"A link is a link" vs. "relevant links"

[greeneagle]

williamc,

"It still works and does not show signs of dying at all. That was shown in the recent 5 billion page PR nightmare of googles. They are giving a lot of talk to the new changes in links, but so far, little has actually been shown as being affected by what they say is happening from what I have seen."

Let's don't mislead anyone here. That GOOG fiasco was completely unassociated with IBLs, link mongering or any other kind of linking issue (outside of internal links, maybe, if you stretch it real hard).

What happened? You're usually more "guarded" than to place something like that, out there. Maybe you simply misquoted yourself, or meant to say something else. It happens, after a long week.

Ken

[williamc]

"It still works and does not show signs of dying at all. That was shown in the recent 5 billion page PR nightmare of googles.

Let's don't mislead anyone here. That GOOG fiasco was completely unassociated with IBLs, link mongering or any other kind of linking issue (outside of internal links, maybe, if you stretch it real hard).

Actually, if you knew what you were talking about in the least, you would have known WHY they got indexed so fast. It was due to the "other" google exploit. Namely blogspots 404 takeover hole. They took over thousands of pr4,5,6 & 7 blogs that people lost at blogspot thru the exploit and pointed them all at the domains in question.

It had a whole lot to do with IBL's.

Tunnel vision sucks Ken, learn from this. You looked only at the sub-sub-domain exploit and not the entire thing. It was not one single issue that caused those 5 billion pages. It was a planned series of seperate but related things. Always look deeper than face value.

(footnote: less than one day after google deindexed the guys pages, they also finally fixed the blogspot issues aparently.)

What happened? You're usually more "guarded" than to place something like that, out there. Maybe you simply misquoted yourself, or meant to say something else. It happens, after a long week.

Actually, I am surprised you left yourself this open and vulnerable, but it does seem to be a specialty of yours lately.



Always, but always, research a little before arguing links with me Ken :)

[greeneagle]

Yeah, I've read the blogs and other info on it including the main blog about it:
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/6999and and participated in the thread here.

Yes there were temporary false (hijacked) links, nothing real. How many were relevant? Probably quite a few.

There was nothing normal about that scenario. It was an exploit. Let's make sure everyone understands that. Those weren't real links.

How could anyone really think they could perp a falsehood of that magnitude and get away with it? Surely it was always intended as a Post-BigDaddy GOOG spanking. Whether it was intended that way or not, the end result was a spectacular public spanking at the whipping post. That was really the only possible conclusion there from the start. Was it ultimately intended that way? If so it was "genius"!

I'll grant you that with a 3 week old site, the GOOG should have caught a rapid escalation in IBLs, but on the other hand they have to allow for honest "viral" stimulation.

That whole scenario just doesn't apply to everyday SEO/SEM, and that is what we are trying to discuss here. That's not the rule and just doesn't apply here.

Isn't that what we said would have to happen to get GOOG to back off their deaf ear position posted in Matt's blog?

It happened, thank god! It had to be a significant enough technical issue to turn their heads. We noted that here.

But, that whole scenario and everything associated with it is an extreme anomoly in the face of everyday SEO/SEM, and that is what we are discussing here:

Best known practices for everyday SEO/SEM.

We can't possibly play that perversion into valid everyday IBL/OBL practice.

Or as it sounds, are you saying there are no real safeguards in place, even now and anyone can linkmonger any way and time they want to gain altitude.

Does that sound like good advice to you, right now?

Ken

[greeneagle]

William,

OK, You have my full attention!

How many links total were purported to have been hijacked in the game? It must have been an astronomical number. I have not seen a count.

Ken

[williamc]

To be honest, I do not recall the number. someone posted a damn screenshot somewhere and it was definately not small.

And where I beg to differ is that it does apply to everyday SEO. The 404'd blogs were gained thru an exploit for sure, however that does not change the fact that the resulting links from those gained blogs were any less real.

The links themselves were not an exploit. They were real links from higher PR pages. How those pages were aquired does not play into the ranking ability of the links, which as we saw, he had a whole lot of long tail keywords ranking extremely well.

Was it done for googles benefit? I doubt it, its been rumored that this guy has been doing the same thing since 2002-2003.

The only reason these sites got busted was due to the fact that google decided to index 5 billion pages this time around. (oh, but that was just a "bad data push", I digress)

Either way, it did have to do with inbound links as you mistakenly said it was not, and I think you see that now, so my point is made.

It's saturday and I have kids to horse around with all damn day, so cya tonight possibly :)