18 replies to this topic

[jspope]

Hi!

Here is an article entitled Google's New Link Filter for your consideration.

Regards,

Stephen :-)

[Randy]

I read that one this morning and it's making a lot of leaps of faith. Enough that any and all opinions-as-fact reached could well be totally wrong.

Beginning with, in Google's Patent they do not specify if they're going to value New Links more or Old Links more or some sort of combination where links that are between X Days Old and Y Days Old are going to carry more or less weight. The patent says nothing about what is going to be given more or less weight.

[Martin C]

of leaps of faith.  Enough that any and all opinions-as-fact reached could well be totally wrong.

Randy

Just out of interest would you say you agree or disagree with his Conclusion?

Conclusion

Many search engine optimization professionals believe that Google has implemented a dampening filter for new incoming links. The alleged filter is thought to depress the link popularity boost and the Google PageRank transfer of newly added links.

Not everyone in the SEO community supports the concept of a fresh link dampening filter. There is really no absolute way to determine whether it exists, one way or the other.

As with the controversial, and somewhat related Sandbox theory, there are techniques to avoid the filter's impact, one way or the other. Fortunately, good SEO practices are the best route for a cautious website owner to use as prevention.

A good relevant theme oriented linking program is the best method to keep any filter to the absolute minimum.

A good linking plan is a great idea at any time; whether a filter on new links exists, or is simply a mirage.

[Jill]

Many search engine optimization professionals believe that Google has implemented a dampening filter for new incoming links. The alleged filter is thought to depress the link popularity boost and the Google PageRank transfer of newly added links.

I would disagree. Show me some evidence, I've sure not seen it.

The answer to the problem is very simple. It's got EVERYTHING to do with Google's aging delay and nothing more. It has NOTHING to do with links, just time.

[Martin C]

I would disagree.  Show me some evidence, I've sure not seen it.

Are you disagreeing with the

....believe that Google has implemented a dampening filter for new incoming links. The alleged filter is thought to depress the link popularity boost and the Google PageRank transfer of newly added links.

or

Many search engine optimization professionals believe

or both?

[Randy]

Do I agree that something is at play Martin? Yes. Most definitely

Google was (and is for that matter) being Gamed, on a major scale. They ended up in this unenviable position partly because of their own success in being the only player for several years and partly because they left themselves open to it by placing so much weight on a couple of factors and not really paying attention to what some where doing.

While those factors may not have been easy for the "average" webmaster to take advantage of, truth is they're quite easy to take advantage of. Anyone with a couple thousand dollars in disposable income each month (that they'll get back 100 fold) and a little bit of knowledge could Game Google in a big way. It's childs play in fact.

Google has decided to fight back. Likely because they had to with other big name players coming onto the scene.

There are several ways they could fight back. My own personal view is that they're taking a multi-pronged approach. So for someone to state as absolute fact, without any caveats, that it's all due to some new link filter is an error. To do so at the exclusion of other causes is irresponsible. And when placed in a publication that a lot of unexperienced webmasters may read, chances are quote hight that such "facts" may well lead many down a false path.

[projectphp]

...partly because they left themselves open to it by placing so much weight on a couple of factors and not really paying attention to what some where doing.

Hmmm, not really sure that is fair, Randy. Link Analysis is harder to game than any other SEO factor that was previously used. Without a doubt.

I think Google have done a good job moving and adapting, it is just that with $10 domains, and hosting so cheap, massive site building efforts are trivial, and countermeasures are costly, in terms of storage, processing and Human resources (programming) time, for a product that is, for all intensive porpoises, a loss leader for Google.

Just out of interest would you say you agree or disagree with his Conclusion?

Personally (not that I was asked), the first sentence is half true: most SEOs do believe in this, or at the very least claim to (because it helps justify SEO failures to clients, with nasty and long forum trail).

But I really question this:

As with the controversial, and somewhat related Sandbox theory, there are techniques to avoid the filter's impact, one way or the other. Fortunately, good SEO practices are the best route for a cautious website owner to use as prevention.

The second sentence is especially strange. What are these "good SEO practices", and why are they "best" for "cautious" website owners in the face of this new filter?

And this as well:

A good relevant theme oriented linking program is the best method to keep any filter to the absolute minimum.

Really? Why? How does a proposed age filter make "theme oriented" links better? Or is that advice separate to the discussion? An unrelated non-sequitur?

My AU$0.02 (about US$0.14): lets forget the article is not well supported with evidence other than an appeal to popularity, and assume this filter exists.

So what has this changed?

IMHO, very little. If new links count more, absolutely nothing has changed. if old links count more, very little has changed.

Link building, which is what the patent effects, is still a required step for any site, SEO or not. Nothing has changed in terms of what you can do with link building or why, but what a filter using links age would change is the time frame to benefit from links. This makes Buying links for link Pop and SEO benefit, a practice that is hard to measure the ROI on already, an even more difficult to measure practice.

It would also mean that people will need to work harder for longer with less reward. The side effects from this may be quite interesting.

This would probably most help sites built with solid business fundamentals (proper Business and Marketing plans, revenue and traffic streams that are well thought out witha solid USP) do even better, as fly by nighters living off Google will be less prevalent, and only sites with multiple revenue streams will flourish.

But in any case, all the patent applications and purchases from Google (like Applied Semantics) are designed to push the boundaries of what a site needs to do in order to be an SEO success, and to help the cream to naturally rise to the top. IMHO, this makes building better sites, better business and better brands increasingly important, because a reliance on SEO, that has always been a risky proposition, will be become more risky over time.

Edited by projectphp, 07 April 2005 - 08:25 PM.

[Jill]

Great post as usual, projectphp!

[Martin C]

But I really question this:

The second sentence is especially strange. What are these "good SEO practices", and why are they "best" for "cautious" website owners in the face of this new filter?

And this as well:

Really? Why? How does a proposed age filter make "theme oriented" links better? Or is that advice separate to the discussion? An unrelated non-sequitur?

Okay - well it's not my article to defend but I seem to have read the article differently to some people as I just didn't feel that the article was claiming anything as fact but merely highlighting current theories and thinking. I may have to re-read it.

As for the two statements that you quoted I feel that what he was trying to say was related to earlier parts of the article where he highlights that links have been open to, as Randy says, Google being gamed by people who understand the importance Google have put on links.

As Randy also said, Google have not abandoned their theories on the importance of links but have decided to further qualify their theory by saying only some links are good. As with most "simple" ideas when it comes down to the problem of deciding what is a link for ranking sake and a link for quality sake it is very difficult to determine. Not wishing to put words into either of your mouths but I think Randy is saying this is something they had found they had to do, you are perhaps indicaing it was something they always planned to do - If that is fair I'm with Randy on that - not that it matters.

I therefore take from his two statements that what he is saying as a summary is something that is often said throughout this forum. When establishing links you should concentrate on links that bring a real benefit to your visitors. In other words it isn't about volume it is about quality and relevancy. A link from a ball bearing manufacturer to a party clown website probably pointless, a link from a ball bearing manufacturer to a professional standards website probably useful to people involved in the world of ball bearings.

What I understood him to be saying is that if you concentrate of acquiring links in this fashion, i.e. that are genuinely improving the quality of your website, then no matter what theories are true or not as to how Google actually evaluate links, you should benefit long term.

I would have thought that this is the case - so if people are disagreeing with what he has written either I'm surprised or have misread or misinterpreted the article.

[Randy]

You captured the gist of my thoughts on the links and how Google uses them Martin. In my mind, what they're doing now is a natural extension of where they started. In it's simplest terms, it used to be that a link was a link was a link.

That's not quite so true anymore. Now the anchor text in (and around) the link is becoming a larger part of the equation.

ProjectPHP: I wasn't trying to bash Google by any means with the "they left themselves open to" the link abuse. I'd have probably done the exact same thing they did, or to the point didn't do for the last few years.

Meaning that even though they certainly knew, as did we all, that some were gaming their algorithm because of the cheap availability of both domains and hosting, Google certainly had little motivation to do anything about it. They were the only game in town after all, for a looooooooong time. So it didn't matter one iota to their bottom line if they were The Best or not, because they were The Only.

The new competition from Yahoo!, MSN and the like have seemingly kicked Google's development and growth back into high gear. Which is a good thing IMHO. I truly hope that they can find some sort of workable balance, because I rather like the idea of having at least 3 major engines.

Why? Put bluntly, we've seen more innovation and development in the Search industry in the last year than we saw in the last 5 years combined! Mainly because these three industry behemoths are all fighting for the same space and all looking for an advantage. Competition is good.

[vandelaer]

I just started my link building, now this the first time that i visit this forum I guess I have a lot to learn

[projectphp]

Welcome vandelaer

There is always a lot to learn (that is why we all like so much), but the basics start with "Do what is best for your visitors" and it flows from there. That is more true of link building than anything else!

I would have thought that this is the case - so if people are disagreeing with what he has written either I'm surprised or have misread or misinterpreted the article.

Nah, you are absolutely right, but both you and I have the benefit of greater knowledge than many. Yourself and I can read between the lines, but not everyone can, and I think that is a mistake the article makes.

The article is also vague and specific in equal measure. Statements like "It's widely thought that a link from the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) provides an almost immediate boost to the indexed website" are also confusing.

I guess I just found the article a bit vague and unfocussed, and wanted to focus on those areas.

I therefore take from his two statements that what he is saying as a summary is something that is often said throughout this forum.

No you are right Martin. I just feel that writing an article on one topic and concluding with other stuff is confusing, especially when that correlation isn't drawn and explicitly stated.

If that was to be the case, a better conclusion would have read "no one knows how much of any of this is true, but the best advice for link building is as it always was..." Even better, add a part about focussing efforts on likely long term partners (which is an age filter based conclusion).

To include phrases like "...there are techniques to avoid the filter's impact.." is misleading if his conclusion was intended to imply as you, and I admit I, both read between the lines to find.

IMHO, if there is a temporal filter applied to links (and you know, I truly believe there is in some form), there is nothing you can do about it. There are, alternately, things one can do to achieve the same overall goals as previously served by link building and SEO, but there is nothing anyone can do to "...avoid the filter's impact..."

I think people reading these articles need to understand that. If there is a sandbox that affects all sites, there is nothing you can do about it but wait. If older links count more, they count more. Again, nothing you can do about it.

However, if you focus on your real goals, that is building a business, you can achieve your goals in any climate, under any filter using a variety of tools. SEO is only one small part of that, and rankings have never been a goal in and of themselves anyway.

[Randy]

Welcome to the fun and game vandelaer !

[Debra]

Everyone has their opinion - which is fine - but I wanted to comment on something I saw in the article I personally don't agree with -

Google could suspect a high volume of links added at one time to be purchased, and therefore suspect. The possibility would be in keeping with Google's strongly suspected policy of discouraging link sales. After all, Google's guidelines point out that any type of linking schemes are against its policies.

The bold is mine for attention. Two points here. I've never heard a Google rep at any of the conferneces, or the supposed "Googleguy" ever say that they discourage buying links. What they do say is avoid doing anything link related that will artificially inflate your rank. http://www.google.co...guidelines.html

The last statment about schemes..... I think the author meant "bad schemes" but since it's written as it is, I'm going to point out there is nothing wrong with recip linking, buying links, link promotions, cross linking, press release, article linking etc, schemes. They are fine and all part of the overall sales and marketing mix a website should employ to build brand, increase rank and attract traffic.

A good relevant theme oriented linking program is the best method to keep any filter to the absolute minimum. A good linking plan is a great idea at any time; whether a filter on new links exists, or is simply a mirage.

Spot on!

[wayne h]

Hi all.

I am the author of this controversial article.

Thank you for your open and honest assessment of the article and its shortcomings. If I were to write it again, I would make a number of changes and tighten up the "leaps of faith".

In fact, this article actually started out as two articles, and they somehow got joined together as one. I'll try to avoid that happening in the future, as it devalues the article, and the points I am trying to convey. Two more complete articles would have been much better and more informative.

As noted here, the article made some good points, and fell very short on others. Since I write so many articles, there will always be one where the message is not as clear as originally intended for the readers.

You might be interested to know that the article in question has received some very wide coverage, and favourable response. To the credit of the High Rankings membership, this is one of the rare forums where a strong critique is found.

In case you were wondering, I much prefer to see my articles criticized and their shortcomings pointed out, than to receive blanket praise. In fact, much of the criticism found here agrees with my own opinions of the article strengths and weaknesses.

Thanks for the open and honest discussion of my article.

Wayne Hurlbert