Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Will Google Fix Backlinkkng Prob.?
Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:14 PM
Not sure if any of you have experience the following, but in my industry, several of my competitors have "partnered" (paid a lot of money to) with internet.com, and if you are familiar with how that site works, they have a network of well over 20,000+ websites that ALL display a set of links, dynamically made, that come from internet.com. (you will see this sidebar of links on these sites with the header called internet.commerce)
So basically what happened, is one of my competitors had like 200 backlinks on google, and then all of a sudden, they hadd over 15,000 backlinks on google. Then other competitors joined in (three total) and they all have well over 15,000 backlinks, 99% of which are all from the network of internet.com websites. And i'm sure they are paying a bucketload for this.
But here's my question: do you feel search engines should consider that spam?
We know that if one joins a link farm, and then gets their website added to over 20,000 other websites, this constitutes deception, as these sites would not normally link to you. And it generally doesn't matter, as those link farm sites are usually worthless. And we know, that search engines look down upon this.
So similarly, should search engines link down upon the 20,000+ links from the internet.com linking network also?
Or does the fact that they are very selective with who they will partner with make them less of a candidate for spamming?
Or at the very least, do you feel that search engines should not count these links, in the same way that they do not count adwords links and other such links mentioned above?
Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:21 PM
No, we don't know that at all.
It sounds like you're basing this assumption on the fact that they don't show all the links in a backward link check. But what they show has nothing to do with what they count or not count as a backward link.
You can be fairly certain that every link is counted in one way or another. It's certainly possible that certain links are passing less PageRank (or no PageRank) however, but you sure can't tell that based on what they show in the backward link check. It's a huge leap of logic to assume that you could.
Of course not. It has nothing to do with the search engines. It's advertising, and that's exactly what the search engines should (and are trying to) consider it as. Google (through Matt Cutts) has stated uncategorically many times that they are not interested in counting paid advertising as a vote for a site and it's pretty clear that they are working on ways to determine which links are ads and which are votes. Some, like the ads at Internet.com are easy to figure out. Others, like the ones you might purchase from a text link broker, are harder to determine.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:39 PM
But you did answer my question in saying that google does not want to consider paid advertising as a vote for a website.
I guess i'm just ranting, as it is frustrating that these votes are still being counted. It should not be too difficult to simply disregard the backlinks that come from those network sites, specifically from that internet.commerce bar. As you said, they should be easy to figure out. Yet, they still are being counted, and they have been for well over a year.
And for these cases of my competitors, it had nothing to do with content. One day they were in the top 10 or 20 (depending), and the next, BAM, number 1 with over 15,000+ backlinks.
I've considered many times to contact Jupitermedia and see about a partnership of my own. But i do not want to go that route, because i will not have earned my position. And i would like to think that google will eventually (hoepfully sooner than later) stop counting these as votes. I guess google has not paid much attention because we're probablly only talking of maybe 50 or 100 sites that benefit from this. The listing on this network of sites has less than 20 links, but they are rotated. So perhaps google hasn't noticed or cared because of the small amount of sites benefiting? Argh!
Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:49 PM
How do you know they're counting?
Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:12 PM
Well, knowing in the sense of absolute, definate knowledge, then no, i do not "know" they are counting.
As mentioned, one specific site was listed like 8 or 9 with approx. 200 backlinks, and this was for over two years. Then BAM, all of a sudden, they get over 18,000 backlinks (shown from Google) and they are number 1. And there were NO changes in page content for their site.
So can it be said that i absolutely know this is the reason they went to number 1? No.
But logic seems to dictate that this is the reason, and therefore, that the links are indeed counting.
Oh, and their PR then jumped from a 4 to 7 OVERNIGHT. And when i say immediately or overnight, i literally mean this, as i check those sites often.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:26 PM
That being said, that's a pretty big jump, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you're taking it to mean. A client of mine bought run of site links from a couple of sites for about six months last year, and their toolbar PR and reported backlinks went up. Their rankings for the anchor text of those ads only moved a couple of places, and that's normal -- they've been moving around in a range of the top 20 since we first optimized the site.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:37 PM
Sure, as i said, i don't "know" for an absolute fact that those backlinks are the reason for the #1 position all of a sudden.
But again, 200 backlinks, pr of 4, and ranking #8 for over two years. Backlinks would only fluctuate +/- 10 or so links. I would check the s.e. results at least every two days, and the next time i checked, they were number 1. I was dumbfounded. Their pr jumped to 7, and then i saw the 18,000+ backlinks from HIGH-PR sites. That's when i tried to figure it out and realized this was part of the internet.com network of commerce sites.
So again, my humble (but accurate ) logic dictates that those backlinks are the reason for the jump.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 04:09 PM
If they went from nowhere to 1 I might agree with you. But you really just can't say when going from number 8 or 9 to 1. It's the normal course of business.
You don't think that buying those links was the only thing they did, do you?
That said, one would assume that Google would not be counting those Internet.com links because they've been selling them for ages. Whether they are counting them or not, however, is anyone's guess.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 04:33 PM
- The site is around #10 for a search on the ad's anchor text
- The exact phrase doesn't appear on the page, although all the words from the phrase do
- It's at #1 for the exact phrase (in quotes)
- The cache of the page indicates that the exact phrase only appears in links pointing to the page
- A large number of pages from the network come up in a backlink search on all three major search engines
But if I were to accept that purchasing the ads were the one direct cause of the ranking (and obviously I don't know where this page ranked before the ads were purchased, much less whether any other changes were made) it still raises a huge question in my mind: Was it worth the money?
Did the ads improve their rankings for this term or others? Are these terms, if there's more than one, bringing them traffic? Is that traffic converting into sales? The ads (and the rankings) go to the company's home page, where there are links to all sorts of items -- not just the ones being advertised.
And the page that comes up at #2 on the exact search is an internal page on another site. That page is about exactly what's in the search, and nothing else. I bet it converts pretty well, if anyone actually searches on that phrase
Posted 07 May 2006 - 04:51 PM
So assuming that's true, any guesses as to why Google would be counting such obviously paid links?
Apparently it's just one more instance of Matt Cutts spreading FUD about paid links. That's all I can think of.
Which sends the message that if you want to raise your rankings for a certain phrase, just buy text links from paid link farm networks such as Internet.com.
And people wonder why some of us don't believe a word Google and its engineers say...
Posted 07 May 2006 - 04:59 PM
Posted 07 May 2006 - 06:25 PM
So they obviously did a lot of work, as I know, because i was #5 and 6 all the while. But the jump to #1 with the aforementioned facts seems to point solely to the internet.com links. And yes, i do believe they are being counted.
But i think i lost the point of this thread and we were discussing whether or not we "know" they were being counter. I believe they are. But that is not the point. The point is, ASSUMING they are being counted, do you feel google should address this and stop counting those links as votes?
So as to the question why would Google count such "obviously paid links" that they've (internet.com) "been selling for ages"?
As mentioned, the number of links on the internet.commerce sidebar is less than 20. And these go through some type of rotation. So how many total links (websites) are truly benefitting? 20 at the least, and how many at the most? 50, 100, perhaps a bit more. There are not a bunch of sites benefitting from this, and they represent a TINY, TINY fraction of the web. So either (a) Google is unaware of this, or ( it is way down on their priority list of changes in their algorithm.
I feel it is the latter, and just hope they will do something soon! time for rant again.
Ah. feel better already.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 08:30 PM
No, see that's where your logic goes sour to me.
Rankings change all the time without the site doing anything. It's often just a change of algorithm.
Not saying that the change didn't occur because of the links, but you definitely can't conclude that just because they went from #8 to #1. It happens all the time without doing ANYTHING.
It really doesn't matter what we think.
Google is entitled to count or not count whatever links they want. Perhaps they believe that people who buy links from Internet.com deserve a boost. If so, it's their engine, and so be it.
Posted 07 May 2006 - 09:09 PM
Less than perfect competency, or unsolvable technical challenges.
Matt Cutts isn't necessarily spreading FUD. He's just saying what he believes, which happens to be not exactly right. Google ought not count advertising links they way they count "editorial" links, otherwise the search rankings will always favor the biggest advertiser, rather than the most useful site.
Intention and implementation can be two different things.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users