The Dark Side of the Force: Skanky Links

[Dave Hawley]

Hi haystack

Thanks for re-assuring that I was reading it correctly.

I don't expect Google does have any way to detect if a link was/is paid for, for the purpose of PR. However, IMO, that doesn't automatically make it right. As you say, many SE and directories charge for links, BUT! It seems to be widely believed that Google simply passes on some PR to these linked pages based on the PR of the page housing the link AND how many other links are on the page. I don't subsribe to that theory and my reasons are this. I'll use the Yahoo directory as the paid link.

Some categories have much higher PR than others. Let's say that "Training" has a PR of 8 and only 3 pages listed and "Hotels" have a PR of 4 with 100 pages listed. So, why should a webpage, say in the training area, be given more PR than say a webpage in the hotel area? Surely Google would not pass on more PR as normal just because one is lucky enough to fit under a higher PR category? I would have *thought* that Google would say, Ok we will pass on to ALL pages in the Yahoo directory an additional PR of 1, all pages in DMOZ a PR of 1.5 etc. This way the paying for links it not left to chance of which category you just happen to fit under.

This becomes harder (to impossible) though for non SE and Directories pages. So while Google is not against paying for links, it doesn't mean it treats to PR flow the same on paid for links. IMO

[Mel]

When someone buys a link, they buy a link, simple as that, and as, Ed verifies, Google have no problems with that.

IMO anyone who has enough money to pay for links is not going to waste them by treating them as a means gaining PR, but will make sure that they do more good for his rankings and traffic than an increase in PR will contribute.

I don't know of any evidence that google calculates PR one way on some links and different way on others.

[cbp]

Mel et al

Here one that has stumped me:

This site is PR9
http://www.digits.com

The sites under Our Sponsors are IMHO buying PR. They have been listed there for at least a couple of PR updates (time for PR to be passed on) ... but they are not getting it. A couple of the sites are still PR2 (there is only ~30 outgoing links on the PR9 page) .... is Google somehow not allowing these links to pass on PR ?????

WHat say you?

CBP

[Conficio]

Mel et al

Here one that has stumped me:

This site is PR9
http://www.digits.com

The sites under Our Sponsors are IMHO buying PR. They have been listed there for at least a couple of PR updates (time for PR to be passed on) ... but they are not getting it. A couple of the sites are still PR2 (there is only ~30 outgoing links on the PR9 page) .... is Google somehow not allowing these links to pass on PR ?????

WHat say you?

CBP

Try at Google
link:http://www.krankenkassen-online.info/
and you find that this site has only 3 incoming links (digits not listed among them?). I'd guess one link from PR 9 alone does not cut it.

K<o>

[Conficio]

Sorry, please bear with me, I simply don't understand how and where you redirect http://example.com to www.example.com unless it's through one of those 3 ways I mentioned in my earlier post.

The Javascript I sometimes use is strictly for actual redirection, when no other way is possible (i.e. free web hosting where tehre's no .htaccess control, no regsitered domain name, etc.).

Are you suggesting I should always use the complete url when referring to my home page, when it would be easier and faster access-wise to just use index.html, without the domain? I'd be tempted to consider this an inefficient piece of code.

One would think that search engines should by now be atuned to the www present vs. www absent situation and not differentiate between them! Isn't the only time when they can ever lead to different physical addresses when there are DNS problems, and then most likely one of them wouldn't work anyway?

PR= PageRank it's the little green bar on the Google Toolbar. You can buy PR for the page of a site by seeking out a high PR page and paying the owner to place your link on there.

Thanks, I am familiar with this, but read on.

For myself, I really don't care about PR, being just a hobby webmaster. I was wondering though why Google showed a couple of green bars when I was addressing my site using www and nothing when I wasn't. One thing is certain, I would never consider raising my PR by paying for placement on somebody's pretigious web page, but that's just me, with no business sense whatsoever :-) This sounds too much like another dubious trick I've seen used: mentioning lots of famous names in the keywords or content tags (or even in invisible text) of a web page that in fact has nothing to do with any of those, just so that the page pops up in an unrelated search.

Christina,
it is not to complicated "example.com" is the domain. "www.example.com" is a server (and could be a sub domain). There is no rule that a web-server needs to be named "www" any other name can be chosen. You can even operate a web-server (or any other server, like FTP) under example.com (See slashdot.org for example).
The trick is, that example.com and www.example.com are set to the same IP address in DNS. This gives the appearance of the same content under two names. But also the web-server can be configured to effectively listen under both names (virtual servers) and even deliver different content on the same IP address. In many cases the server redirects every request for http://example.com/ to http://www.example.com/ and many servers even redirect any request for a directory (ending in "/") to the index.html page in that directory --> http://www.example.com/*/index.html
As all this happens on the server, you should not have to write any html or java script redirects. One would need more specific information to effectively help you.
If you don't want to discuss the specifics of your situation in the forum, drop me a private message and I'll see what I can do for you.

Hang around
K<o>

[ChristinaS]

[quote="ConficioAs all this happens on the server, you should not have to write any html or java script redirects. One would need more specific information to effectively help you.
If you don't want to discuss the specifics of your situation in the forum, drop me a private message and I'll see what I can do for you.

Hang around
K<o>
[/quote]

Oh, my java script redirects are just that: from one site to another site, because of various needs: name change (usually from a free subdomain somewhere to a proper domain on a paid up web site) coming to mind. it woudl be because I have no access to the server to specify anything like that.

Thanks for the offer. I have been under the impressions that www or no www the same site should be reached barring dns bugs. I suppose what I consider a bug couuld be on purpose too.

I personally have no problem with this issue. I was simply answering the original post at the top of the thread and it sort of shifted focus.

As I said, I am an amateur and PR of my sites is irrelevenat to me beyond a little curiosity. Again, as I said, I wouldn't resort to buying PR, or piggy-backing on other web-sites' PR, even if PR were important to me. Because if it were, it ought to be a fair measure of my own site's quality and popularity, not something you buy.

See, I told you I had no business sense :)

[magnolia]

I also made the suggestion to purchase links during the Advanced Link Building session in New York. It's the same comment I've made in the last several SES conferences and one I'll continue to make.

By the nature of the Internet, all links are a basic form of advertising, whether intentional or a navigational push. Regardless if you pay for it or not, when you put your link on someone else's site, you're advertising.

There is no right or wrong with that. What clouds the waters is when somone openly uses the term "PageRank" as a sales criteria. We all know that's a no-no because Google tells us it is. But...

should you consider a page/site's meter of green when deciding on whether or not to pay for a link? Absolutely. Especially when the Director of Google Technology plainly states in an Advanced Link Building session that you "should get links from sites with high PageRank".

A pages/site's PageRank should definitely be one of the criteria used when forking over cash for a link. But not the only one. Ask about demographics, geographics, traffic, visibility, co-promotional opportunities, who's advertisied in the past etc..

All the questions you'd ask if you were placing ads in Southern Living, ABC or your local newspaper.

I don't disagree that buying links from non-proft organizations would be a good thing provided they reinforced all those "ics" up there I just mentioned. But to buy space on those sites "just because" defeats the purpose of strategic linking. (And no, there is no special tax benefit for buying links from non-profits. Whether you buy a link from a non-profit or a FOR profit business it's still an expense of doing business. Tax implication is the same).

Consider the suggestion I made and look into your online association(s) as a place to buy links. This would be a more targeted tactic I think than buying space on dot orgs that have decent PageRank but little or nothing to do with your business. Associations attract people in your "biz" so why not advertise on them?

And to magentawave who asked:

Speaking of Google PR....can anyone explain why your site shows a lower PR without the "www" in your url than with it? My home page has a PR6, but without the "www", I only have a PR2.

I see you got a lot of technical advice and that's great, but let me throw this non-techie thought in - when you have sites using two different URLS' (one with the wwww and one without) then Google sees these as two different domains and splits your PageRank. Not a very sophisticated answer, but still true.

If you can, check your backlinks to be sure you have a consistent URL pointing at you. Every little bit of PageRank helps.

Debra.

[Dave Hawley]

should you consider a page/site's meter of green when deciding on whether or not to pay for a link? Absolutely. Especially when the Director of Google Technology plainly states in an Advanced Link Building session that you "should get links from sites with high PageRank".

That is a lot different than saying one should BUY links from high PR pages. If this becomes common place it's the end of PR for sure. ANY link that has been bought should not account for ANY PR IMO. Trouble is Google can probably only do this for directories and even then I suspect they give ALL links in directories (regardless of the page PR and number of links) the same PR.

[minstrel]

should you consider a page/site's meter of green when deciding on whether or not to pay for a link? Absolutely. Especially when the Director of Google Technology plainly states in an Advanced Link Building session that you "should get links from sites with high PageRank".

Yes, but... I think it's more important to look at the content, relevance, and quality of the site, for several reasons: (1) I think that is the direction Google is heading (at least with respect to the first two); (2) it serves your visitors better; and (3) it allows you to estimate low PR pages that will becone high PR pages in the foreseeable future - and you just got in on the ground floor! which means your link may well be higher on the links page for that site... Remember: the internet is a dynamic entity, not static - what is true today may be very different tomorrow.

That is a lot different than saying one should BUY links from high PR pages. If this becomes common place it's the end of PR for sure. ANY link that has been bought should not account for ANY PR IMO.

That would be consistent with Google's goals of "democratic ranking" and their principle of "do no evil", but I don't know how they would detect or enforce it...

[Mel]

I guess I fail to see the point.

Is is "undemocratic" to purchase an ad in a newspaper? Surely not, so why would it be "undemocratic" to purchase one on a website?

The same is true of "do no evil" as I fail to see any thing evil in purchasing adspace, whether to put a ten line message or a single URL on the ad.

Or are there different standards to be enforced online and off?