Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
leelee700
Joined: Oct 09, 2006
# Posts: 50
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-08 23:30
Hi - there is a forum member here that has a copy that sells text links on various websites (i've see it advertised in the banners above). After reading this article on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/04/29/sanar-google-skyfacet-tech-cx_ag_0430googhell.html)
Where it talks about, among other things, of a site getting condemned to Google's supplemental index for what the VP thinks was due to buying linnks on other sites (from the Forbes article below):
"Other online businesses have similar stories. MySolitaire.com, another online diamond business, spent January to June of 2006 in the supplemental index. Amit Jhalani, the site's vice president of search marketing, says he figures that cost his business $250,000 in sales, and he says he still doesn't know why the site's pages got Google's thumbs-down.
"So many of the rules are vague," Jhalani says. But he admits that he tried gray-area tactics like buying links from more established sites to juice his traffic. "For a small site like ours, you have to stay right on the edge to compete with sites with bigger budgets," he confesses."
--End Article Text--
So what do you guys think? Is it a good idea to buy text links from other sites, or should it always be avoided?
The fact that SEF allows that member's advertisement for that kind of service makes me think this community thinks its OK.
|
 |
mj1256
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
# Posts: 918
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-09 04:52
the ad and paid links was discussed not to long ago.
here's some info and you may want to consider this little news item from google
Google wants us to report paid links.
here the article on google master page
[link]
so others can now report us if we used paid links and we will be penalized for it; and we must exclude ads and paid links in the robots txt file?
its posted to the forum here
[link]
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-09 12:41
Don't both buying links unless it is STRICTLY for traffic.
|
|
leelee700
Joined: Oct 09, 2006
# Posts: 50
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-09 13:19
Hi SportsGuy,
So should you report it to Google if it's strictly for traffic? How do you report it? That link looks like it's only to report someone else who is violating their terms.
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-09 14:04
IMO, no one should be reporting anyone.
I believe Webmasters should be focused on building their own sites into resources that perform well - not wasting time "outing" others.
This is simply Google's way to get others to help them with a job they are struggling with.
Google knows it can't definitively find all the paid-for links out there, so they've asked other kids on the playground to tattle on their friends.
So, if a Webmaster wants to report paid links, they can go through their own Webmaster account with Google and spill the beans.
Frankly, I feel there is a place for paid-for links - they're simply another form of ad buy, IMO. The trouble is, and Google struggles sometimes with this, is context. One man's ad buy is another man's grab for Page Rank. It's a tough nut to crack - I keep focused on my own sites and building them up, rather than policing what others are doing.
|
|
leelee700
Joined: Oct 09, 2006
# Posts: 50
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-10 11:54
thanks SportsGuy. but i wasn't referring to reporting other people buying links. i was saying what if you buy a link for traffic, should you tell google? or are we giving them too much info and too much power?
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Jul-10 13:16
I wouldn't. Google isn't interested in hearing from folks trying to do the right thing, they're after folks who are trying to scam the system - better you never appear on their radar... 
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-12 17:44
How does google know whether or not a site paid for a link when a link looks legit?
Example: car site “A” links to car site “B”. Car site “B” pays for the link, but the link looks legit and on topic. Car site “C” links to car site “D” and the link looks legit and on topic, but “D” did NOT pay “C”. All sites in question are legit and have good info. The only real difference is how car site “B” got it's link.
How can google penalize a site based in this senario?
Yes, there is visible evidence of buying ad links in certain situations, but in many instances it may be hard to tell.
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-12 18:01
That's the Holy Grail question Curt. My understanding is that, over time, Google watches each link. if the space remains, and the links in it change, it's likely the space houses a paid link.
Obviously all evidence is circumstantial, but since we never see them tweaking the algorithm, how are we to know whether they use that circumstantial evidence to make decisions or not?
So, if you're selling links in a non-obvious fashion (as in your example), short of Google seeing your invoices, there's no real way for them to know you've sold the link, IMO.
But, swap that link out each month with a new site and a pattern quickly shows - which might just be enough for them to act on, given the lack of transparency on their end.
All that said, it's really not a big deal for one-off, small sites selling a link here and there, I figure. I did remove my Text Link Ads code, though, as I suspect that's the sort of stuff they're really targeting - the trading of PR value for money, thus negating the back-bone of their rankings system.
Since TLA uses PR as a factor in determining the value of a given link to the publisher, it's a clear tie-in that, obviously, Google would seek to avoid/negate.
Sadly, it still comes down to Google telling publishers how to monetize their sites - which doesn't play well with me...
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-12 18:21
... only if that monetization interferes with their index.
And paidlinks do.
I agree that Google cannot 'know' without a huge workforce taking each site appart.
But there are plenty of behaviours that are dead giveaways for big-time sellers, and fair few for smaller fry.
You can bet that Google has examined a fair few closely, and found ways to compare 'clean' sites with 'known sellers' that they can write into the algo.
Site-wide links is strong circumstantial evidence, non-related links is weaker, and I could name plenty more (as could we all). Once you put them all together, I'll bet Google can recognise a major seller very easily indeed. As could most of us!
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-12 19:12
In the Court of SERPs, circumstantial evidence is more than enough to convict, I suspect...
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10438
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-12 21:00
That post about Supplemental Results is old news. Supplemental status was driven by Pagerank as a major factor, but not the only factor. Things have changed a bit since then. Paid Links is now a problem. It is the not the answer to solving Supplemental issues.
I still see many sites that have Supplemental Results caused by inherent Duplicate Content issues within the site. Fixing those is still a priority, even if Google no longer actually shows a "Supplemental" tag in the results any more.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 02:28
On the matter of reporting, it depends on your personal philosophy, the time on your hands - and most of all, whether the person you reoprt has hurt you or anyone else.
It's no secret that Google depend now - and always have - on reports; historically, spammers have been so quick to report each other, the rest of us don't need to.
I've never reported anyone for using paid links or selling them - but some industrial sellers are doubtless hurting my place in the serps, and if I found someone I knew to be doing that, of course I'd report them - I'd be a fool not to.
I cannot afford to 'buy my way' to the top of the serps, and I have no sympathy for someone buying their way above me - and even less for someone who says "Gimme Money and I'll get you above quadrille"
Gaming Google is NOT a victimless activity; for evry place the spammer climbs, an innocent party has been pushed down. And a seracher has been disappointed - in the site, and in Google.
|
|
animated3d
Joined: Dec 22, 2005
# Posts: 419
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 04:01
its always been so that in the business world the one with the more money has the upper hand, a big restaurant can buy some advertising space on the back of a magazine and bring in more costumers while a smaller family run restaurant would struggle to let people people find them, and buying a link to me is sort of same as buying advertising.Its not fair,even wrong sometimes , but who said that life is fair? A big budget website can buy themself links form those big guys such as business.com or yahoo while the ones who cant afford it have to come up with a better linking plan.
|
|
nhd4me
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
# Posts: 43
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 05:08
Paying for links and directory submissions gets very expensive in my experience ... and for what is at best, a risky return.
Investing valuable time and money in pursuit of that #1 spot in order to generate higher traffic levels must also be factored against conversion of that traffic in order to get a 'real cost'.
Spending funds in such activities, IMO, consumes many businesses budgets, ahead of core marketing activities ... such as managing and servicing their exisitng customer and repeat customer base. Once, (well at least before the big G) we used to teach that the cost to retain an existing customer was infinately cheaper than trying to attract and convert a new one ... so consider next time you have an opportunity to purchase a paid link, a submission or even that SEO tool ... What are the other options for these funds and what are the true returns likely to be?
I realise that this is an SEO Forum and most of you will be wanting the latest SEO tool for Xmas, so please take that part as humour. However with the number of entrepenuers I see in here, I thought that this might be a timely reminder of 'perspective' and give a moment of pause before they spend their money on something that, as said, are risky returns at best.
Hope my ramblings have not overstepped the bounds of this thread.
PS ... is it too early to start wishing you all a Merry Xmas?
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 05:27
"its always been so that in the business world the one with the more money has the upper hand, a big restaurant can buy some advertising space on the back of a magazine and bring in more costumers while a smaller family run restaurant would struggle to let people people find them, and buying a link to me is sort of same as buying advertising. Its not fair,even wrong sometimes , but who said that life is fair? "
No-one said life is fair. But if it's unfair, are you really criticising Google for making it a little fairer?
Of course the big guys have all the advantages, they always have, always will. Kudos to Google for letting the rest of us look in thru the window
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 11:04
I realise that this is an SEO Forum and most of you will be wanting the latest SEO tool for Xmas,
...here I though I was the lastest SEO Tool...LOL
No worries on this.
|
|
webevaluations4free
Joined: Dec 04, 2007
# Posts: 1
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 22:24
Do links help if you get thousands of them quick on a new domain name? Or do the search engines pentalize you?
|
|
SportsGuy
Staff
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
# Posts: 3600
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-13 22:32
Quality is what you want, not quantity. That said, when you have lots of links, the chances of having good links in the mix goes up.
Having thousands of links show up suddenly - pointed to any website - is a flag that something is wonky to the engines.
They prefer things to grow naturally and organically, which usually means slowly...
|
|
kynduvme
Joined: Apr 18, 2001
# Posts: 977
|
Posted: 2007-Dec-14 17:30
agree with sports guy, building fewer quality links over time will have a better effect than thousands instantly
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
