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.

[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.

Deepsand do you understand now what I mean with dangerous to share all my info with the public? I am talking about use, and not abuse of techniques, and then I get to hear that I am implementing or sharing shady SEO techniques.
I think someone here never understood the meaning of sneaky redirects, or cloacking.

Is such an act called ridiculous?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is pure bullshit!

Uh,oh!

Who said I am cheating? When I disallow a search engine to follow 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.

I see you take a lot of official advices and even use it blindly without real understanding about the underlying mechanisms and WHY do they recommend something.

Where exactly does MC say that "your" technique is an alternative to the "nofollow"?
Let me help you with the link: Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge on September 24, 2007

The only place where he mentions 302 is here:

In general, Google does a relatively good job of following the 301s, and 302s, and even Meta Refreshes and JavaScript. Typically what we don't do would be to follow a chain of redirects that goes through a robots.txt that is itself forbidden.

So, they don't even follow the stuff that goes through forbidden places. Exactly what you do with your great technique.
"But...but he talks about robots.txt"... right? Please.

How do you cheat?
First you use 302 for actual 301, slightly breaking standards.
Then, let's say you allow user comments with links. Soon you will have: "This great page", "Phentermine", "SEx Sex SEx", "BEST SEO" and some legitimate pages, everything flowing to your PR king.
How do you call it?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

How do you cheat?
First you use 302 for actual 301, slightly breaking standards.

Your standards? If not, of whom? Of the W3C? The "nofollow" attribute is not a W3C standard.
So which standards am a breaking if I may ask?

Originally Posted by activeco

Then, let's say you allow user comments with links. Soon you will have: "This great page", "Phentermine", "SEx Sex SEx", "BEST SEO" and some legitimate pages, everything flowing to your PR king.
How do you call it?

Can you be more specific? I do not understand exactly what you mean with that. That I vote or link to such sites with my technique? Sorry, but I honestly do not understand.

And from now on, please facts and no theories or personal opinions please.

And don't forget. I own my site and not the search engines. I will tell them or anybody else what they may index or follow, and not they.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Your standards? If not, of whom? Of the W3C? The "nofollow" attribute is not a W3C standard.
So which standards am a breaking if I may ask?

That's what you miss the most. You'll have to find out for yourself how internet works and who's standards are followed.
Nofollow?

Can you be more specific? I do not understand exactly what you mean with that. That I vote or link to such sites with my technique? Sorry, but I honestly do not understand.

So you don't understand that you steal someone else's credit with the "technique"? With rel="nofollow" you don't count it, with 302 to your page you steal it.

And from now on, please facts and no theories or personal opinions please.

Are you looking at the mirror?

And don't forget. I own my site and not the search engines. I will tell them or anybody else what they may index or follow, and not they.

Even by deception?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

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

Particularly when, in this case, the protocol originated with Google!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

That's what you miss the most. You'll have to find out for yourself how internet works and who's standards are followed.
Nofollow?

Is the rel="nofollow" attribute a Web Standards based attribute? Why don't you ask W3C about that?

Originally Posted by activeco

So you don't understand that you steal someone else's credit with the "technique"? With rel="nofollow" you don't count it, with 302 to your page you steal it.

I steal it? What you are saying is theoretically and physically non-sense. I simply do not share PR with the other site. Do you mean that with my technique I draw PR from their site? So they return to me page rank of their site? Like they would do if they would link to me? Very interesting. Then I should redirect the links I have to Google, Adobe and others on my site too.

Originally Posted by activeco

Are you looking at the mirror? Even by deception?

Can you be more specific?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Deepsand do you understand now what I mean with dangerous to share all my info with the public? I am talking about use, and not abuse of techniques, and then I get to hear that I am implementing or sharing shady SEO techniques.
I think someone here never understood the meaning of sneaky redirects, or cloacking.

Is such an act called ridiculous?

I understand quite well; in fact, there are two problems that all pioneers face.

The 1st is the one you address, i.e. that their discoveries might prove to be more bane than boon.

The other is best described by the adage that one can easily spot the pioneers, as they're the ones with the arrows in their backs!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

I understand quite well; in fact, there are two problems that all pioneers face.

The 1st is the one you address, i.e. that their discoveries might prove to be more bane than boon.

The other is best described by the adage that one can easily spot the pioneers, as they're the ones with the arrows in their backs!

Thank you very much for the kind comments Deepsand. Looks like most probably the problem here is, that we both come from Pennsylvania.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

That's what you miss the most. You'll have to find out for yourself how internet works and who's standards are followed.
Nofollow?

So you don't understand that you steal someone else's credit with the "technique"? With rel="nofollow" you don't count it, with 302 to your page you steal it.

I think that you've missed the point of this sub-thread.

1) "nofollow" is a convention that was originated by Google, for Google's benefit; it is not a standard, but a proprietary implementation.

2) No one is obliged to assist any SE, including Google, in its endeavors. This means that one has the right to not allow Google's indexing engine to "pass PR" to an other's site.

3) Re-directs and meta-data for controlling the behavior of robots/spiders/crawlers are standards. And, per item 2), Webnaut's employing them in the manner described is well within his rights.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

I think that you've missed the point of this sub-thread.

1) "nofollow" is a convention that was originated by Google, for Google's benefit; it is not a standard, but a proprietary implementation.

Speaking about missing the point: Adding a new proprietary standard is not breaking existing generally accepted one.
Doing 302 and thinking 301 is.
BTW, it's not "Google for Google", but a larger consortium who introduced it.

2) No one is obliged to assist any SE, including Google, in its endeavors. This means that one has the right to not allow Google's indexing engine to "pass PR" to an other's site.

Right. Neither to do it because of Google's SERP.

3) Re-directs and meta-data for controlling the behavior of robots/spiders/crawlers are standards. And, per item 2), Webnauts employing them in the manner described, is well within his rights.

Legally, yes.
You will hear it as the main argument in the black-hat community.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Thank you very much for the kind comments Deepsand. Looks like most probably the problem here is, that we both come from Pennsylvania.

Best keep that close to the vest, lest we be accused of giving the Commonwealth a bad reputation.

PS - FWIW, SemAdvance hails from PA as well.

[Webnauts]

Dear SEO experts I have no intention to go off topic, which I guess I am not.
My question is: What happen with Googles parameter "?googlebot=nocrawl" for internal linking? Googlebot: Keep out!

Just wondering and pondering...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

Speaking about missing the point: Adding a new proprietary standard is not breaking existing generally accepted one.
BTW, it's not "Google for Google", but a larger consortium who introduced it.

Per, Live Search : Working Together Against Blog Spam , the others followed Google's lead.

Originally Posted by activeco

Right. Neither to do it because of Google's SERP.

Your meaning here is unclear to me.

Originally Posted by activeco

You will hear it as the main argument in the black-hat community.

But, it's the intent that makes all the difference, and, what Webnauts is doing is not for nefarious purposes. It's the same difference that distinguishes "hackers" from "crackers."

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

Speaking about missing the point: Adding a new proprietary standard is not breaking existing generally accepted one.
Doing 302 and thinking 301 is.
BTW, it's not "Google for Google", but a larger consortium who introduced it.

Would you please be so kind and reveal here that larger consortium?

Originally Posted by activeco

Legally, yes.
You will hear it as the main argument in the black-hat community.

Aha. So Google is introducing us Black Hat SEO attributes? Non-Web-Standards attributes?

And does that mean we are Black Hat SEOs? Just because you are unable to backup your arguments? If so, I honestly feel sorry for you.

Is it black hat if I do not share PageRank with affiliate sites?
Is it black hat if I do not share PageRank with sites I would sell links for?
Is it black hat if I do not share PageRank with irrelevant to my site's theme?
Is it black hat if I do not make my redirects sneaky?
Is it black hat if I do not share PageRank with sites that may be seen by Google, but not from myself as bad neighborhoods?
Is it black hat when I decide where my Pagerank should flow?

Very interesting.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Would you please be so kind and reveal here that larger consortium?

He probably refers to Yahoo, MSN, and the other hangers-on mentioned in Official Google Blog: Preventing comment spam

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

He probably refers to Yahoo, MSN, and the other hangers-on mentioned in Official Google Blog: Preventing comment spam

Ups? So they are taking over the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) now? Oh my Gosh!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

Where exactly does MC say that "your" technique is an alternative to the "nofollow"?
Let me help you with the link: Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge on September 24, 2007

The only place where he mentions 302 is here:


So, they don't even follow the stuff that goes through forbidden places. Exactly what you do with your great technique.
"But...but he talks about robots.txt"... right? Please.

Uh oh. I think I miss this part of your post. Are you trying to say here that pages excluded via robots.txt don't accrue Google PageRank?

[Webnauts]

One more question for you activeco:

Why doesn't this page get indexed? Google & Yahoo Crawlability

Is that another black hat technique of mine?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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.

I am sure Google thanks you for letting them stay in business.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I am sure Google thanks you for letting them stay in business.

What does that have to do with leaving Google stay in business? Aren't you capable to discuss about the core on-topic issues I mentioned above? If not, leave the irony and lets go ahead. If that was a attempt to make me go into the issue I do not want to mention in the public, then your attempt failed.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

What does that have to do with leaving Google stay in business? Aren't you capable to discuss about the core on-topic issues I mentioned above? If not, leave the irony and lets go ahead. If that was a attempt to make me go into the issue I do not want to mention in the public, then your attempt failed.

I am more than capable to discuss any topic I want. It is you guys who are unaware how Google treats links. As a matter of fact you don't even understand that the more links on a page the less pr is passed.

Then you want to jump in and say that you have developed some stuff that if you were to share with the public it would blow up the web. That no one would be able to deal with it.

Now, if your site was ranking #1 for search engine optimization, I might think twice about it. But I'd have to say at this point it is all B.S.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I am more than capable to discuss any topic I want.

It is not about if you are capable to talk about any topic you want. It is if you can hold on the issues I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by janeth

It is you guys who are unaware how Google treats links. As a matter of fact you don't even understand that the more links on a page the less pr is passed.

With this statement you just confirmed that you did not read my previous posts or you did not understand what the whole thing was about. If that is not the fact, stick on the technical aspects and lets go ahead.

Originally Posted by janeth

Then you want to jump in and say that you have developed some stuff that if you were to share with the public it would blow up the web. That no one would be able to deal with it.

I am so sorry to hear that you cannot deal with the fact that I am ethical, and that I do not want to share with the public techniques which if abused would be a new big bug in the search industry. In other words master black hat. Got it now?

Originally Posted by janeth

Now, if your site was ranking #1 for search engine optimization, I might think twice about it. But I'd have to say at this point it is all B.S.

If I abused those methologies I mentioned above, I would have been ranking already nr. 1 for that term. But since I am an advocate of ethical SEO, I cannot achieve a number one for that term for my domain/site which is only 18 months old.
So before we screw up this incredible cool thread, just tell us your position about the techniques I shared with you all here above Post 158, or stick to the original post, or anything else. Thanks.

Peace.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I already mentioned before that I use 302 redirects in combination with X-Robots in the .htaccess files.

A 302 redirect does not pass pr and in the past there was a problem with directories using 302's and linking to a script, that then linked to your website. That script often contained a counter script. These redirects have hijacked peoples websites in the past.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

A 302 redirect does not pass pr and in the past there was a problem with directories using 302's and linking to a script, that then linked to your website. That script often contained a counter script. These redirects have hijacked peoples websites in the past.

Great point Janeth. That is what I also met. 302 redirects do not pass PR. About the redirect script we use is safe, but if it was not, it could only harm us, and not the site we are linking to.

So I assume we both agree that it is a legitimate technique.

Thanks again Janeth.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

I am more than capable to discuss any topic I want.

But, only rational discourse is of value when dealing with empirical matters. That requires confining ones conclusions to that which can be logically derived from emprical facts, not merely from that which one takes to be the appearance of fact.

Opinions are of no greater value than the facts which support them.

Originally Posted by janeth

It is you guys who are unaware how Google treats links. As a matter of fact you don't even understand that the more links on a page the less pr is passed.

Odd, this coming from one who insists that proofs are unnecessary; one who, when their unfounded assumptions and conclusions are logically refuted, fails to acknowledge such.

If you very carefully read what has been said, both here and in related discussions, by more than a few, and rationally anaylze such, you will find that your beliefs regarding PR and SERPs are unfounded, that your claims to understanding that which we do not lack merit.

If you wish to discuss technical matters in a like manner, then there be meaningful discussion; if, on the other hand, you wish to merely opine, what is to be gained?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Odd, this coming from one who insists that proofs are unnecessary; one who, when their unfounded assumptions and conclusions are logically refuted, fails to acknowledge such.

I've been making my living online for the last 7 years. I understand how links work. Unlike you I make my living online.

If you very carefully read what has been said, both here and related discussions, by more than a few, and rationally anaylze such, you will find that your beliefs regarding PR and SERPs are unfounded, that your claims to understanding that which we do not lack merit.

If you wish to discuss technical matters in a like manner, then there be meaningful discussion; if, on the other hand, you wish to merely opine, what is to be gained?

I've got no desire to talk or discuss anything with you at all. I'd rather beat my head against the wall. And from this point on I'll do my best to ignore any post you make.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

I've been making my living online for the last 7 years. I understand how links work.

But, "how links work" is not the matter under discussion; rather, it is how PR is or is not passed via intra-site links, and whether or not one can manipulate such so as to gain a higher SERP.

Originally Posted by janeth

Unlike you I make my living online.

Why do you presume to know that which you cannot?

[ctabuk]

Greetings - this is lively little thread. So can we see statements supported by evidence please.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Greetings - this is lively little thread. So can we see statements supported by evidence please.

Maybe you should start at the beginning of the thread and read it through and not less to people whom have no idea what they are talking about.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Greetings - this is lively little thread. So can we see statements supported by evidence please.

About what do you need evidence David? If PR sculpting works, or something else?
Can you be a bit more specific?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Maybe you should start at the beginning of the thread and read it through and not less to people whom have no idea what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by janeth

... and not less to people whom have no idea what they are talking about.

Just because you most probably cannot perceive or understand the discussed technical aspects in this thread, due to lack of knowledge or experience, or whatever that should be, does not give you the right to underestimate all of us here.

If that is your intention, and you are not willing to contribute in this thread, just take your sand bucket and play somewhere else Janeth.

Or can we stay on topic?

Or should I also go off topic and start a discussion about how people claiming to be professional SEOs making themselves ridiculous?

So lets just drop it here, before we screw up the thread totally, and lets get back to topic.

Thanks.

John

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

One more question for you activeco:
Why doesn't this page get indexed? Google & Yahoo Crawlability

Is that another black hat technique of mine?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And I added X-Robots noindex, nofollow in my .htaccess for the global 302 redirect PHP file.

This technique is far ahead than the nofollow attribute or any other art of link condomizing!

I never wanted to mention my technique in the public, but I just could not hold myself back anymore.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

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

I have been spending a great weekend and don't really want to chop much time out of it for this more and more silly thread. Oh, well.

You know, I was a big fun of hilarious Inspector Clouseau played by Petter Sellers in the legendary Pink Panther movie series.
But this is the real life inspector. Some innocent people may take it seriously.
Let's assume for a moment you really mean what you say.
So, you suddenly discovered REP noindex, nofollow for an html document?
Again, applying stuff without proper understanding of it . Do you have any idea why X-robots-tag was introduced?
Maybe you used it even before you came with this art out of your secret lab.
Have you ever heard of '<META name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow">'?

And btw do you still use the 'googleoff' tags?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If I do not want the link to be visible to google at all, then I do this:

<!--googleoff: anchor-->

Using No-Follow on Internal Links Cause a Drop in Rankings? #:3298053

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

I have been spending a great weekend and don't really want to chop much time out of it for this more and more silly thread. Oh, well.

You know, I was a big fun of hilarious Inspector Clouseau played by Petter Sellers in the legendary Pink Panther movie series.
But this is the real life inspector. Some innocent people may take it seriously.
Let's assume for a moment you really mean what you say.
So, you suddenly discovered REP noindex, nofollow for an html document?
Again, applying stuff without proper understanding of it . Do you have any idea why X-robots-tag was introduced?
Maybe you used it even before you came with this art out of your secret lab.
Have you ever heard of '<META name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow">'?

I did not say that was from my secret lab. I said I did not want to share my technique writing a tutorial after the nice comments I got.

To clarify: Who else is implementing the method I mentioned in this thread (Redirects 302 and X-Robots) as I mentioned above, instead of using nofollow. Or where did you read that elsewhere?

Originally Posted by activeco

And btw do you still use the 'googleoff' tags?
Using No-Follow on Internal Links Cause a Drop in Rankings? #:3298053

Since you will never give up trying to put me down with something I understood wrong some years ago, should that mean that everything I do and say is wrong? I feel so sorry for you buddy. Can you show us some more stuff I said which were wrong or even harmed someone?

I am impressed of the level you debate, and I feel ashame that I joined such a low level discussion.

End of story.