Google will not tell you

[Tubby]

Google will not tell you what the opinions are of successful webmasters. Google will not tell you the value of your own opinion, Google merely propagates trends that suit its own purpose. . .

The truth is
Ignorance is not knowing what your peers think

copy writing can you steal it . . . on this poll you can find out what boxes individual Wep Pro World members ticked. .

Keyword Strategy . . . 'Kgun' according to user opinion has more reputation points than any other member. . I wonder what he thinks?

Accessibility . . . 'Webnauts' might well be Web pro World most meticulous and obsessive SEO, did he even vote on this topic?

Is page rank Important Of course page rank is important - or is it, Tell me what box did 'Tubby' tick - Am I nuts? . . .

Reciprocal links . . . This is something we should all study. the rise and fall of opinion on reciprocal links. are they really dead, or is this just bullshit. .do you know what other web pro world members thinking is. . You should (if you have done your SEO homework).

DO YOU HAVE YOUR OWN OPINION?
now you know where it should be placed.

[weegillis]

Add to list: Google will not tell you why your PR has dropped, and as it turns out, nobody else can either.

PR drop WPW search resutls

[kgun]

A great sum up Tubby.

I once thought of making a post with the following heading.

"What is prejudice?"

or

"Are you prejudice free?".

If Google shall continue to stay on top of search, they have to be prejudice free and neutral. They must index content in a better more objective way than other search engines. I still don't see a better basic structure than the inverted link matrix of the web as a first reference.

There are increasing competition from Wikipedia. Here more and more people participate in Facebook. Books are written about Facebook. How will Facebook evolve? Will it involve in the direction of a (segregated) network? Will it end up like a state in the state? I prefer an open unbiased, prejudice free objective search engine.

I don't want an internet where Wikipedia and / or Facebook dominates. They are important enough, as a first reference and as a starting point for new active members in the online community.

I am simply a little scared when I see more and more search results from Google end up as a Wikipedia link.

I still hope Google will have active people like Matt Cutts to talk about their services and communicate actively with web masters. In the end it is one of the advantages with Google. It lies in the nature of the subject that he can not tell everything and know everything about Google. He is an information channel, nothing more nothing less.

Which SE has better communication with web masters than Google?

1. Invisible or Deep Web: What it is, How to find it, and Its inherent ambiguity
2. How Google Finds Your Needle in the Web's Haystack

KW's and links are (decreasing?) parts of the equation.

[Uncle Dog]

Google will not tell you that it doesn't tell you anything and just allows everyone else to try and tell you truth and lies - you decide.

[SemAdvance]

Being a bit too harsh I think

For decades KFC would never relinquish their recipe.

Ft Know does not tell us the code to the gold storage.

99.9% of the banks in the world won't give you the vault combination, even though you have money there.

CIA KGB MI6 MSS Mossad SGDN do not tell you or anyone else anything.

Most politicians won't tell you anything...... but they will lie to you freely....

The list goes on and on.........

Google is nothing more than a propaganda dispensing unit that relies on SERP pages (accurate or inaccurate as they are) in order to have somewhere to place their ad units.

To Google the organic results are nothing more than a tolerable expense needed to ensure healthy profits.....

Matt Cutts is merely a puppet of the Google regimen, and you can believe him if you are that naive......

[keyon]

What I find annoying is getting into a conversation on a forum (not this one) where supposed Google "reps" chime in saying they can refute the argument, answer the question, dispell the myth - and then they give you a link to their generic terms and policy pages. I would rather they just say "it's none of your business."

[York Web Design]

Google does tell you some things, but never in plain English.

If you believe that good sites are only those most linked to, you should reassess what the aims of your site are. Is being the top of a search engine what it is all about? If so then go for it. Get 1000's of reciprocal links, don't build any good content and watch what happens.

Yes you may have a fleeting visit to the top of the search rankings, but you won't stay there long without good material. You won't stay their long when your sites conversion rate is so poor, because of it lack of stickiness and bad design. Why not? Well, you will eventually run out of money for SEO, if you are not making the most out of each visit from a potential client.

Google PR does tell you something. How to get it is not rocket science. How to keep it is a bit more difficult. Once again, creation of good content, content that people like, tweet about, put up on facebook and maybe link to from authority sites may help.

A drop in ranking may also tell you something. You are not doing things right for the algo at the moment. So, you can either change your behavior as an SEO rep, or continue in the hope that one day you will come back to the top of search.

Google tells you a lot. They just don't tell you at any given moment what their algo changes are about.

The ups and downs, the changes to PR are just a few methods of finding out what Google think. It is the intrigue that drives us all wild. And, if there was not intrigue in our little world, what would there be?

[FoundByDesign]

This discussion always seems to center around what Google (and other webmasters) are keeping secret from us. The fact of the matter is they are keeping a lot secret and for good reason. Its called business.

I wrote an article about Google Secrets - Why doesn't Google Tell Us Everything | FoundByDesign.com in which I explore the reasons why Google will not tell you everything you want to know. In summary, the reason is to stay on top. Why would they want to tell their competition exactly what they are doing and lose the money they are making on ads.

The same applies to webmasters. Why freely give away all the knowledge you have to others, especially if you are making money online from a high ranking?

Now, from the perspective of a website like this, you have a group of web professionals that will share tidbits of information with you. If you are smart and pay attention, you can glean a lot of the information needed to be successful, simply by being a part of such discussions and doing research online. This is where you find out the views of others and hopefully learn. If you don't want to invest in the time and research, then that is where web professionals make their money...

Great topic Tubby!

[FoundByDesign]

Originally Posted by keyon

What I find annoying is getting into a conversation on a forum (not this one) where supposed Google "reps" chime in saying they can refute the argument, answer the question, dispell the myth - and then they give you a link to their generic terms and policy pages. I would rather they just say "it's none of your business."

Being vague allows them to change the rules at will... pretty smart (from their perspective) if you ask me!

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

Being vague allows them to change the rules at will... pretty smart (from their perspective) if you ask me!

"Pretty smart", maybe, but very irresponsible. Changing their rules 'at will' usually results in untold damages to white-hat websites.

[FoundByDesign]

Originally Posted by Clint1

"Pretty smart", maybe, but very irresponsible. Changing their rules 'at will' usually results in untold damages to white-hat websites.

I don't know if I'd call it "irresponsible." After all, their business is selling ads, and to do so they must keep the SERPS relevant. Keeping their guidelines minimal gives them the flexibility to adapt. As webmasters (ALL WEBMASTERS) it is OUR responsibility to keep up with changes as they happen and update our sites as needed.

To place the responsibility of webmasters keeping up with SERP changes on the shoulders of Google, Bing, Yahoo or any other SE means that a webmaster is inflexible and unwilling to change as things evolve. Ultimately, they will get left behind.

Remember, Google.com remains the property of Google, Inc. They make the rules on their website, just like I make the rules on my website. The difference is that Google, Inc is not relying upon my website to get found and make money. So I guess that means as a webmaster, I need to keep up or get lost.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

I don't know if I'd call it "irresponsible." After all, their business is selling ads, and to do so they must keep the SERPS relevant. Keeping their guidelines minimal gives them the flexibility to adapt. As webmasters (ALL WEBMASTERS) it is OUR responsibility to keep up with changes as they happen and update our sites as needed.

To place the responsibility of webmasters keeping up with SERP changes on the shoulders of Google, Bing, Yahoo or any other SE means that a webmaster is inflexible and unwilling to change as things evolve. Ultimately, they will get left behind.

Remember, Google.com remains the property of Google, Inc. They make the rules on their website, just like I make the rules on my website. The difference is that Google, Inc is not relying upon my website to get found and make money. So I guess that means as a webmaster, I need to keep up or get lost.

(Sounds like another G supporter). Sure it's irresponsible. With great power comes great responsibility. Site owners cannot "keep up with changes" when they refuse to disclose what the changes are, nor what to do about them! It's like if in NC the state suddenly made "gray jackets illegal on certain days" where they once were not, you didn't know about it, they wouldn't tell you what days it was illegal to wear them, and then you were arrested on the day your avatar picture was taken because that happened to be one of the "illegal" days. Tuff, you didn't "keep up" with the law. You found out about it the hard way, which is generally how G works. (That's just an analogy off the top of my head, but you get the meaning of it. )
Isn't PageRank Important?

and to do so they must keep the SERPS relevant

...and they are not exactly doing a "stellar" job of that.

I totally agree it's the job of site owners to change things as need be, who else's job would it be. But the point there is site owners many times do not know what to change thanks to G's shadiness unwillingness of disclosure. But furthermore, the biggest point is even when following every single one of their guidelines to the absolute letter, you can still be victimized by any of their ongoing screw-ups, which is the personification of irresponsibility.

You have to remember we are only a very tiny minuscule minority of site owners worldwide. 99%+ of site owners know absolutely nothing about SE's, how they work, what they need to do about it, online webmaster forums, etc., etc., nor should they be required to "take a course" in these things just to have their websites indexed and remain in the (G) index. Yet when it comes to G, that's essentially what is required, and even then with all the knowledge available, it is still not enough when faced with their irresponsible algo screw-ups, PR screw-ups, --therein which all of us are always at the (lack of) mercy.

[FoundByDesign]

Clint...
Am I a "G supporter"... not specifically. But I am a supporter of a free market in which those that can implement the best ideas can make money doing so. And while you may not think they are proving the best results in the SERPs, the majority of web users feel they are, which is why they have a huge market share. If they stop providing relevant results, they will decline, much like Yahoo is doing now.

When Google first came on the stage, I was using Webcrawler. Now this is a search engine that gave NO guidelines and results are spotty at best. They were gobbled up by Google. When someone else comes up with a better Google, Google may fare the same if they are not willing to change.

However, the "algo screwups" you refer to are part of that process of refining their models and SERPs, which includes testing. Some tests will fail, and we all have to go with that flow.

Bottom line is that they are not responsible to US as webmasters. They are responsible to the ownership of Google, Inc to make a profit, the best way they can and for as long as they can. I don't see Google making decisions "willy nilly" just to piss webmasters off. They are seeking ways to stay on top of a highly competitive market with a major giant like Microsoft aiming squarely at them. And they can not ignore that threat as Microsoft ain't some cash strapped startup!

The guidelines Google provide aren't perfect, but they do at least give us a guide! They aren't telling us how to exactly manipulate our sites to rank within the SERPs. They are providing you with guides on how your website has a better chance than most on getting indexed and served in the SERPs. But just having a website does not automatically provide us with the "right" to be indexed and ranked. It is still up to them on what they want to include in their website... after all, it belongs to Google.

If you are leaving California to head to North Carolina, there are guides. However, it is not the repsonisibilty of those guides (i.e. maps) to tell you of every bump in the road, road construction, detour and best course to follow. It serves as a guide to help you navigate... however, you still need to navigate.

As for laws being enacted and the gen public not knowing... that is the hallmark of our government at all levels. Its how most laws get passed, because if we really knew what the rules meant when they made them, we'd be furious that they were even being considered! That does not however negate the fact that it is my responsibility to comply with them, even if I am unaware of them. All I can hope for is mercy on part of the courts to excuse my ignorance.

For Google to be irresponsible, they would need to bend to every single complaint launched at them, which includes them not telling us exactly what to do to get ranked #1. If they did that, they would allow their competition to destroy them and the SERPs would be worthless. They would die as a company... all due to irresponsibility.

[FoundByDesign]

@Clint... Side note

yes, we are a small percentage of those that understand what it takes to get ranked. That provides us with a great opportunity to USE Google to our advantage, either to get our own websites ranked, or to get paid to help someone else get theirs ranked. Either way, we are using Google for our own gain, as much as they are using the collective of websites online for their own gain. Rather interesting when you consider that!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

I don't know if I'd call it "irresponsible." After all, their business is selling ads, ...

Yes and that model should be kept very separate from free rankings.

There was a recent Tv program here that SE's have made garbage out of information. You can find information in seconds. Teachers are worried here when students only use Wikipedia as a source. We could issue a similar warning about only using Google as a source.

Is it possible to combine profit maximation with telling the truth?

I have sometimes thought that if I made a SE, it should have an option to pick a random hit of the first n among millions of hits.

[FoundByDesign]

kgun,

I think there is a difference between the paid and free rankings. I can pay as much as I want o have the #1 position in paid ads, but can only do the best I can to optimize my website and provide good content for the organic "free" results. Now, when we can start paying a fee to get #1 in organic, Google betrays its own model.

I agree, for the purpose of reference, there should be more options considered. However, that is an education problem, as there are more places to get references than Wikipedia. However, as Clint1 pointed out, 99% of those that use the web aren't educated on what the web entails. That would include teachers (which is what my wife does).

As for "telling the truth" I am not sure what you are referring to there. What truth are you seeking from Google? Remember that the SERPs are Google's INTERPRETATION as to what the most relevant site might be for any given search. The end user is the one that makes the final determination, as they can go further than the #1 ranked site, and beyond page 1 of the SERPs results. Failure to do so can only rest on the user.

[FoundByDesign]

I challenge anyone to build a better Google. Can it be done... of course... but it is an uphill battle and will require something unique and well financed. Even the powerhouse of MS can't seem to figure it out, with all the brain power they have. And Apple, with all the creative minds there, hasn't even jumped in to this market... so that tells me we may not see it for some time.

But again, if someone can build it and make it better and more relevant, they can succeed. However, eventually, they too will get the same sorts of complaints and critiques as Google. The larger you become, the bigger a target you are for such complaints.

Those that don't like Google use other SE's. However, the vast majority still use Google. I would assume then that they are doing a suitable job. can it be better.. of course... thus we have issues with "pr and algo screwups" as Clint pointed out. They are constantly looking to improve.

As someone that works in designing, developing and optimizing websites, I find myself doing a lot of trials and research. In many cases, I have my own share of screwups. But I tend to learn from them and get better at what I do. Would this not also apply to Google? Why are they not permitted to learn?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

I think there is a difference between the paid and free rankings. I can pay as much as I want o have the #1 position in paid ads, but can only do the best I can to optimize my website and provide good content for the organic "free" results. Now, when we can start paying a fee to get #1 in organic, Google betrays its own model.

The free and paid ad's are more mixed now than they were when Google started with AdWords. There are paid Ad's above the free hits now.

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

As for "telling the truth" I am not sure what you are referring to there. What truth are you seeking from Google? Remember that the SERPs are Google's INTERPRETATION as to what the most relevant site might be for any given search. The end user is the one that makes the final determination, as they can go further than the #1 ranked site, and beyond page 1 of the SERPs results. Failure to do so can only rest on the user.

I mainly agree, but see above. Google have educated us about nofollowing paid links. We should educate them to make a more clear difference between paid and objectively rated content.

I agree with Tubby. They will never tell us on some subjects. Matt Cutts has given some very useful information on relevant topics.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

I challenge anyone to build a better Google. Can it be done... of course... but it is an uphill battle and will require something unique and well financed. Even the powerhouse of MS can't seem to figure it out, with all the brain power they have. And Apple, with all the creative minds there, hasn't even jumped in to this market... so that tells me we may not see it for some time.

Don't count on me: Google Revealed: The IT Strategy That Makes It Work -- Google -- InformationWeek

I think you need more than Microsofts financial strength.

[FoundByDesign]

Yes, they do provide a few links at the top which are paid, but they do indicate that they are paid. It may not be a major banner making that claim, and some may not even look at that, but it does say that they are paid ads. Guess that just means maybe we should combine our marketing with not only organic results, but also paid ads, if we want a guarantee that we will somehow get that #1 ranking.

And yes, I agree too. Tubby is right that they will not tell us everything, and may remain quite on some topics altogther. That just means we have to test our own methods and gauge the results.

[FoundByDesign]

Originally Posted by kgun

Don't count on me: Google Revealed: The IT Strategy That Makes It Work -- Google -- InformationWeek

I think you need more than Microsofts financial strength.

I agree 100%. This is why MS is still a distant 2nd (or 3rd, depending on the day) in search engines... and if not careful, one day in software

[Doc]

A reasonable stance, Ed. Clint has apparently been burned, as have many others, by Google's vagaries, so he has an understandable bone to pick with them. If I (or my clients) had experienced the same, I imagine I would feel the same way.

G's algorithm is as much a trade secret as any company could lay claim to, and they certainly can't be expected to bare their collective soul to the competition. but it is frustrating when the target is said to be stationary, and then suddenly jogs to one side or the other, after we have pulled the trigger.

SE functions can never be perfected, but I'm sure they'll get better and better as time goes on. My hope is that an element of fairness to the users will always prevail. As long as it does, we'll have an idea where the target sits.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

Clint...
Am I a "G supporter"... not specifically. But I am a supporter of a free market in which those that can implement the best ideas can make money doing so. And while you may not think they are proving the best results in the SERPs, the majority of web users feel they are, which is why they have a huge market share. If they stop providing relevant results, they will decline, much like Yahoo is doing now.

No that's not why they have a huge market share. You must not have read this post where I explained why they have the biggest market share. (Starting at the 7th paragraph from the bottom). And, why their "users" have the delusion as to why they think they are the best here.

However, the "algo screwups" you refer to are part of that process of refining their models and SERPs, which includes testing. Some tests will fail, and we all have to go with that flow.

Testing?? If they think they are actually "testing" anything, then their testing methods are more flawed that previously believed. Starting at the 4th paragraph from the bottom here.

Bottom line is that they are not responsible to US as webmasters. They are responsible to the ownership of Google, Inc to make a profit, the best way they can and for as long as they can.

I agree their only goals are making money, which is exactly why they are irresponsible. You're missing the point: when you are THAT powerful, you MUST begin to have some responsibility to those who made you who you are today! Yet they have none. That, is immoral.

I don't see Google making decisions "willy nilly" just to piss webmasters off. They are seeking ways to stay on top of a highly competitive market with a major giant like Microsoft aiming squarely at them. And they can not ignore that threat as Microsoft ain't some cash strapped startup!

Again, I agree. I do not believe they make decisions just to piss-off site owners. What I believe is they make decisions with total disregard to site owners!

The guidelines Google provide aren't perfect, but they do at least give us a guide! They aren't telling us how to exactly manipulate our sites to rank within the SERPs. They are providing you with guides on how your website has a better chance than most on getting indexed and served in the SERPs.

Again, I agree. And again what I have been saying is those "guides" are totally useless when you follow them to-the-absolute-letter and still end up getting trashed because of their irresponsible behavior with regards to PR and algo screw-ups!

But just having a website does not automatically provide us with the "right" to be indexed and ranked. It is still up to them on what they want to include in their website... after all, it belongs to Google.

Agreed again. No one implied anything to the contrary. The problem, again, is when they DO include a "site A" in their index, for ~12 years for example, then suddenly delete it due to one of THEIR screw-ups; and leave the unjustly victimized site owner ruined, with no recourse, no explanation, and nothing to do about it. That's another mark of irresponsible behavior.

.....That does not however negate the fact that it is my responsibility to comply with them, even if I am unaware of them. All I can hope for is mercy on part of the courts to excuse my ignorance.

Again, the point is what happens when YOU ARE responsible "to comply with them" yet you STILL get arrested! That is the point here; compliance does not indemnify you from google's wrong doing/irresponsible actions!

For Google to be irresponsible, they would need to bend to every single complaint launched at them, which includes them not telling us exactly what to do to get ranked #1. If they did that, they would allow their competition to destroy them and the SERPs would be worthless. They would die as a company... all due to irresponsibility.

(I think you meant to say "responsible" instead of "irresponsible"?) You're not reading what I have been saying (at those other posts) and here. No one is asking for the #1 spot, at least I am not. No one is asking them to "bend to every single complaint". What site owners are asking, is FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and, responsibility--concepts which over the past few years have become totally alien to G.

As to "bend to every single complaint launched at them", no one is asking that either. There is only one major complaint: "My site is totally white-hat and has always been so for the past [X] years. I've always been in your index and ranking quite well. After your most recent [uhhhh.......'update'] a couple of months ago, my site is now gone and still gone to this day, and I'm close to being on the verge of bankruptcy now. Why? Please tell me what to do to get it back where it was."

Yet those countless millions of hapless site owners in that position, remain screwed because there is absolutely no way of asking these irresponsible jerks any question like that. And even if you could, they'd just laugh at you. There once was a way, and you could ask, and you could get help from them, and google was good, and did no evil. But, not anymore. Because they simply don't give a hairy rat's ass about site owners anymore. As you pointed out, all they care about is making money, and that is what's going to (hopefully, soon), bite them in the ass.

It's obvious you like them and you think they are good. And, it's obvious I (ONCE loved them) but now have facts that prove to me they are very irresponsible and very evil indeed. But let's be clear that just because of our positions, that does not make either one of us "evil".

[keyon]

Originally Posted by FoundByDesign

If they stop providing relevant results, they will decline, much like Yahoo is doing now.

I'm with Clint1 - people use Google because they heard someone say "Google it." I doubt the relevancy factor even comes to mind while doing a search - in fact, most probably don't know what the word "relevancy" in search results even means.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by keyon

I'm with Clint1 - people use Google because they heard someone say "Google it." I doubt the relevancy factor even comes to mind while doing a search - in fact, most probably don't know what the word "relevancy" in search results even means.

Yeah that's just exactly one of my points: ignorance is bliss. They have absolutely no idea what they are missing with the millions of pages that G is censoring and "filtering" from their results, as a result of algo screw-ups and low PR!

Users think they may have found "their answer" or the "information for which they were looking", but they don't realize that that TV, or motherboard, or camera, or designer watch, "blue widget", etc., was much cheaper at a website that G filtered and censored from the results! This is precisely how G is putting and end to the small mom & pop businesses (the economical backbone of America), the very businesses that MUST rely on SERP's and depend upon them, the very businesses without the income or money to spend millions and even billions on other forms of promotion as do the big name big money sites do--whom ironically don't even NEED SERP's for their businesses! How's that for twisted irony.

[keyon]

Originally Posted by Clint1

This is precisely how G is putting and end to the small mom & pop businesses (the economical backbone of America), the very businesses that MUST rely on SERP's and depend upon them

On the other hand, without G these smaller businesses may have never seen the light of day to begin with. I realize a lot of people depend on SERPs for most of their revenue (if not all of it) - but wow...that strikes me as kind of a risky business model.

It's a dilemna for sure. Search engines have made it possible for a lot of people to start a small business - which just 15 years ago would have been nearly impossible. Upfront costs for brick & mortar stores have always been too high and the ROI too low for mom & pop to even think about making a profit. Google changed all that.

I thought everything would come tumbling down a long time ago with SERP-based businesses, but I don't think the honeymoon is over yet.

[Tubby]

One strength that mum and Pop website could use is cooperation. a bunch of like minded websites, not necessarily the same topic, could well combine and cooperate to make themselves a more powerful group.

But Google might say - 'Cooperatives? Oh no we do not like that. This is manipulation'.

[keyon]

Originally Posted by Tubby

One strength that mum and Pop website could use is cooperation...combine and cooperate to make themselves a more powerful group.

I like that idea. What comes to my mind are sites like ezinearticles and squidoo - but instead of seeing all (or most) of the cash go to C. Knight and S. Godin - each contributor would recieve whatever revenue is generated from his/her page - be it adsense, affiliate links, or your own products for sale. I'm not sure what the operating expenses are for sites this large, but if you had 200k plus members (like Ezine) it seems like a small monthly fee would cover the bills -and some.

[Doc]

I saw something recently about the possibility of a lot of small web presences forming a cooperative of sorts, with the goal of engineering a "black hole".

I kinda suspect the Big G might not like that one much, either.

[deepsand]

"Black hole?"

As in "dark web?"

[Doc]

Originally Posted by deepsand

"Black hole?"

As in "dark web?"

No. A black hole is a website that has gotten so big, and has so many inbound links, that it can nofollow all outbounds, and because of its popularity, it continues to prosper, and maintain a high PR.

Wikipedia, for example.

The notion I read about was along the lines of a web wheel. Juice is passed amongst the member sites, but never leaves their network. And between all of them, they have enough highpower IBLs to sustain a high PR on each site.

Some SERIOUS manipulation, if it would even be possible. Personally, I doubt it.

[deepsand]

Hm-mm; I'm going to have to sleep on that - literally.

[united3232]

I Dont Understand What the Accessibility means. Kindly tel me fully in easy woy to understand please.

[Tubby]

united3232

If you are blind - having sound on a website makes it accessible. (to blind folk)
If are almost blind - having large print options makes the web page accessible. (to almost blind folk)

If someone with no arms wanted to navigate your web site - could they do so with voice control?

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by Doc

No. A black hole is a website that has gotten so big, and has so many inbound links, that it can nofollow all outbounds, and because of its popularity, it continues to prosper, and maintain a high PR.

Wikipedia, for example.

The notion I read about was along the lines of a web wheel. Juice is passed amongst the member sites, but never leaves their network. And between all of them, they have enough highpower IBLs to sustain a high PR on each site.

Some SERIOUS manipulation, if it would even be possible. Personally, I doubt it.

Which begets the question....is it worth it trying to get a link out of wikipedia? {I have attempted to get many and have only ONE effort that stuck}

[Doc]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Which begets the question....is it worth it trying to get a link out of wikipedia? {I have attempted to get many and have only ONE effort that stuck}

Only if you think you can convince them to not make it nofollow.

You'll be the first!

[stbalaji2u]

I have even tried my very best to try not to make my links no-follow but only very few are left so which ranks certainly in Google top 5.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by stbalaji2u

I have even tried my very best to try not to make my links no-follow but only very few are left so which ranks certainly in Google top 5.

[Tubby]

I think stbalaji2u
'Has tried his very best to get only only inbound links that are not 'no follow' links, but do follow links are getting scarce, they certainly seem scarce in web sites with higher rankings.

I have no problems with members having there say - even is English is a second or third language.

[deepsand]

Your translator seems to work better than mine.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by newsfreak

Interesting idea!

Interesting, but dangerous, I think. I can't imagine Google (or any other SE) NOT seeing it as manipulation. And they tend to frown on that.

[newsfreak]

I agree Doc .

Though I am sure there are people who might be interested in the idea - maybe just for kicks.

[schrewkathy]

google will not tell u why u have not been paid via adsense though there are lotz of visitors.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by schrewkathy

google will not tell u why u have not been paid via adsense though there are lotz of visitors.

Are you saying that Google is failing to pay for actual clicks on AdSense ads?

[spthai]

There is no reason why google should tell you. Anyway I don't think PR is update imediately for you the see your actual PR. It may seem like it is on your tool bar, but it may not be like that since google will not show you right away when they update it.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by spthai

... I don't think PR is update imediately for you the see your actual PR.

There's no need to guess here; Goggle long ago disclosed that the ToolBar PR is but a snapshot taken at a particular point in time, and that such is only infrequently and irregularly updated.