nothing to do with it, at least not directly, and not in an objective way. i.e. you can't determine quality and uniqueness based on some preset assumptions.

What you can do is measure how many people have an opinion about a document and what those opinions are. And you can measure that by listening or looking at how many people are refering to that document. Online that's done through links. Quantity of links for access and anchors represent opinions.

(There is of course the need to filter out bad links and other spammy stuff, but that's beyond the point I'm trying to make in this post.)

So Quality and Uniqueness are vague terms because it doesn't mean anything without the opinions of others. You can't say that Uniqueness and Quality make a page more deserving. What makes it more deserving is the number of ways you can get to that document (access) which is determined by..... the people.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

The whole world is governed by the opinions of others. That's all that links really do. They show the opinions of others and Google follows them.

Ranking pages is a subjective matter, not an objective matter.

But, as previously noted, PR cannot measure what that opinion is, only that one appears to exist.

1 good opinion + 1 bad opinion + 1 neutral opinion = 3 opinions. What is measured other than a count of 3?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

But, as previously noted, PR cannot measure what that opinion is, only that one appears to exist.

1 good opinion + 1 bad opinion + 1 neutral opinion = 3 opinions. What is measured other than a count of 3?

The one bad can nofollow so it want count.

The one good would be from a high pr site with few links leaving on the same subject matter.

It really makes since. If I have a high pr site then most likely I know what I am talking about. And if it is on the same topic as you then chances are I know you or at lest can tell if you do good work.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

So basically we agree it was shortsighted not to expect that to be manipulated.

Yes, but that's only part of the problem; the more fundamental flaw was the failure to allow for the possibility that links might not only not be supplementary or complementary, they might not even be complimentary.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Hence the need for "nofollow" and another way that "nofollow" can be used beyond the paid link BS. I'm fine with "nofollow" provided it's an option for authors and not just helping Google fix a shortsighted algo exacerbated by weighting it in such a rediculous manner.

In my view, that's precisely what "nofollow" is, a "fix." Unfortunately, as its efficacy is controlled by those who generate OBLs, it's a partial fix at best. Still, it's better than no fix at all.

On a positive note, it does evidence that Google has recognized that giving weight to PR in the absence of semantical context is fraught with danger, and will therefore seek to adjust the SERP algorithm accordingly.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

IMO, if you have to beg for links then... you're lame!

In fact, depending on the type of site, IBLs may be wholly meaningless as a measure of its relevance or value to a particular search.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

The one bad can nofollow so it want count.

The one good would be from a high pr site with few links leaving on the same subject matter.

What if I want my "no" vote to count? In that case, I'm not going to use "nofollow."

10 parties vote "yes," and 13 vote "no." Under PR, all that is measured is that there were 23 votes cast; PR has no way of determing the actual outcome!

Originally Posted by janeth

It really makes since. If I have a high pr site then most likely I know what I am talking about. And if it is on the same topic as you then chances are I know you or at lest can tell if you do good work.

Please read what I wrote earlier, at Links-Do they have too much weight? , re. the presumption inherent in the PR algorithm, a presumption that fails to hold on today's web.

[Peter (IMC)]

Try to read this again. It helps understand how opinions are found in links.

Again, forget about spam for a moment. It's the principle that needs to be understood first. Google built the "ideologic" algorithm first and then started adding algorithms to compensate for spam.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Suppose you wrote the best article on a certain subject. Anybody that you would show it to would be like: "This content is the best! The highest quality and very very unique!" Obviously this page should rank in the first position.

But you didn't put it online. In stead, you just printed it out, deleted the file and put the printout in a safe, locked away for nobody to see it.

Now I ask you: How relevant is that article you wrote now? Does it have any relevance at all? The answer is simple: It is not relevant at all, it has no quality and it has no uniqueness. You might as well say it doesn't exist. Simply because nobody has access to it.


But how is that possible? The content didn't change, the words didn't change, the only thing that's different is access. How can something that doesn't touch the article in any way have such a huge influence on relevance? (It's practically quantum mechanic, properties only coming into existence when you look, )

So we know now that access to a document somehow has a huge effect on relevance. The more people that have access to a document, the more relevant it becomes. Quality and Uniqueness have absolutely nothing to do with it, at least not directly, and not in an objective way. i.e. you can't determine quality and uniqueness based on some preset assumptions.

What you can do is measure how many people have an opinion about a document and what those opinions are. And you can measure that by listening or looking at how many people are refering to that document. Online that's done through links. Quantity of links for access and anchors represent opinions.

(There is of course the need to filter out bad links and other spammy stuff, but that's beyond the point I'm trying to make in this post.)

So Quality and Uniqueness are vague terms because it doesn't mean anything without the opinions of others. You can't say that Uniqueness and Quality make a page more deserving. What makes it more deserving is the number of ways you can get to that document (access) which is determined by..... the people.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

What if I want my "no" vote to count? In that case, I'm not going to use "nofollow."

10 parties vote "yes," and 13 vote "no." Under PR, all that is measured is that there were 23 votes cast; PR has no way of determing the actual outcome!

There isn't really a no vote in PR, but I don't know if you have noticed. People don't link to sites if they don't like them. In fact, when a site is considered really bad, and they want to show them anyway, they just write down the domain name, but make sure it is not a link.

Besides that. By counting only related links, you already took out any link that aren't related.

This just shows that anchor texts are priceless in SEO. If that's still not clear I don't know what will make it clear.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

What if I want my "no" vote to count? In that case, I'm not going to use "nofollow."

10 parties vote "yes," and 13 vote "no." Under PR, all that is measured is that there were 23 votes cast; PR has no way of determing the actual outcome!

Different sites pass different amounts of PR and affect your ranking in different ways.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Different sites pass different amounts of PR and affect your ranking in different ways.

But, that weight has nothing to do with it being a "yes" or "no" vote.

If you read my earlier post referred to, then you should now understand that the PR algorithm presumed that, as is the case with academic works, citations would be to other works which supplemented and/or complemented the citing work; i.e. that, in general, such citations would be "yes" votes." In that case, a sum total of votes was equal to the no. of "yes" votes.

On today's web, OBLs may be "yes," "no" or "neutral" votes. Here, the sum total is an absolute total only. I.e., in PR, 1 + (-1) = 2, rather than equalling zero.