Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 11:31
I'm sure you have heard about Google's new -60 penalty.
If not, I'll summarise it. It's a penalty being applied to sites suspected of buying inbound links. In particular, it is applied to sites that have site wide inbounds.
Seeing as you (mods and insiders) can have links to your own site in your posts, have any of you had this penalty applied?
The test is to carry out a search that you know you had site links for in Google and see if you're still there. If the site is under penalty you will still have your site links, but you will be in position 61.
|
 |
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 11:56
Don't see the connection between paidlinks and links to own sites in posts. "paidlinks" means 'paid for links'.
Perhaps you could explain the problem a little.
Incidentally, while we know (Google has made it clear) that link selling / buying may result in a penalty, I suspect the "-60" penalty is entirely guesswork.
Google generally does not reveal the details ... and being a sophisticated animal, it's likely that the penalty will vary with the offense.
I've read a few of those discussions for amusement (not in these forums), and most of the threads discussing 'fixed tariff' penalties involve a wide variety of webmasters discussing a wide variety of issues affecting a wide variety of sites. How they come to agree on one magic number is waaay beyond me!
Either way, it's either about paidlinks or not ... please clarify! 
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 12:05
I'll dig out some more info. One of the Google engineers (not Matt Cutts) admitted that the penalty exists. It was first mooted when site links were turning up in position 61.
Anyway, the penalty is geared towards site wide links. I'm wondering how strict the algo is.
You, for instance will have nearly 900 links to your site from here. Whilst it's not exactly site wide, it is a lot.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 12:09
Have a look at
www.free-seo-news.com/newsletter316.htm#facts
[ Message was edited by: JimBot 10/14/2008 05:48 pm ]
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 12:50
Sorry, I'm not convinced that a fixed tariff penalty exists.
It would be a pretty stupid thing to do, and no way to prove it.
Google has many data centers; if I had a site at 07, then are you really insisting that every data center will now place me at 67? Or are you claiming that they'd all independently add 60 places?
But the serps are always live and always relative; most of my sites drift up and down a little. Will they now be fixed?
Plus 20 other objections to fixed tariff penalties.
I'll drop this now, because we'll never agree - without evidence, and I really find these threads just go round in circles; If I have a huge site that spends millions on links, will Google give me +60, and you, with two paidlinks and small, honest site, get +60? It's loopy, in my opinion.
Though I do accept that a penalty does exist.
And I still don't get your connection between site-wide links and paidlinks - you seem to be assuming that they are the same? My site does get a 'signature link' here; but why would Google see that as a paidlink (it isn't!).
I've never heard that suggested before, and again, I don't see any evidence (even a hint) that Google is making such a bizarre assumption.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 13:58
I just took a look at the snake oil sller's site you linked to:
"Instead of penalizing seemingly "bad" links, Google should simply ignore them. That way, people could not harm competitor websites. If you don't want to get in trouble with Google, you should only use ethical search engine optimization methods."
So Google should simply ignore 30,000 spamlinks, just because a handful may be fakes put there to damage a competitor? And that's ethical?.
Why don't they suggest that Google just sack Matt Cutts and all the anti-spam team, and let ALL the spammers get off free and easy?
In the real world, Google does not give in so easily - they just get a bit more devious in dealing with spammers; for example, I'm sure it's no accident that most of their focus is on link sellers; existing rules on link farms and link exchanges catch most of those fool enough to be link buyers.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 16:53
So have you been caught up in this? I guess not.
Have any of the mods with higher posting levels (G1SMD with 10,000 posts for instance) noticed anything?
I suspect that Googles algorithm is a bit cleverer than that, but I'm still interested to know?
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 17:11
But you haven't said why we should get 'caught' - signature links are NOT paidlinks, and existed before Google did - why would Google suddenly get into a flap about a standard feature of forum software? Why would Google suddenly confuse sitewide links (which - in my view - have been discounted for years anyway) with paidlinks?
It really doesn't make sense, and it falls foul of Quadrille's Oft-Quoted Sixth Law of SEO:
Never assume Search Engines are stupid.
Making a simple link between sitewide links and paidlinks is just what I'd expect from snake oil salesmen; don't get suckered into their strange and simple outlook on life. Google can hold more links in its consciousness than you or I could dream of in a lifetime; the most simple explanation is not likely to be the whole story. Not even close.
Also remember than of all the 'innocent parties' 'caught' by Google's algo changes, most were caught bang to rights, trousers around ankles, fingers in the till. No more innocent than Jack the Kipper, caught sleeping on duty in 1974. Google really, really, really isn't that stupid.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 18:00
A high link count from a single website can seen as an indicator of possible possible bought links.
These are the words of Google employees. Your just going to have to accept that that is how they think.
Please don't waste time over analysing it.
A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 18:54
"an indicator of possible bought links." No contest there, of course it is - though we have no evidence that point came from a a Google mouth.
But why jump from there to "the only indicator Google needs to accuse innocent forum-signature users of bought links."
Google is much, more sophisticated than that, and you can bet that the pattern of links matters much more than the number from one site.
Google wiped out most of the commercial link farms almost overnight by looking at link patterns, not by counting links.
You're just going to have to accept that that is how they think.
Dealing with upcoming urban myths is never a waste of time - it's essential to stop these stories putting fear in webmasters' minds.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 19:03
Is that a yes or a no?
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 19:10
I don't know why you're jumping all over me here.
I have stated that I think the algo is cleverer than that.
Often when the algo is tweaked, innocent people get caught out. I'm simply asking if anybody here has.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 19:11
What was the question?
If it was "Do I believe every snake oil rumour on idiot blogs?" - No I don't.
Please, please, tell me you've seen through the twaddle.
I've a serious dread that if you cling to your rumour, we'll be going around in circles until Christmas.
So - think carefully, now - What Was The Question?
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 21:41
I'm finding this a bit hostile.
There really is no need for this.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-08 21:56
You're taking it way too personally; this isn't about you or me - it's all about a silly rumour.
Just drop it and walk away. Let it go.
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1459
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-09 10:15
Ok, I'll chime in with my 2 cents as this is a really interesting subject and I am interested in what people have experienced in this and a good discussion on this forum would be good as I'm sure no one here suffers from the more common penalty.
I've seen the screenshots from WMW about the -60 penalty and looks like it (or something like it) really exists. I think Google is cleverer than that to think the links from insiders and mods are paid links otherwise everyone at DigitalPoint are well and truely screwed.
Also just because a paid link is paid for doesn't mean it appears on every page, I'd prefer to get a paid link on a relevant page to the site so the link itself is more relevant for SEO and more clickthroughs so it's a wonder how Google does actually know what a paid link is and what isn't.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-09 10:40
I'm sure a lot of time and effort have been spent fine tuning this part of the algo.
So, yes, it makes me wonder too. That's how my train of thought ended up here.
I remember back a few years ago, one of the mods over at cre8asite forums had all of his link credits from the forum removed. What we don't know is whether that was following a request from a competitor or whether it was purely algorithmic.
I expect it was algorithmic and probably caught up a few people at the same time.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
Prowler
Staff
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1788
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-10 09:45
No. May be Forum links are not factored in the scheme of things.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2012
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-10 10:17
Prowler, have you seen any positive ranking due to your links?
|
|
Prowler
Staff
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1788
|
Posted: 2008-Jun-11 06:14
None whatsoever.
|
|
Inbox
