If you've been using JavaScripts on outbound links from your webpages in an effort to preserve your PageRank you should quit - for two reasons.

For one, "Google engineers have stated in a few places lately that they are extending Googlebot's ability to read and understand JavaScript. Especially links in JavaScript," said Black_Knight in the Cre8SiteForums.

These sorts of techniques used in conserving PageRank are potential red flags to Google engineers out there hunting for sites that use "aggressive" seo tactics.

If you're using this tactic on your site you're liable to be penalized, though DigitalPoint, in discussion with Black_Knight, suggested, for the sake of the argument, not for practice, that to avoid detection one can simply put the JavaScript in an unspiderable external file.

The other reason you should continue linking is that Google also penalizes "dead end" sites or "PageRank Sinks," as Dan Thies calls them in a post on the ihelpyou forums.

In light of an early paper on the PageRank concept Thies states, "it is very reasonable to suggest that Google doesn't like a site that doesn't link out at all."

In the same thread Dan discredited the idea that linking to authority sites with high PageRank, such as Google, could return sites to the index and boost ranking.

__________________
Garrett French
Editor, WebProNews.com
http://www.WebProNews.com

I would add a disclaimer here.

Linking to authorities does add value (but the closer to your own industry the better or rather closer to the websites that do link to you).

As PageRank is universal the natural flow "in" is always proportional to the natural flow "out".

If for example you have a space related website - it is a good strategy to "link to NASA".

NASA links to many, many other "deemed authorities" (e.g. JPL as one), lesser authorities, and hubs (e.g. DMOZ as one) and as PageRank flow naturally through "all links" the likelihood that what you pass there will be returned to you in many minut amounts equaling near the same - but returned as "natural PageRank".

Illustrated: if you have even one link in DMOZ the increased "natural PageRank" is times the DMOZ link, Google Directory link, and most other SE directories links plus all those clones that have a bit of PageRank.

What goes around comes around.

Note: a link to even Google provide a proxy natural PageRank (link) to DMOZ and even Yahoo http://www.google.com/webmasters/1.html thus if you are in the Yahoo directory as well the same process applies.

I won't discredit Dan's discredited for the idea that linking to authority sites with high PageRank, such as Google, could return sites to the index and boost ranking... I'm just saying PageRank flow naturally where it can... so I really can't see why it doesn't...

Can someone explain this like if I were a two year old? It doesn't add up.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

I run a site for a company that distributes metal alloy analysers (tough niche market). I have established links for them with several major national institutions. Not only did this do no harm, but those links generate real traffic by virtue of their respected status.

There have been no documented examples of this happening anywhere that I have seen. You are stating things as fact when you have no proof to base it on. This article is completely misleading to any newbie out there who does not know better because of that. They will accept it as fact when it definately is not.



You just stated something else as fact, when it is not even close. It is one persons opinion only. This quote describes half the commercial websites out there, do you really think for a moment google is going to penalize them for keeping their customers on their website? Google has not done so that I have ever seen, nor would I ever expect to see them be this blind.

__________________
William Cross
Expert Search Engine Optimization

While it is true that many people only scan public information and as such can be lead astray due to their own ignorance - the way I read all of this is: it's coming just not today.

Fact: Senior Software Engineer Matt Cutts has repeatly stated that Google is attempting to extend Googlebots ability to parse and understand JavaScript where at present it's only jiberish to it.

Conclusion: based on your statement a "newbie" would conclude that there are zero facts and completely through caution out the door... which IMHO is worse than scanning the above and playing it safe.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Very well put Fathom....and here is another fact.

Fact: Microsoft does have the ability to parse and understand JavaScript. It is known as the Script Debugger for Internet Explorer. And it also understands VBScript as well.

It is a fact because I use it all the time. It knows the difference between tokens, functions, text, etc. and displays either script types with syntax colored output.

So the programming technology is there and it would behoove Google to press very hard to be able to parse and understand JavaScript themselves because this is one area that MicroSoft has a leg up.

I would also be wary of Google actually getting it wrong more than anything. After the Florida update and some of the erratic results that came out of that, I would be worried that they interpret some of your JavaScript incorrectly (although I do not see that happening). But I am in agreement with Fathom again on the basis that if anything is possible, then play it safe and not use the practice at all.

Actually IMO I am glad they are working on this aspect of the written page. There are a lot of spamming techniques with the use of JavaScript, and it would be nice to ferret those out. Although Garrett did cite DigitalPoints's comment that you could always move all of the code to an external file to avoid detection (not that they would resort to such tactics) by putting an exclusion to the file in the robots.txt file. And that is supposing that the spider is following the honor system here too....which Googlebot will...I have not seen it go into any files or diretories that were excluded.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

I have seen no evidence that you will be penalized for the use of JS links and/or that if you do use them its considered "aggressive SEO". Such statements without evidence to support them are very misleading.

Again here is a statement that says you will be penalized if you do thus and such with absolutely no evidence to support such far fetched conclusions. If it were a fact that Google were penalizing such sites there should be ample evidence to support such statements instead of reporting hearsay.



Its all well and good for Dan to suggest what Googles likes and dislikes are but that does not make them facts and they should not be reported as such.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

It may be a fact that Google is trying to understand JS better (as it understands many other formats) but there is no correlation between that fact and the unsubstantiated idea that you are going to be penalized if you use it for linking.

I fail to see how scanning a bunch of unsupported ideas and implementing them based on nothing but the fact that they were posted on a forum is "playing it safe".

IMO it would be better to say that would be more like playing with fire.

This forum should hold to better standards than this.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

I think not! Just take a look at Microsoft.com, Apple.com and many other > PR8 sites out there. In fact, it would appear the complete opposite is true.

__________________
Dave
Excel Templates, Training & Software
Barcode & Fonts
Free MS Office Applications Support

For one, he did not report them as facts but rather the opinions of others. He used multiple sources to arrive at an opinion of his own.

No where in there did I see Garrett suggest or imply that it was actual fact. I read his post as an opinion of his and he has a right just like you or I to offer those opinions by posting it to this forum.

Maybe you should exercise a little professional decorum rather than blasting somebody for what they think or believe, then twisting it around to suit some fancy of yours.

Yes they should, and they do. I don't know what got your panties in a bunch....but it is my opinion that you need to take a chill pill and settle down a bit.

And if you want more opinion....I am inclined to put some weight to this one. Google's whole premise is built around linking and PageRank. If they feel that sites are trying to disguise or coverup links from their view for ill (or valid) reasons and thereby skewing their system in favor of that site owner...then you damn well better beleive that they will be doing everything they can to uncover it.

This is no different than Google ferreting out white text on white background colored links. The JavaScript links are another form of spoofing the spider into thinking something that it really is not.

I have seen my fair share of this method used in the spamming of Search Engines, and I think it is high time that they are doing something about it. The people that use this type of spam linking deceive not only the spiders, but the casual browser as well and use other forms of redirection to send you to a completely different place that sometimes is not even on this planet.

Now you can believe what you like. It is your opinion. Mine is to lend a little weight to it and proceed accordingly. I do have a valid reason for using JavaScript on external links (which I do not care to discuss) and I will be looking at this a little closer.

You can choose to ignore it and just pass it off as another "unsubstaniented theory" standard line of thinking that I keep hearing from a lot of folk, but if you do so on this one...then you are not as smart as I once gave you credit for.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

What gives you the impression that either of these sites are "dead ended" or "PageRank sinks" as they are being called?

To heck with Apple, I have my own opinion about that site (ask Mel). But Microsoft has thousands of of outbound links and using them as an example of being a deadended pr sinked site is just not true. They have hundreds of third-party software Companies that they are linking out to. These Companies offer a wide range of add-ons and plug-ins that support other Microsoft products. Technical papers that often cite and link to hardware manufacturers.

Come back with another example, those two you picked just don't cut the mustard in that area. ;0)

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

The only fault I had with the article is that garrett was stating things as "fact". As if they were here and now. They are not, either by M$ or Google.

Matt Cuts does not need to tell me that google is trying to make gbot understand JS. I already know that just from seeing googlebot-test in my logs. And for your information there has been some evidence that googlebot does indeed see some javascript links already. Does it penalize for them? No. Why? Because google likes to handle things via it's own algo. That means it will teach gbot to read the links and follow them. If you research, test, and know the facts, it is easy to see this. If you do not, and rely on message board postings, then it must be a rose colored world to be ignorant.

__________________
William Cross
Expert Search Engine Optimization

Please reread Ronnie I am talking about DAN

That seems pretty clear cut to me, not an opinion but stated as a fact by the Admin.

What got my panties in a bunch (as you so elegantly put it Ron) is people conveying as facts ideas which are at best opinions, and not offering any substantiation at all to back them up.

If you think that better standards should not be upheld and that half baked opionions should be offered as facts with no one challenging them, thats fine but I would like to see better. YMMV


Unless and until someone can show at least one tiny example that shows this in action then it is still an "unsubstantiated opinion" (IMO of course) Ron and should not be reported as facts. This has always been my position and will continue to be.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Sure thing... another truth... Google is interested in only making its archive the best, which is different from manipulation to appear the best.

The inference therefore suggests that "sinkhole practices" will eventually have a similar effect as duplicated content, same color text/background, and hidden links...

Google frowns on these practices - right or wrong and then why?

On the other hand many sites are totally designed in JavaScript and completely ignorant to today's SE limitations (thus additional incentive for Google to perfect JavaScript readability) but who is fooling who here... do you honestly believe that Google isn't interest in spam reduction, at the same time or appreciates that we "manipulate" it's creations to benefit ourselves (and clients) along with Google benefiting itself... It's quite arrogant to believe that Google doesn't care - and therefore won't stem the tide - since they have repeatly shown in the past that manipulation without substance is bad for their business.

Like many, I ride the edge... but I am not naive enough to believe that the edge of today will be the same as the edge of tomorrow and therefore maintain a stance on knowing what is changing to be certain I don't end up in shit creek... I really don't believe you would rather be in the creek first before seeking alternatives... but I could be wrong.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Fathom, I actually quite agree with most everything you said. But on the other hand, google has always shown that it prefers to deal with most things in it's algo. Knowing the way they have dealt with other things similar leads me to believe that they are teaching their bot to read javascript not to punish, but to make their listings as relevant as they can be. I do not see them penalizing for javascript links when a great many large sites use them routinely for very valid reasons, just to stop a few people from using them to hoard PR.

Someone above mentioned that the javascript links were used to redirect, etc, etc. I am still wondering where this came from as we were talking about javascript *links* and not javascript redirects or shadow games.
But then, not everyone can read that well, so I'll let that one slide.

__________________
William Cross
Expert Search Engine Optimization

For the record, for people who cannot read the King's English.

The word should implies that it is a suggestion and something that is not written in stone. He is specifically talking about JavaScripted links that are designed for one purpose....and that is deception. If you are not using them for this purpose then ignore the rest of my reply.

He then gave two reasons why he feels this way. Both reasons have multiple sources to support his opinion. I am calling it an opinion, because his opening paragraph does not call it a fact. When you piece together bits and pieces of information, then you come up with these opinions or theories -- one of them by themself is nothing, but two or three that support a similar line of thinking and reasoning raise the possiblity of it's existance to be true or at worst a very good possibility.

Nobody seems to dispute this part about Google wanting to parse JavaScript. It is a necessary step for Google to overcome if they want to survive against Microsoft (this is my opinion) who can already parse javascript and vbscript from an ordinary Html page or external .js file.

Garrett stops short of saying that they are potential red flags to the Google Engineer...he uses the word potential. Again you guys are unjustly quoting him as stating it as fact and reporting it to be fact (get out those dictionaries boys). The ensuing paragraphs are in support of this statement which uses the word "potential".

People using any tactics designed to spoof the bots have resulted in Google finding a way to sniff it out. It is a never ending game, much like the virus game is played. I cannot see no reason why the method of JavaScripted links will be no different to them in this regard. I don't know....call this one a gut feeling. But if you tend not to believe it, then you are severly underestimating Google.

Again though Garrett is only referring to deceptive means of preserving PageRank by hiding outbound links. He does hint about other techniques that may come under scrutiny when he mentions "aggresive" SEO tactics.....but let's not cloud the issue. Not unless this is somewhere you want to go with this discussion, cuz if you think I am blowing wind up your skirt on the links issue then you don't want to get me started on the other forms of deception that goes far beyond the linking issue. This after all is a thread about PageRank.

What is this Mel? Do you have that stock line in a cut & paste buffer or something? "Unless someone can show me...."

It was an opinion -- plain and simple. With Google getting into stemming, word symantecs, and soon will be able to actually read content on the written page -- I think you had better take an English course and catch up on reading it yourself so you will be able to write it too.

What you are saying is that you can smell the smoke. But until the fire comes and lights your ass on fire, then you are not going to do anything about it. You would rather all of us sit here and smell the smoke with you. Sorry Mel, I am getting into another vehicle -- and one that isn't stalled on the railroad track with the signal flashing and bells ringing.

You would also just like to stay even with the game, and not one step ahead. No forethought, no planning for possible scenarios in case you get zinged by something right out of the blue. This is not my line of thinking Mel, it often appears to be yours though.

Garrett's opinion offers another observation in the grander scheme of things and it goes beyond this trivial little spat we are having about JavaScripted linking. It is clearly showing you that the SE game is changing technologically. I can see this and feel it like I am a part of it. I have said it before and I will say it again, with Microsoft stepping into the ring it will explode into something that you cannot even begin to even fathom.

And speaking of Fathom, his mentioning of "playing it safe" is another opinion that is worth heeding. This thing of javascripted links is a serious issue, and one not to be trifled with. The capability of reading and interpreting them is there -- and that is a fact Mel.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

Valid point - agree.

Again valid point as Google does not wish to penalize without just cause. At the same time I'll use a valid reason to use duplicate content to illustrate.

A nationwide service had a website that supported 15,000 cities and town in United States. They had thought to develop satellite sites for each center but read that heavy crosslinking was bad, and that Google had preference for large websites (both of these assumptions are somewhat accurate and in other ways inaccurate depending on how this information is used).

They rationalized that each center should have its own pages of content and organize in their now quite large website by state. A fair assessment... however as one center in precisely the same as the next, content diversity was limited to mostly city/state info.

While they were familar with "duplicate content" penalities (something else they read) they also knew that Google defines results success mostly by "building websites for the user and "the key staement" as if Google and other search engines didn't exist

They rationalized that a person in Tampa, Florida would not visit nor be interest in content for New York, New York and with Google's own guidelines in hand cleverly thought a New Yorker wouldn't search for a Tampa center either (Google doesn't exist) so they set out and developed 15,000 pages.

They did - precisely what Google suggested (and using expert advice - most of which was "out of context") and got a major penalty for their effort!

The short of it: (and back to your statement) just to stop a few people from using them to hoard PR it's not a few - it's a problem... and we can rationalize this many different ways... but the only rationalization that matters is Googles'.

<added>In context of your thoughts on JavaScript... were they attempting to beat Google at their own game (ranking wise) or attempting to follow Google's guidelines and expert advice?<added>

Ya - just like the example - eh! :-)

The biggest problem is "none" of us has the time to write a book, on all the specifics on both sides and "none" would read it verbatim if we did, plus by the time it's published it's dated info.

Notwithstanding the "forum" is the best resource for stuff like this as the dialogue isn't just a passive read.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Just thought I would add - if a website is completely developed with internal JavaScript links it is a design flaw that Google will address...

on the other hand if all internal links are standard (or most) and all external links are JavaScript (or most) what is the inference here... different?

How difficult would it be for Google to intrepret this difference?

That last part is the key... how does Google rationize the pattern difference?

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

A note:

liable - At risk of or subject to experiencing or suffering something unpleasant...

that is quite a bit different from,

fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

Seems Garrett is quite clever... he can make people see whatever they want to see, and discuss their views by questioning "facts" not written... the power of written suggestion... he's very sophisticated! ;-)

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

hmmm.... There are non so blind as those who will not see.

The words "subject to" do not offer alternatives IMO it means that is what is going to happen.

You next quote Garrett as flat out saying that google does penalize sink hole sites.

I guess we understand English in a different way, but if the objective of the forum is to educate and not mislead then I suggest again that such unsubstantiated speculations should not be stated as if they are facts, since they are liable to be interpreted just as they are written, without requireing a hundred lines of supporting posts to interpret them.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Fathom, so far we are pretty much in agreement. But as Mel pointed out before I could, you have to look at all parts of a definition. the word "liable" to most people means they are going to be penalized as it is defined in peoples minds more as "subject to" than the other way around. The common denominator is that the majority will see it as fact. Being that you guys wish to educate people, I applaud that btw, your writers need to be careful not to overstep that little line that misleads.

That is really all I was saying in the first place. Garrett went over that line, by posting opinions as facts. We know where his source was, and we know how it was that it occured. Instead of debating it, why not just fix the problem and move on.

__________________
William Cross
Expert Search Engine Optimization

Missing the obvious though.

As an Admin he is actively involved in developing "WebProWorld as the World's Forum for eBusiness Professionals" by getting experts and peers to exchange information, advice, tips and strategies on technology and business.

He started a topic that has obvious interest - if it didn't you wouldn't have posted, nor anyone else.

He spawn posts by "experts and peers"... isn't that the purpose of this public venue... and did he fulfill his factual obligation? Isn't it our job as "experts and peers" to set the record straight?

Now we could argue all day and night about facts or fictions and misleading stuff... and attempt to intrepret his precise posted meaning by "not" actually saying "FACT"... which had he said "FACT" I would have retorted...

RUBBISH!

But I would much rather debate... why the opinions are the way they are than find false facts in Garrett's missing fact post...

as Fact: Garrett never used the word fact once in his fact finding post yet the fact that we focused on the lack of facts seems to indicate that had he in fact only filed a post on only facts no one would have anything to say.

Difficult for experts and peers to debate if all the facts are in post #1. LOL :-)

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

I'll buy some of that... let's see what happens.


I would be extremely interested to know who has removed the previous content of my post and replaced it with the above which I did not write and which is in fact contrary to my opinions. This is a new low.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Fathom, I understand what your saying, however a lot of people wont follow the link to this thread and will only have the article itself to go on. What then?

__________________
William Cross
Expert Search Engine Optimization

What then? Then they are guilty of not learning all the facts. We cannot help those who cannot help themselves.

This is what I was getting at. It is the crux of the whole issue. My feeling is that Google is headed that way ... it is evolutional to think so too, for it deals with their very nature of following links.

And if it is found to be a deliberate attempt to cloak or coverup something in any way, then the question is what is Google going to do about it? My worry about it is that they get it screwed up in the logic of it all. I doubt they will, but the potential is there.

The bottom line is...whether or not you call it a sink or hoarding or whatever other label you want to put onto it, javascripted links will be read and included into the PR equation. I have little doubt in that becoming a reality folks. It will happen.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

Ron, perhaps my 'from the hip' examples don't cut the mustard (not saying I agree). However, as an active link seeker I find many site pages that have a high PR and have no links out. The high PR is due to their links in. This to me (and I believe Google) is a sign of quality content. If you can attract links in without having to reciprocate, you probably have what a lot need/want.

I can think of no logical reason why Google would frown upon sites with lots of links in and no/few links out. Can you? To me it's the complete opposite.

.....There is perhaps one reason, perhaps it's to try and catch those who buy links on high PR pages???? But this would be far to big a stick to only look at only links out. If this is true (still highly doubtful) it could be a case of the cure being worse than the disease and Google is smarter than that!

__________________
Dave
Excel Templates, Training & Software
Barcode & Fonts
Free MS Office Applications Support

I am amazed that there are attempts to predict the future of Googles algo when we still are not privy to the details of the current one.

There is only one thing I am sure of with regards to the Google algo, and that is that the intent is to provide the most relevant results from the greatest number of pages.

It is interesting to me that a company with the resources and technology of Google cannot seem to eliminate simple things like hidden text and rings of sites linking for ranking gain, and yet there are those who believe that google is busy developing new technology so that soon they can punish those who commit the sin of not linking out enough.

In fact is seems apparent that Google could do much more towards the elimination of what some believe is sinful (JS links, hidden text, ranking rings etc) if that were paramount in their goals.

This being the case I am considering that perhaps Google really doesn't care about this type of thing so long as the results are relevant. IMO this fits the facts we see on the ground much more closely than what many would like us to believe.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Once again, you have almost completely paralleled my own thoughts. This needs to stop! We are supposed to be arguing more :P

__________________
William Cross
Expert Search Engine Optimization

I have to agree with Mel and William on this one. There are so many things that Google could do if you started changing the way you do things because of what Google may do, I think you could drive yourself crazy. (:

No one knows what the future holds.

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

You have fallen guily of your own "not privy to the details of the current one." How do we know that Google doesn't simply igonore hidden text? Google only bans sites as a last resort, and not too often. I would say it very likley that Google simple ignores things like hidden text and hence does not use the words to rank the site.

BTW Mel, I find it very rich that you would be yelling about the initial post being put forward as fact. You have, on many occasions, put forward as fact (by your own definition)that anchor text is the single most important part of Googles algo.

Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones

__________________
Dave
Excel Templates, Training & Software
Barcode & Fonts
Free MS Office Applications Support

The key here Dave is that many high ranking sites use such techniques to get their high rankings, and even though Google is aware of this they are not penalized and continue to rank highly, so it seems quite unlikely that Google is ignoring it as you suggest, it appears instead that they are instead ranking them highly for some of these supposedly dubious practices.

That is what is meant by the situation on the ground, i.e. what is actually happening as opposed to something that they might do in the future, especially when such suppositions are based on foggy conclusions about what Google is doing now.

My experience has been that Google hardly ever bans sites, but it is fairly common that they may penalize a site. Even Search King was not banned, they just had their rankings downgraded.

You are indeed correct that I have often stated that anchor text is a powerful portion of the Google algo, but the difference is I have provided examples to show that this is in fact happening, and in fact this is my chief objection to the premise of this thread there are no supporting examples or data to support the idea that Google is planning on penalizing sites which do not link out enough or which may use JS links to link out.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

But how do you know that they would not rank high without the hidden text? Just beacause a page uses hidden text does not automatically mean it is not the most relavent. Google's aim is only to return the most relavent results, not ban any site that tries to trick it. If it did ban ALL these types of sites/pages, I would say its database would shrink somewhat. Also, searchers couldn't care less if a page uses spammy methods, they only care if it is relavent to their search.


No, you have stated that anchor text IS the MOST important factor. While one may offer proof it is used, or indeed important, there has never (IMO) been any example to *prove* it is the MOST important factor. Google bombimg proves zip IMO for reasons stated above.

__________________
Dave
Excel Templates, Training & Software
Barcode & Fonts
Free MS Office Applications Support

I am inclined to agree with Dave...

A search engine could adopt 2 approaches to all the various spam techniques:

1) Detect it and ban the site
2) Detect it and ignore the spam technique so there is no ranking benefit from it.

A site that uses spammy techniques, still may be a valuable site for searchers, so if I was a SE, I would do (2) - I have no idea if Google et al are actually doing this.

BUT, when I look at many sites using a spam technique (eg hidden text), I can see a lot of legitimate reasons why they should be ranking where they are.... so I assume the spam is not actually helping them.

CBP

If a person is too incompetent to read all available material on a subject - it's their lose... but then again "what did they lose"?

I really don't know what's got you in knots here... you can't be saying "everyone MUST hoard PageRank" to succeed in search engines...

I don't on any website and I'll put them against any website JavaScript to stop this ridiculous PageRank leakage... that so lame.

thus whether Garrett used too strong of words in he's opening post or not... IMHO... if you use this form of tactic on your site you are working on an inferior strategy... saying that - "really by only following Garretts words" is anyone going to be harmed "yes or no"?

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

I just have one thing to add. If google really penalized sites for having a ton of inbound links and a few outbound, please somebody enlighten me to where sites like microsoft, oscommerce, apache, php, php-nuke, google, yahoo would be. All of these sites have a ton of inbound links and a few outbound.

Unfortuately you would need to ask Google that question...

however my own opinion goes like this...

If you have content and add more (near same) why would Google penalize this, or

If you add more content to a page why does it matter if it is hidden e.g. same color font and background,

Still again if you have links to/from your website why does it matter that they are invisible to users, or

If your setup 1,000 websites and crosslink them to death, why would Google bother penalizing this,

With all of these in mind -- I'm of the thought process that if the motive for doing something is "unfair" and simply manipulation and not actually a superior website (as determined by a natural voting process) then Google will likely determine this practice as a spam practice...

So I guess it come down to this... will Google deem that PageRank Hoarding is good for Google or not?

I lean to the latter - thus zero shift in my business model if Google disagrees with a hoarding stance...

The above other spam intolerances are FACT, the rest is only my professional stance.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Yes, well I just still can't see google penalizing anybody for that. Maybe it's just the way that the website is set up - using javascript for links. I can;t see a bot and the algo being able to judge if it is legitimate or not.

Or they could simply ignore it so long as it produces relevant results, which is my perception of what is happening.

While you can perhaps make a case for hidden text simply being ignored insofar as rankings, what do you make of a site that has only hidden text on the page and is part of a linking ring which provides more than 400 anchor text links to that page and the page ranks top 5 in Google for a very competitive search term that just happens to be the one used in the anchor text? And the idea that perhaps Google has missed it is not on either as I know of at least two individuals who have reported it many times.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Possibly true... but we should be clear on precisely what we are talking about. PageRank Hoarding implies receiving natural links, with the need to link back but using technology to hide from search engines.

In the case of a natural authority "they simply don't link out much" there is no exchange, no reciprocal links thus a natural design, receiving PageRank from others because of the voting process and not because their motive is underhanded (people just wouldn't link to them is this instance).

In the case of a developer using JavaScript - a design flaw but this model assumes "all" links to be JavaScript and current no hoarding exists (via a link pattern).

The fact that Google can't parse the script content today... but can crawl nature links means that should they develop this ability - they in fact have a major detectable distinction between the two linking types, and easily seeing "unnatural patterns".

In any case: I really don't care if people Javascript all their outbound links, as long as this isn't in conjunction with a reciprocal strategy and without informing the reciprocator to do the same.

It's simply an inferior strategy (even today) but if you believe it's superior - that's find - I rank better with less! :-)

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

You are not seeing the future on this one and you are not grasping what is actually going on here either.

The thread is primarily about JavaScripting links so that they are not seen by Google. Forget about why the method is used and forget about the label you put on it. This is irrelevant to the issue.

Here is what will happen and you do not need a crystal ball to see it. Google will soon be able to read those links just as if it were any other link. It is inevitable that they will be able to do so. This is not an opinion it is a fact.

When you take this one basic premise and grasp the true meaning of it -- then all the other labels attached to this basic premise becomes perfectly clear and what the implications are.

For instance, in the case of the method labeled as so-called page hoarding. If that is what javascripted links were intended to do, then the method becomes moot (null and void) because Google will adjust its calculations based on new found links that it was unaware of before. Is this an opinion? Or is it a fact? Logic dictates that it will be a fact. How you choose to label it is your opinion...the simple fact is that javascripted links will be read by Google and accounted for in their PR calculations. It cannot be any more simply stated than that.

The only thing you need to know is that they will be able to read JavaScripted links. Period. That is the only given that you need to keep in mind. If you choose to ignore that and go on building sites using that method without planning for this, then that is your perogative. Don't say I didn't forewarn you in the future when you have to go back and rework them because you used the method for some short-term SEO gain. This in my opinion is ill-planned logic just because you do not believe in crystal balls....or more to the point just plain bad judgement.

The fact of the matter is that JavaScript techniques of this ilk is for second-rate hacks anyway. The use of it is so prevalent and rampant, because it is easy to tear down and set up shop on another domain and be back in business within seconds and it does not matter what type of Server it is. For the people using it for the so-called page hoarding are second-rate hacks too because there are more elegant solutions that are better suited for this purpose --of which does not need to be explained, for you know what I am talking about.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

Here are a few recent GoogleGuy quotes regarding Google and javascript links:

March 16: "we don't penalize for JavaScript, but we might not being able to crawl a site as deeply. Some things to consider:
- you might want to simplify your JavaScript. Google can often extract urls from JavaScript, but I can believe that doing utterly weird stuff might mess things up."

March 11: "Static links are your best bet, but in general I wouldn't be surprised if Googlebot fetched urls it could find in JavaScript. In general, if we follow a link (e.g. for web crawl or image crawl) then it's a pretty good assumption that we can take it into account for PageRank calculation purposes.. "

I don't think Google would penalize for PR-hoarding using javascript. The fact that Google didn't previously follow JS links was a limitation of Google. I believe they will simply try to over come that limitation, and any other that prevents them from spidering the web as completely as possible.

There seems to be some confusion here (perhaps on my part). "PageRank sinks" as I understand, are sites with inbound links and NO outbound. Nothing to do with JavaScrript being used to hide them, just no links out period.

So Ron, please read my rely to you below

__________________
Dave
Excel Templates, Training & Software
Barcode & Fonts
Free MS Office Applications Support

Ronnie your post fails to take into account a couple of things:

No one knows if Google really cares about PR hoarding, this is merely speculation by an individual.

No one knows if Google would penalize as site due to JS links.

In view of the fact that although there are areas where Google states in writing that they really don't care for something (say hidden text) but still does not take the time to penalize sites which use it, It is really a strech of the imagination to say :
The fact is that Google may or may not choose to use JS links in its PR calcs. Only google knows that and thus once again stating an opinion as a fact.

But being the devils advocate for a minute, so if Google does read JS (and I agree with you that they will sooner or later have this capability) why should this necessitate a site redesign?

At the worst case it will only demonstate to a few misguided individuals that using JS links really is not much help to your rankings and I really doubt that they would notice the difference.

What we should be concerned about here (IMO) is that there are those who are cheating the unknowing by responding to reciprocal links with JS links, and in that case IF Google were to read JS links and use them in PR it would only be eliminating this type of fraud.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Another interesting discussion. Thanks Garrett! :-)

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Dave - My responses had nothing to do with the labels everyone is putting on them. I am only pointing out the fact that they will be able to understand JavaScripted links and follow them. Why is everyone not seeing what this really means?

Mark - The quotes you cited are out of context for the most part. You must read the threads that they came from to understand why the remarks were made. The March 16th quote dealt with a persons site who used internal JavaScript links and thought his site was not being crawled, plus he thought it was penalized. And GG went on to say that his site was NOT penalized and offered the suggestion that static links are your best friend for getting his site crawled.

The March 11th quote alludes to the possible fact that if the Url is in tact within the JavaScript code itself, then it is possible that GoogleBot will extract that Url and follow it. This is no different than the possibilities reported that Googlebot was extracting Url's from comments (along with any other text) within the Html page too. Whether it is JavaScript or comments ... if the Url is readable then Googlebot may follow it. Is that how you read it?

Dave - The level of sophistication that I am actually referring to is not the simplistic samples above. There are reasons to hide links within JavaScript that are completely legitimate too.

One example that comes to mind is what they call obfuscation of email addresses...which is a form of a link. This method tears the address apart so it cannot be read by email harvesters ... and when the link is clicked on, it reassembles it back into a complete address.

This level of understanding JavaScript is the form that I am talking about. Some people call this parsing, but it goes beyond simple parsing for it is an interpreterative approach to JavaScript. This is the same level of interpretation that comes with the Microsoft Script Debugger for Internet Explorer of which when you step thru the code lines while debugging script you can see the Url get assembled right before your very eyes ... believe it or not if Microsoft has the ability to interpret JavaScript in this manner, then so will Google ... but Google aside, Microsoft has the ability to read it anyway.

For the record, I am not saying that Google will penalize you for using JavaScripted links. All I am saying is that it will be able to interpret the links themselves as if they were normal links.

So David, to answer your question. If Google uncovers a ton of links going outbound that were previously not known because they were deceptively hidden -- I dunno, maybe they will not do anything...maybe they will.

One thing that will happen is that the whole PR equation will be affected, it has no choice but to. And would this be called PR hoarding? Maybe today it would ... tomorrow it won't be though. ;0)

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

Again people. Why is everyone continuing to put words into my mouth. Is my damn English that bad that you cannot read it.

Mel - read my posts and please please really read what I am saying. Especially the one I just posted prior to this.

Exactly....now you are getting the picture. ;0)

My question Mel is why did you use the word "concerned" in that way. As in why would you be concerned about Google finding these links. I am sure that is just some bad English on your part, right?

=)

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

HI Ronnie
Sorry I thought that the direct quote from you was your words.

No Ronnie the use of the word concerned is not bad English and it is exactly what I meant to say, we should not be as concerned about what Google may or may not do in the future as what reciprocal links cheats are doing today.

If you will read my post carefully you will note that I am not at all concerned about Google finding and using JS links as it is my opinion that it makes very little difference either way, PR is not such a large segment of the Google algo that a few reciprocal links are going to make much difference in your rankings.

But then what do I know, I have never solicited a reciprocal link or used them.

Ronnie I am reading your posts carefully and responding to what I find there.

Interesting to note that you chose not to respond to my post, but paraphrased it with gibberish. Its not that hard to understand surely?

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Well, well, well. I've just been pointed at this thread from elsewhere, and I'm astonished at the number of opposing views (and rubbish) that the orginal article and post has generated.

Garrett's article stated certain things as facts when they were not. Whether or not they could become facts in the future is irrelevant. The article was misleading, at best, and in reality it was just plain wrong.

Bad article. Garrett got it wrong. End of story. Accept it :)

__________________
PhilC
SEO articles, information and seo forums

Hey Phil, I was wondering when you would catch wind of this one...hehehe. ;0)

I just find it ironic too that there are two completely interpretations and viewpoints of what that article actually meant.

It is also ironic that all of the people on one of those sides has SEO in their signature lines ... this does not instill much faith in me for that Profession much.

And Phil, you are missing the boat on this one also. There is something more revealing to Garrett's citings in his original post that is worth taking heed to. I find it offensive to so adamantly proclaim it all as rubbish and discount every single element of that post, for it is basicly telling people to go ahead and hoard PR....go ahead and script them links out baby....go ahead don't worry about it. Unless we can see actual live in your face proof, then don't worry about it ... for today it is okay to do it.

Sometimes I just don't get it. I try to speak from the side of reason, and others come in with the same old rhetorical crap over and over again. It is like a large cut & paste buffer that you all have access to on some live feed.

And Mel...sometimes I choose not to respond to your posts because it is repetitive. If I have to tell my kids once and they forget, that is okay. If I have to tell them twice, then I give them a stern reminder. A third time...then it is obvious that they are not learning anything, and I am done with the talking. We were just going around in circles, and it was not productive. Better to let it lie and let the rest stand on it's own for we are just filling space with more crap.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

Yes, the quotes are out of context. I cited them to simply draw attention to the fact that Google now crawls URLs within javascript. The context is irrelevant to this particular point.

Yes, that's how I read it. Whether is be a txt file, javascript chunk, (or perhaps even an RSS feed?) -- if looks like and URL and smells like an URL, Google may follow it and pass PR accordingly. I cited these quotes soley to make this specific point - until recently it was generally believed that Google would only follow a &lta href= links.