Does PR Sculpting Work?

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Michaels's 1st sentence is compound, consisting of 2 separate statements. Together with his 2nd sentence, there are 3 statements in total.

Elementary, Dr. Watson.

Yes, Don Quixote, but Matt was refering to them as being 2 statements which is more important than the actual content of the 2 statements.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I was on a call with Matt Cutt's, Adam Lasnik and other Googler's and I brought this topic up at the end of the call. Basically Matt said if you site navigation is fundamentally sound (which it should be in the first place) he said you would be wise spending your time in other optimization techniques.

Take that as you will.

Update on PR Sculpting Question from Google Webmaster Help Groups Call and Matt Cutts - Search Marketing Blog from Cincinnati, Ohio

Glad somebody agrees with me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webnauts
One thing I still did not understand about the whole PageRank Sculpting story.

As we all know, Google is against PageRank manipulation. Or?
And now their employees are telling us how to manipulate the PageRank of our sites, using i.e the nofollow attribute.

Did I miss something?

Just thinking out loud.

this has had me pondering for a little while now too.

and great thread guys, best discussion have seen on this anywhere.

Pagerank manipulation is not the same thing as creating a good hiarchy in your website. Google employees probably just respond to questions about the nofollow and are then understood to be saying that it is ok to use nofollow to block pagerank. But that's not the case of course.

Blocking PR (sculpting) is nothing new. The nofollow did not make this all the sudden possible. It has always been possible. Use a simple javascript onclick and you get the exact same result. Usually one of your jobs as an SEO is to take out everything that potentially blocks search engines, not to add stuff that purposely blocks search engines.

[activeco]

Yep. When he entered the room and said "Hi", one SEO-er asked: "Would you evaluate that statement a bit? Could you be more concise?"

*Disclaimer: All the persons above are fictitious.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I was on a call with Matt Cutt's, Adam Lasnik and other Googler's and I brought this topic up at the end of the call. Basically Matt said if you site navigation is fundamentally sound (which it should be in the first place) he said you would be wise spending your time in other optimization techniques.

Take that as you will.

Update on PR Sculpting Question from Google Webmaster Help Groups Call and Matt Cutts - Search Marketing Blog from Cincinnati, Ohio

Great post brother. Thanks for sharing. Looks like we both where always right.

[janeth]

I find it funny that half the time everyone is saying they don't trust Matt and the other half they are quoting him to prove a point. (:

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I find it funny that half the time everyone is saying they don't trust Matt and the other half they are quoting him to prove a point. (:

I already read posts of 4 Googlers and other respective SEOs who recommended the alternative of using 302 redirects instead of the nofollow attribute.

And I never trusted Matt Cutts, as I have mentioned endless of times in this forum and elsewhere, especially when members here were claiming that Matt Cutts is an authority.

Matt Cutts recommended the use of the nofollow attribute, which I do not use on my site or on the sites of my customers. I already mentioned before that I use 302 redirects in combination with X-Robots in the .htaccess files.

Because Matt recommended that? Or because other Googlers or respective SEO recommended that?

For God's sake NOT!

It is because Google has no chance to follow my links, no matter how much Google or other SE or bots, including bad bots would like to. Do you need facts? Let me know I will will demonstrate my technique here in the public live!

Let me know if you want me to show off.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I already read posts of 4 Googlers and other respective SEOs who recommended the alternative of using 302 redirects instead of the nofollow attribute.
...
I already mentioned before that I use 302 redirects in combination with X-Robots in the .htaccess files.

I am tired of this thread, but for the sake of possible misleaded public, I just can't skip over this.

Could you explain the relationship between individual rel="nofollow" attribute and 302 redirection?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

I am tired of this thread, but for the sake of possible misleaded public, I just can't skip over this.

Could you explain the relationship between individual rel="nofollow" attribute and 302 redirection?

OK. I think you require a live demonstration.

Go to my clients page: Frequently Asked Questions - ForexNewsTrader.com

In the main content area there is a link called web site. If you look at the link you will see it is /locate/?m=ccount2
If you click on the link, you will see it will lead you to the site here http:// live- forex -trading .com/

As you might see the index file in the locate folder is "index.php", since his hosting supports .php.
So the link is: forexnewstrader.com/locate/index.php

If you try to access that file clicking on the that link, you will be led to the homepage of his site.

In addition the same thing happen on his page /locate/?m=ccount1 if you see the link in the main content Forex Auto Pilot Website it goes to http:// forexautopilot. com /?hop= ...

So where does the juice go of those links, if any? Then to my clients homepage, or? Or are you claiming now that is goes to his affiliates?

So who must be tired in this thread after all. You or me?

So who is misleading the public. Me or you? I think now you can draw back that offensive statement. If you understood my post and technique here.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Yes, Don Quixote, but Matt was refering to them as being 2 statements which is more important than the actual content of the 2 statements.

Well, then, and assuming that you know Matt's intent, you are both quite wrong.

You cannot selectively chose to admit that which supports your position, while rejecting that which does not.

Calling 3 statements 2 will not it so.

BTW, Matt's own words, "the second statement (choosing how to link within your site), " make it clear that he recognizes that the 1st sentence is indeed comprised of 2 statements, rather than 1.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

OK. I think you require a live demonstration.

Go to my clients page: Frequently Asked Questions - ForexNewsTrader.com

In the main content area there is a link called web site. If you look at the link you will see it is /locate/?m=ccount2
If you click on the link, you will see it will lead you to the site here http:// live- forex -trading .com/

As you might see the index file in the locate folder is "index.php", since his hosting supports .php.
So the link is: forexnewstrader.com/locate/index.php

If you try to access that file clicking on the that link, you will be led to the homepage of his site.

In addition the same thing happen on his page /locate/?m=ccount1 if you see the link in the main content Forex Auto Pilot Website it goes to http:// forexautopilot. com /?hop= ...

So where does the juice go of those links, if any? Then to my clients homepage, or? Or are you claiming now that is goes to his affiliates?

So who must be tired in this thread after all. You or me?

So who is misleading the public. Me or you? I think now you can draw back that offensive statement. If you understood my post and technique here.

I also would like add here, that if Google or Yahoo would be able to crawl and extract pure .php files, since they support X-Robots, they will not follow those links anyway, because in that folder "locate" I have implemented an additional .htaccess file adding X-Robots-Tag "noindex,nofollow" rules. Even if it not necessary. Is is just for my MEGA Paranoia. Just in case Google or Yahoo or other SE will start hacking our servers.

Any further questions? Or can I go on with my research and development?

SEO Workers never sleep! And they never mislead!!!

Just FYI!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

Could you explain the relationship between individual rel="nofollow" attribute and 302 redirection?

If Google or anybody else will discontinue supporting the "nofollow" attribute, they will never be able to follow my links or of my customers which we do not want to be followed.

How do you like that? Is that good enough?

I was planning to write a tutorial about how to implement our techniques, but I think it would not be a good idea, after reading your post.

I think I share to much internal information here, and what a get is just a piece of ... you know what.

I do not posts links to sites of others who most are just speculations and theories. I post facts developed from myself and my excellent team!

My apologies to all for sharing all this information and for spoiling the thread.

Good luck with the "nofollow" link condom technique! I prefer the sterilizing technique.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If Google or anybody else will discontinue supporting the "nofollow" attribute, they will never be able to follow my links or of my customers which we do not want to be followed.

My apologies to all for sharing all this and for spoiling the thread.

No apology required or desired.

I'm of the school that holds that there is no such thing as useless information, but rather information that one has not yet found a use for.

So, please feel free to share, and let those who take issue which such see the chaplain about getting their TS card punched.

[activeco]

Do they really recommend 302 for cheating purposes?
In the past that way was used often by shady SEO's to steal PR of linked external domains, under certain conditions, which caused a lot of angriness in the web world.
Even if you can't steal it anymore, in this way you don't say "I am not sure about this link, I don't want to vouch for it", instead you say "It's all mine, just give me the PR", which is clearly misleading.
That may have some sense for internal linking, but it is still cheating. You even don't know what you send to your chosen page.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If Google or anybody else will discontinue supporting the "nofollow" attribute, they will never be able to follow my links or of my customers which we do not want to be followed.

If Google or anybody else discontinue supporting of any agreed protocol, we just can't fight it in any way.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

No apology required or desired.

I'm of the school that holds that there is no such thing as useless information, but rather information that one has not yet found a use for.

So, please feel free to share, and let those who take issue which such see the chaplain about getting their TS card punched.

Well to be honest, I invest the majority of my time with research, experimenting and testing.
And I reveal my results, if my stuff are successful.

Myself and my team have developed some even wore wicked stuff, which we fear to share with the public, only because those techniques can be abused and can blow up the web with spam, and no one will be able to deal with. Only if Google or other SE will start hacking the site owners servers.

If I ever decide to switch to balck hat SEO, I sure will share.

I already wrote down the above implementation techniques and published in my intranet for internal use (for team members only). In addition, I already use the redirect technique on my clients as I mentioned above.

I will think twice if I will bring all the info in the public. I guess I already did with my post above anyway.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

Do they really recommend 302 for cheating purposes?
In the past that way was used often by shady SEO's to steal PR of linked external domains, under certain conditions, which caused a lot of angriness in the web world.
Even if you can't steal it anymore, in this way you don't say "I am not sure about this link, I don't want to vouch for it", instead you say "It's all mine, just give me the PR", which is clearly misleading.
That may have some sense for internal linking, but it is still cheating. You even don't know what you send to your chosen page.

That is pure bullshit!

Who said I am cheating? When I disallow a search engine to follow internal or external links on my site, means that I am cheating? What do you do with the "nofollow" attribute? Take it easy buddy.

Besides Matt Cutts in his interview with Eric Enge mentioned that my technique is an alternative to the "nofollow" technique. So is Matt Cutts also going against Google himself?

If I tell search engines that I do not want them to index or follow some of my pages am I deceiving them? You should not show search engines content you do not show to users. You still have the right to show content to your users and not to search engines. Or did I miss something again?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

If Google or anybody else discontinue supporting of any agreed protocol, we just can't fight it in any way.

Then you have not understood my technique. If you did, then demonstrate here, how can they pass my firewall technique. Will they hack my server?

This thread is getting too ridiculous for me. Sorry.