What the Heck is a low quality link

[deepsand]

Yes Steve , i would tend to agree with you , but for many reasons i just think that Google doesn't see it this way . I think they just see it as niche or non-related link.

You seem to be unwittingly engaging in anthropomorphism.

The human brain has difficulty identifying all possible and realized relationships between multiple entities. Why believe that a computer program, working with limited textual input, the intended meaning of which oft times allows of multiple interpretations, is even equal at the task, let alone better?

[Tubby]

Sometimes I think Google is like a kid in an old time Sweet (lolly) shop. There are the large containers of Jelly babies, Jelly beans, gob stoppers. Right at the front of the counter. . these are the big sellers all the kids take these away to munch on by the hand full. .
On the back shelf up high are the real treats. The glass Jar with the "Barker and Dobson buttered Brazil nuts' . . . To google that singe jar on the back shelf could never be 'low quality' . . . But jelly beans. . Hmmmm (two a penny).

NEVER LINK TO JELLY BEANS! . . . Italian swirl dark chocolate crunches individually wrapped in silver foil - That's the link you want.

P.S.
Gone to look up "anthropomorphism"

[weegillis]

@Tubby, I think DS means trying to give human abilities of association to a machine that humans themselves are rarely more than a little apt at. But then, you found that out already, so why am I speaking.

It's funny, because I [was] thinking roughly the same thing (though hardly as eloquently as DS) about how hard it is to put a finite degree on the things that we as humans associate with one thing or another. Heck, half of us don't even have a vocabulary beyond 250,000 words, of which we use only a tenth in conversation and writing. What's more, somewhere in the thousands would be our recognition of brand and/or product names. If you're my age you'll remember,

"You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent!"

and,

"Honey? This AJAX shakes out white, and turns blue!"

(Both above are paraphrased from memory.)

Two new words that joined our vocabulary, and most notably their only meaning IS ASSOCIATIVE. And both are cleaners.

For a search engine to tell us that a dog has four legs, it has to parse it's indexes for dogs and continue parsing down to some statement that says directly that "a dog has four legs" (or possibly '4' legs if its math library is imported and interpreting math specific keywords) then returning it and the next best candidates in a result list. It can't actually tell us that a dog has four legs.

A child of 3 or 4 can answer that question by only looking at the dog. Their brain counts the legs for them, and they trust their 'low count' abilities already, though they might not actually know or realize it. They still answer, "four."

[deepsand]

<off_topic>

If you're my age you'll remember,

"You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent!"

Without even checking, spot on.

... and,

"Honey? This AJAX shakes out white, and turns blue!"

Recalled; but had to check wording, which was "Harriette, this Ajax shakes out white and turns blue."

Damned close for an ad that didn't get the play time, or have the musical jingle, that Pepsodent did.

</off_topic>

[kgun]

For a search engine to tell us that a dog has four legs, it has to parse it's indexes for dogs and continue parsing down to some statement that says directly that "a dog has four legs" (or possibly '4' legs if its math library is imported and interpreting math specific keywords) then returning it and the next best candidates in a result list. It can't actually tell us that a dog has four legs.

Most dogs have more feets than the average that should be close to 3.999. So you can not use the average as a representative dog.

I think there are few if any dogs with 5 legs, but there are some with 3.

[weegillis]

Most dogs have more feets than the average that should be close to 3.999. So you can not use the average as a representative dog.

I think there are few if any dogs with 5 legs, but there are some with 3.

Believe it not, @kgun, I saw this coming, full knowing you are absolutely correct, statistically speaking. Me and my rash generalizations... :lol

[Allanwilliams]

Low quality links are all about generated by paid links and from low quality websites. These may be either forums, directories and more which have very low page rank.

[deepsand]

Low quality links are all about generated by paid links ...

So, if if it's not a paid for link, it cannot be "low quality?"

... and from low quality websites.

You're defining "low quality" as being "low quality?"

These may be either forums, directories and more which have very low page rank.

But, PageRank is a strictly quantitative measure.

[LD]

Low quality links are links from website who have no connections to yours . Different topics like a website for tyres linking to a website for food. There is no chance the Google would consider that a valuable backlink .

What about a link from the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) to a jewelry site? It's a link from a site with no "connection" to the target site.

[williamc]

What about a link from the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) to a jewelry site? It's a link from a site with no "connection" to the target site.

What if its an article about jewelry that cites the site as an authority