QUOTE(pemburung @ Nov 15 2005, 11:56 AM)
According to Google, links are a vote, and these votes count towards ranking a site for importance. But, there are supposed to be about 100 separate aspects of a site's postion on a SERP, and links are but one of them. Surely a change in one part of a 100-term algorithm shouldn't make that much of a difference, especially if a site was considered very relevant prior to this change. The implication would be that links far outweighed, to the point of total domination, all other aspects of the algorithm. The only reason the site ranked highly before was due to its links. However, we see sites with few or no links - natural or otherwise - high on the SERPs. And, we know at least some of these disappearing sites did not have thousands of directory of other largely irrelevant links. So logically any link weight change would be out of consideration for these major changes.
rank highly because of link anchor text. You get enough link anchor text to point to a site
and you can push it to the top for any phrase.
The change in Google's algorithm could be indicative of many things.
I think that maybe Google felt too many irrelevant sites were bombing their ways to the top of search results, and one way of filtering those sites would be to qualify their link variety.
But they also caught some innocent sites in the process, which happens.
Although there are a couple of sites I have yet to look at, so far I haven't seen any sites that rely on blog links. The Sploggers haven't asked me for any feedback. I should probably sneak over to a certain forum and see what they make of the current update, now that it's over. Their ideas a couple of weeks ago were kind of off the wall.
Nor have I found many forum links in the backlinks of the sites that have returned to good standing. Forums and blogs have long been subjects of criticism, with respect to link spam.
Take that for what it's worth.