OWG -- if this is so, then why are googlebombs and yahoobombs so successful?
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Sand Box Theory And Pagerank Updates
Posted 30 September 2004 - 04:40 AM
OWG -- if this is so, then why are googlebombs and yahoobombs so successful?
Posted 30 September 2004 - 04:45 AM
I actually agree with what you say much more than the average poster here does. Or at least I think I do. I think some of the other posters are missing some of your nuances, and reading them in the light least favorable to your position.
Nonetheless, could you put a little effort into your posts? It's incredibly difficult to read or skim text like:
"ssfjaosj.....sfasojsa!lsjfalsjw........sdfsdajl...... sfsd s dsf ds f sdf sfsjlj ...."
(where the gibberish is real words by you).
I think you have some worthwhile things to say, but it's hard to pick through your messages to find out.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 05:21 AM
Evaness you are quoting out of context there. I did not say that all bulk links are ignored perse, it is in the context of bulk links to new sites that appear sandboxed, as this is what the discussion is about.
Because they come from many different domains and ip's rather than lots from one as is normally the case. With bombing, huge groups of people set itup. And while we are on the subject, are you saying that the bombs are coming from sites that are all new and set up just for the bomb in question? I think not, mostly they come from existing established sites. So would not be effected by any sandbox effect.
And I have to add that criticising a posters prose or spelling is still classed as bad nettiquette I believe.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 05:59 AM
I got into a big flamewar with a couple of people as I was saying that it seemed perfectly obvious to me that Google would do everything in its power to negate and counteract SEO. A lot of the people over there got very irate over that but it still seems obvious to me- anything that attempts to subvert an algo (and I include submitting a site to DMOZ to this) is fair game for counterattack from Google or any other SE.
Google care about good relevant searches. It makes no sense for it to be otherwise. If they don't provide a good service, people won't use them and they lose revenue. End of story.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:07 AM
My problem with the sense that some of the posts in this thread give is that it is bad to promote your site and that somehow it is spamming the engines to advertise and build links to your site. google needs links to rank sites and its results would be a lot worse if it ignored links such as those in dmoz and googles duplicate version.
Edited by Diniz, 30 September 2004 - 06:13 AM.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:12 AM
Possibly so but at some point in the future when that method reaches saturation point, it will be penalised. I'd rather be ranked in the present and in the future.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:18 AM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:25 AM
I doubt it.
Every other SEO method that has contravened Googles algo has had some kind of limiter or tweak placed on it. Submitting to DMOZ will also be penalised if that method of SEO reaches saturation point.
As you say, every site that syndicates DMOZ is essentially duplicating links- I'd be surprised if this isn't taken care of at some point by Googles algo.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:39 AM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:43 AM
But Diniz, this is where the water gets muddied.
Can you honestly tell me what advertising agncy in their right mind would buy a link on forum software homepage, that has nothing whatsoever to do with their product, and thatadvert is3 words long?
Where is the ROI there? I put it to you and everyone else that the ONLY ROI is in the benefit of the link being there, and nothing else.
Please don't get me wrong, I have tried to keep it as clear as possible, but this topic is being read the wrong way by many. We are discussing rights and wrongs PURELY with regard the sandbox effect and WHY it might be being applied.
If you sell fishing gear, you advertise in Fishermans monthly, or tackle weekly or whatever is the hot publication with the right demographics of readership, and geographics to your business. You do NOT advertise in Pork breeders monthly. This is what is happening.
To understand my logic I will go back a few years.
The web was largley academic, with the odd bit of fun by geeks thrown in. It was all text (well mostly). On those pages of text were links in those links was a description of what to expect if you clicked on it. The links out were ALWAYS related to the subject matter on the current page being read, and it was linked to to back up an argument, or for any other reason that improved the quality of the experience of the person reading.
This is how it was when the Google Algo was dreamed up. Things have changed, and for the worse I feel. Now it is ok for pig breeders digest to link to The jewish chronicle (actually that was a bad analogy as there is a link all be it tenuous). But now people are linking with total disregard for the person reading the page.
I have nothing wrong with buying advertising, hell i used to sell mountains of advertising in our own publications, so how in gods name can I possibly be against it? Maybe it is my experience of advertising/marketing that makes it so black and white to me. I will try to explain.
Buying and advert on a relevant site with the intention of driving traffic to your site = Advertising
Buying and advert on a non relevant site with the intention of driving traffic to your site = crap advertising, but still advertising none the less.
Buying and advert on a relevant site with no copy to attract the visitor and encourage a clickthrough = spam
Buying and advert on a non relevant site with no copy to attract the visitor and encourage a clickthrough = spam
I guess the golden rule is this, and please ask yourself this question honestly. "would you pay as much offline and would you use an advert that said keyword keyword keyword in simple text, with no highlighting, no border, no hook, no offer, no call to action"? I can not think of a single time anyone would answer that yes!
Sure I have made ads that were full page with the domain name only in the middle and the words 'come see what your missing' below them. They got lots of traffic, but because the demographics of the publication was right they did well. NOT as well as proper adverts with copy and a hook and a call to action though. But they DID achieve the word of mouth we intended to go with the guerilla marketing campaign.
Nothing will convince me that having a couple of words linked at the foot of the page counts as advertising, NOTHING in the world. In the body, maybe, but not at the foot of a page.
Everyone is trying to go down this route ' Google loves links, we buy links, so we are advertising' But there it falls down, you advertise to clients, not to newspapers or radio stations etc. Your advert is for the benefit of your potential clients, buying links to appear high is just PAY FOR PLACEMENT, now dont you think that if google wanted pay for palcement that it would introduce its own model to go alongside its paid adverts? I better stop now as I am getting het up lol
Posted 30 September 2004 - 07:26 AM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 07:52 AM
Buying advertising is one thing, buying links is a different story. I believe Google and every other engine should place Zero value on this practice as it IS for the sole purpose of having inbound links that like OWG said "Have nothing to do with" the relevancy or the "voting" for a site. You can spend your dollars anywhere you like, but just like Adwords... it just means you have the budget, not the most relevant site.
Nobody says not to advertise, on the contrary - but this is and should remain separate from trying to outfox any SE. If they get wise (which they usually do, you can't be upset because your gray area was discovered...) I optimize for relevancy - anything else is not SE Marketing (IMO) - that would be SE Manipulation, which IS NOT what I optimize for.
Also, why is it we have posters who do not identify themselves here? Does this make it safer for you to make statements without being known? Everyone has a right to agree and to disagree on any topic, does this mean we lose tact with others who are here to learn, or educate, or listen?
Just Scott -
Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:02 AM
To be clear, that's definitely not a quote from me....
Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:09 AM
It's really, really, really simple guys. And I will sum up OWG's long post with this short one...
Buy all the links, text or otherwise, that you want. Nobody thinks that's a bad thing. Have a blast buying them.
BUT...and this is a big BUT...buy them for the link itself -- the ad and the traffic it can give you. If you end up getting link popularity for the link also, then that's a great bonus! Just don't assume it will always count, and make your buys accordingly.
It's that simple.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:29 AM
Not sure how to take that or what you mean exactly. The web has evolved from handles and nicks. If someone chooses to post under their offline name or not thats up to them. Its definitely not in the AUP of this forum that real names must be used at all times.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users