Googles new algo - is it working?
- Thread starter gkd_uk
- Start date
S
SkinnerW
Guest
It's definitely decrease number of submissions to the premium directories, especially to the bidding ones...
It also hit hard on SERP's and pr for the sites in question - directories, blogs, forums...
It also hit hard on SERP's and pr for the sites in question - directories, blogs, forums...
It depends personally i think its had an impact on those who are PR crazy, they dont like the fact that there PR has dropped because they have been selling links on the other hand if the link sellers are in it for the money then they may be hit by the lack of people purchasing links as there to scared to take the risk.
B
Bagi Zoltán
Guest
Well, we are brave enough, aren't we.
I hardly recognise any change at the ranking pages, but almost all of my sites drop PR. I had a forum which has a lot of natural link (real natural, not my work) and achieved PR2, which was a bit odd.:crazy1: This whole thing will prove fo PR hardcore fans, as i am, that PR doesn't worth bothering myself.
Welcome to the reals world Bagi, I know you used to be crazy about PR
Well, we are brave enough, aren't we.
A risk i will never take
, nothing wrong with a bit of well organized reciprocal linking.
I say organised.... i mean organised chaos lol
I submit to a small % of web directorys which are well structured & offer free or reciprocal submission (on such directory i really love is Bagi's directoryofseolinks thanks bagi
). I mainly use Lavalinx a new link manager to organise who can & cant link to me this allows you to monitor internal linking (links made through lavalinx) & external linking such as me & you making an offer now, it has its own reciprocal link checker so i know other sites are still linking to me which is a major factor as some people know users dont check there reciprocal links after a while & remove your links.
R
roksolana
Guest
My site was dropped to PR3 and I noticed average PR of backlinks is lower now. It seems there is not any BL site whose PR was rised. But the some stats shows 50/50. Is there something wrong? And, how does Google update PR without Bl update?
R
roksolana
Guest
It really seems that buying links is penaltised.
Even just one "one way" well thought out, paid link (IE: same niche, relevant readership)
from a high PR site is MUCH better than 5 reciprocal links from the same.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a webmaster monetizing their website by selling
or buying links. If I sold banner ad space on the top of my site to The BBC, it would be
seen as a great marketing plan. If I sold links to relevant sites, closely niched to mine
however, now it is seen as "spamming" the SEs.
I don't know about you all, but I will not bow down to the pressure that Google is giving
out, all the while Google is being hypocritical about it.
from a high PR site is MUCH better than 5 reciprocal links from the same.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a webmaster monetizing their website by selling
or buying links. If I sold banner ad space on the top of my site to The BBC, it would be
seen as a great marketing plan. If I sold links to relevant sites, closely niched to mine
however, now it is seen as "spamming" the SEs.
I don't know about you all, but I will not bow down to the pressure that Google is giving
out, all the while Google is being hypocritical about it.
S
SkinnerW
Guest
They are not telling you that you are not allowed to sell links. The way I understand it: if you link to low quality or irrelevant site - add no-follow to it...
I happen to agree 100% with the point Matt Catts trying to make in his post
gkd_uk
Well-Known Member
I just read this one on Matt Cutts blog:
Feydakin Said,
December 10, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
I keep seeing this, “it’s not fair” argument being used when it comes to paid links.. Obviously nothing is fair.. People with money will ALWAYS have an advantage over those that do not.. Just like Alta Vista and Yahoo! had a huge advantage over that little search engine project, Google.. didn’t last though, did it??
The same goes for anything.. People say that eliminating paid links will help the little guy.. How?? How does this help the little guy?? You don’t really think that a major corporation will go, “Oh, gee, we can’t do paid links anymore, guess we better give up and let Joe’s Motel grab that #1 spot for the lucrative Tucumcari Resort season”.. No, they are going to take their money and build a network of websites, chain them together and still out rank Joe..
My issue is that there is no way to tell which links are paid for and which links are not.. They all look the same.. Let’s say I sell links.. But I also give a few out for free to sites I really like.. Those links will all look the same.. But because a few of them are paid for the rest may “look” paid.. How does Google want to handle this?? If I put nofollows on a few of them and leave the rest alone is that good enough for Google?? Or will it be assumed that I am trying to game the system and get penalized for my sins??
And what about reviews?? Google has said all along that a paid directory link that is reviewed and human edited can be a good thing (Yahoo! Directory anyone?).. Yet, if I get paid to review a website or product on my blog I have to slap a nofollow on it or risk getting spanked.. How are those links different?? I’d wager that a solidly researched and reviewed blog post would be FAR more valuable than a silly Yahoo Directory link..
Instead of pointing at junk websites that sell links and crying over it why not just stop indexing the junk websites?? Stop paying people to run MFA sites.. Stop paying people to “Domain Taste” and register and squat, I mean park, on thousands of names.. How is it fair that Google pays these people to squat on names that people want and would USE??
And while we are at it, give me a rel=notoolbarpr option so I can turn thing off and get people to stop emailing me asking for link exchanges..
Feydakin Said,
December 10, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
I keep seeing this, “it’s not fair” argument being used when it comes to paid links.. Obviously nothing is fair.. People with money will ALWAYS have an advantage over those that do not.. Just like Alta Vista and Yahoo! had a huge advantage over that little search engine project, Google.. didn’t last though, did it??
The same goes for anything.. People say that eliminating paid links will help the little guy.. How?? How does this help the little guy?? You don’t really think that a major corporation will go, “Oh, gee, we can’t do paid links anymore, guess we better give up and let Joe’s Motel grab that #1 spot for the lucrative Tucumcari Resort season”.. No, they are going to take their money and build a network of websites, chain them together and still out rank Joe..
My issue is that there is no way to tell which links are paid for and which links are not.. They all look the same.. Let’s say I sell links.. But I also give a few out for free to sites I really like.. Those links will all look the same.. But because a few of them are paid for the rest may “look” paid.. How does Google want to handle this?? If I put nofollows on a few of them and leave the rest alone is that good enough for Google?? Or will it be assumed that I am trying to game the system and get penalized for my sins??
And what about reviews?? Google has said all along that a paid directory link that is reviewed and human edited can be a good thing (Yahoo! Directory anyone?).. Yet, if I get paid to review a website or product on my blog I have to slap a nofollow on it or risk getting spanked.. How are those links different?? I’d wager that a solidly researched and reviewed blog post would be FAR more valuable than a silly Yahoo Directory link..
Instead of pointing at junk websites that sell links and crying over it why not just stop indexing the junk websites?? Stop paying people to run MFA sites.. Stop paying people to “Domain Taste” and register and squat, I mean park, on thousands of names.. How is it fair that Google pays these people to squat on names that people want and would USE??
And while we are at it, give me a rel=notoolbarpr option so I can turn thing off and get people to stop emailing me asking for link exchanges..
No sir,
i don't think so i know a lot of who only alive in the online marketing by paid links.
They always buy links from good PR sites and get benefit from them.
I know a website who have only purchased links (more than 40 links) those they buy from the other sites and now they are leaders on the google search engine. Google like them.
i don't think so i know a lot of who only alive in the online marketing by paid links.
They always buy links from good PR sites and get benefit from them.
I know a website who have only purchased links (more than 40 links) those they buy from the other sites and now they are leaders on the google search engine. Google like them.
Similar threads
