PR3 with 4040 Backlinks?! :P

hexed

Jun 23rd 2004, 11:24 pm

PR3 with 4040 Backlinks?! :P
You guys want to see something really funky? I've been watching this PR7 site for some time. It has been PR7 for almost a year now, and just now, it dropped to PR3, yet still has 4040 backlinks. Check it out...

www.alertbot.com (http://www.alertbot.com/)

Almost all of its links are reciprocal links or off-themed links. 4040 backlinks and PR3? Unbelievable. This may tell us that Google has put some strict dampening on off-themed links and reciprocals - or maybe this site has had some massive negative PR penalies added because of the off-themed reciprocal linking.

Hexed

Foxy

Jun 24th 2004, 12:09 am

Hi

If you do link:www.alertbot.com you get 4040
If you do @www.alertbot.com you get 202

:)

nikao

Jun 24th 2004, 1:39 am

195 even ;)

maybe it got penalized?

SEOGulper

Jun 24th 2004, 2:05 am

This may tell us that Google has put some strict dampening on off-themed links and reciprocals - or maybe this site has had some massive negative PR penalies added because of the off-themed reciprocal linking.In my opinion, this would be EXCEPTIONALLY bad. That would mean a competitor can damage our PR simply by adding a bunch of off-topic links from their sites to our site!

Plus, why can't Goog just shut up and let people link to who they want to and link from who they want to? I swear, they want to control the SE world! :(

nikao

Jun 24th 2004, 2:18 am

I swear, they want to control the SE world! :(
they already do

SEOGulper

Jun 24th 2004, 1:00 pm

they already doYou know nikao, that may be true. But I can't think of one true monopoly that was ultimately beneficial to those forced to use it's services.

stinkoman

Jun 24th 2004, 1:19 pm

In my opinion, this would be EXCEPTIONALLY bad. That would mean a competitor can damage our PR simply by adding a bunch of off-topic links from their sites to our site!

Plus, why can't Goog just shut up and let people link to who they want to and link from who they want to? I swear, they want to control the SE world! :(

how would they do that? if they were your competitor, then their site would be at least mildly related - so any random topic links they put would hurt them just as much. I'm sure there are more factors to it.

-Greg

Bizcut88

Jun 24th 2004, 1:39 pm

I saw the same thing happen to this guy. He was a pr 8 with over 6000 backlinks two weeks ago.

http://www.refermyloan.com

Nitin M

Jun 24th 2004, 8:11 pm

Only theory here...

I think possibly google has wised up to site-wide links. This would be really easy to do ... just cap the total PR or the number of backlinks that count towards PR between 2 sites.

I have heard of lots of sites with massive PR drops and they seem to be sites with LOTS of backlinks ... I don't know what kinds of backlinks, but from looking at the sites (this example also) I would say the sites are not "worthy" of thousands of backlinks and so they probably bought some site-wide backlinks which are now devalued. Like I said, just theiry, but would be easy for google to implement and would explain a lot of the examples of dropped PR that I have seen.

SEOGulper

Jun 25th 2004, 3:07 am

how would they do that? if they were your competitor, then their site would be at least mildly related - so any random topic links they put would hurt them just as much. I'm sure there are more factors to it.

-GregHow about this: You are an online fish store. I create 200 bogus, crappy one page sites, but make sure there's at least onelink to each so they get spidered. Then I place hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of totally off-topic links to you. GooGoo blasts you for all those off-topic links.

They have no way of knowing who added those links or why they are there, only that they ARE there! They follow their little algo and you are screwed.

It seems that if they are punishing the faithful for "naughty" backlinks, then this method of hurting a competitor would work. New steps to learn in the GooGoo dance.

Foxy

Jun 25th 2004, 3:23 am

Nice idea SEOgulper ... hehe

Except I don't think IBLs are that important in the SERPs - only in the PR and that has been downgraded in the SERPs so that it has a much smaller value. :)

stinkoman

Jun 25th 2004, 1:05 pm

How about this: You are an online fish store. I create 200 bogus, crappy one page sites, but make sure there's at least onelink to each so they get spidered. Then I place hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of totally off-topic links to you. GooGoo blasts you for all those off-topic links.

They have no way of knowing who added those links or why they are there, only that they ARE there! They follow their little algo and you are screwed.

It seems that if they are punishing the faithful for "naughty" backlinks, then this method of hurting a competitor would work. New steps to learn in the GooGoo dance.
Well two problems I see with that; one you would be making a huge financial investment in doing something like that. With all those different domain names and hosting.
Which brings me to the second thought - if you did it all with subdomains and shared hosting plans, a C block filter (if there is one) or something similar would certainly hit you. Plus I don't think google got so popular by being easily thrown like that.

-Greg

WilliamC

Jun 25th 2004, 6:54 pm

Nice idea SEOgulper ... hehe

Except I don't think IBLs are that important in the SERPs - only in the PR and that has been downgraded in the SERPs so that it has a much smaller value. :)

I have to wonder if you are just trying to stir this thread up with that statement. It has been widely proven that IBL's with the proper anchor text can make or break a sites ability to reach top positioning. No other single factor has as much weight with rankings.

SEOGulper

Jun 26th 2004, 11:27 am

Of couse, my entire premise is completely hypothetical, and would be a complete waste of time.

I just don't believe GooGoo would let itself be manipulated this way, therefore I find it hard to believe they are "punishing" people for having off-topic IB links. Theoretically at least, we have no control over who links TO us!

Now, that said.... IF GooGoo is beginning to trace Whois data to determin domain ownership and also tracking IP addresses to filter out multi-domains from one IP, then that's a horse of a different color!

The power of the great GooGoo God becomes ever more infinite.

Foxy

Jun 26th 2004, 11:48 am

I have to wonder if you are just trying to stir this thread up with that statement. It has been widely proven that IBL's with the proper anchor text can make or break a sites ability to reach top positioning. No other single factor has as much weight with rankings.

Perhaps you might think that..and all things being equal, that would be the case.

However things are not always so, and that is why this forum exists and why the ideas are discussed.

Just up until February it used to be, that with good on page SEO you could get to the top, not any longer. You need links. But what sort?

So the great experiment was created and guess what? The page has stalled and gone backwards. On top of that we have created the second experiment with two new sites and two pages [identical except for the text] one which has just one link to it and the other numerous.

Guess which one is number 9 at allinanchor after one week?

Worried? You should be - it is the one with one link, one IBL.

So why is it there?

:)

Foxy

Jun 26th 2004, 11:51 am

Theoretically at least, we have no control over who links TO us!

And that is why I posted what I did. :)

WilliamC

Jun 26th 2004, 12:20 pm

Just up until February it used to be, that with good on page SEO you could get to the top, not any longer. You need links. But what sort?

Ok, Let's see if we can put this in terms that may help.

a few facts.

Link popularity has *always* been one of the most weighted measures of a pages ranking. It didn't just start in february. Unless you mean february of 1996.

The only pages that have ever been easy to rank well with only on-page SEO are non-competitive terms. And it has been that way for at least 8 years.

What sort of links? Any link is a good link. There is not a single major engine that is using relevancy in links as yet. It is coming, I think, but it is not here yet. At this stage of the game, a link is a link. Unless of course it is passing no value via a penalty or devaluation.

WilliamC

Jun 26th 2004, 12:25 pm

I just don't believe GooGoo would let itself be manipulated this way, therefore I find it hard to believe they are "punishing" people for having off-topic IB links. Theoretically at least, we have no control over who links TO us!

Agreed. I would think, if anything, google knows that the majority on "on-topic" links are the ones that are created by SEO's.

Googles original premise about links being so important was that a surfer visits your site, finds it so much to his liking, that he links to it to let his visitors get a chance to use that excellant site. Now this guy may have a website on farming and the one he linked to may be a webmaster resource that helped his site become much more user friendly. This is just one example of the general flow of natural links.

Does that seem on-topic to anyone? And do you really see google devaluing that link that is a true natural link? I sure as heck don't.

Foxy

Jun 27th 2004, 1:17 am

Ok, Let's see if we can put this in terms that may help.

a few facts.

Link popularity has *always* been one of the most weighted measures of a pages ranking. It didn't just start in february. Unless you mean february of 1996.

The only pages that have ever been easy to rank well with only on-page SEO are non-competitive terms. And it has been that way for at least 8 years.

What sort of links? Any link is a good link. There is not a single major engine that is using relevancy in links as yet. It is coming, I think, but it is not here yet. At this stage of the game, a link is a link. Unless of course it is passing no value via a penalty or devaluation.

What I find interesting is someone who "knows the facts". The self annointed expert.

But just in case you read the post wrong let me explain, I said:

Just up until February it used to be, that with good on page SEO you could get to the top, not any longer. You need links.

Did I mention non-competitive terms? No.
Did I mention Page Ranking? No.

But now that you mention it - please tell me what the importance of Page Ranking is now - do it simply, as I'm a simple person, on a scale of 5, 5, Very Important to, 1, Not at all.

And, whilst I am about it, please give me the determination of non-competitive term. Please explain definitively where the "line in the sand is drawn".

But did I mention a need for links? Yes.

Why? Because Google says that this is now more important than before [M. Cutts, Googles representative at a conference in London] which confirmed what was thought after the February 2004, Austin [enough specifics for you to know the date?]. Note it was Google who said it - not me.

What he did not do was to say " Any link is a good link" - in fact he avoided discussion on it - nor did he say "There is not a single major engine that is using relevancy in links as yet".

So what is anchor text then?

Nor did he say "At this stage of the game, a link is a link. Unless of course it is passing no value via a penalty or devaluation."

Now what are these then? Value, Penalty, Devaluation?

Value? That is passing PR that has nothing to do with relevancy!

So what you are saying then is that a link may be a link subject to a set of rules applied, in which case the statement "a link is a link" is null and void.

To summarise, what I was attempting to do was to show that what had gone before in Google should not be taken as the Gospel now [unless you are annointed :) or you are an Ostrich] and links are not just links anymore You need links. But what sort? unless you happen to be in the business of swapping links....oh mymy... I've just noticed, your site just happens to be textlinkbrokerage.

Merrows

Jun 27th 2004, 3:36 am

Agreed. I would think, if anything, google knows that the majority on "on-topic" links are the ones that are created by SEO's.

Googles original premise about links being so important was that a surfer visits your site, finds it so much to his liking, that he links to it to let his visitors get a chance to use that excellant site. Now this guy may have a website on farming and the one he linked to may be a webmaster resource that helped his site become much more user friendly. This is just one example of the general flow of natural links.

Does that seem on-topic to anyone? And do you really see google devaluing that link that is a true natural link? I sure as heck don't.

I studied two postgraduate degrees (one a PH.D.), and the idea of citing papers is common, and the founders of google.com transferred the idea to commerce. However, the academic controls of papers are strict and therefore a citation in a paper is controlled and this gives it importance. If you are cited by the IEEE or a leading researcher then you will probably get your Ph.D. (I was advised that 3 papers published guaranteed a Ph.D.)

But in commerce people are buying links, and this undermines this concept. I know of one person who just buys links everywhere and also advertisements. He pays google.com $5000 a week. His site appears top on all searches for his industry.

The concept of linking is therefore not related to interest or validity but simply money. This then undermines the whole original concept.

Add to this doorways, mirrors, etc and the original concept is further weakened and you have what is now seen all over the Internet - a lot of people trying for a few places near the top.

Search Engines should look at content, that was always their claim. Content is XML based and not HTML based anyway. If retailers are selling brands (which are the same for all retailers) then a problem is instantly found. How are sites ranked when the products (ie the brands) are the same?

The days of asp and hand written html are fading or gone, and XML supported by transforms will mean that HTML sites can be generated.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 8:25 am

Search Engines should look at content, that was always their claim. Content is XML based and not HTML based anyway.

I agree completely that the engines *should* look at content more. And they do, to a certain extent. On the second part of this "content is xml", content is whatever it is written in, be it html, plain text, flash, etc. in my opinion, and the opinion of probably 3 million webpage owners in google who do not use xml.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 8:29 am

What I find interesting is someone who "knows the facts". The self annointed expert.

being around and in the game for over 8 years gives me the facts as I see them, and many others also see them the same. I have debated every single point I ever state many times with some of the bigger names in the industry, and been wrong several times. When I am wrong I correct my way of thinking and thus learn something new. Regardless tho, I know my topic.

To summarise, what I was attempting to do was to show that what had gone before in Google should not be taken as the Gospel now [unless you are annointed :) or you are an Ostrich] and links are not just links anymore unless you happen to be in the business of swapping links....oh mymy... I've just noticed, your site just happens to be textlinkbrokerage.

You didnt show what had been before. You stated things that had never been as if they had. And yes, I am a link broker. I personally think that because I specialize in links and have for some time and am quite avid at learning all I can about my chosen profession that I have a tad more experience with links and linking in general. You, of course, wont feel this way because you are typing misleading statements which can cause confusion to newbies.

Mel

Jun 27th 2004, 8:44 am

Google has patented an algo (so called localrank) which in short limits the counting of more than one link to a site from any one Class C IP address. One of the interesting things about this patent is that it works with the old ranking system (whatever that is) and adds a localrank factor onto it to produce the final ranking. Even more interesting is that they have proposed putting variable multipliers in front of both the old rank and the new rank, so that either one or the other can be dominant in the final ranking results.

Supposing that they could have started using such a system, it might produce results similar to what we are seeing now.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 8:55 am

Mel, very possible, but I still think the results we are seeing now are more in line with new filters G is placing in their stated anti-linksales campaign.

Mel

Jun 27th 2004, 9:07 am

Could be Will, but I can see using localrank running alongside the regular algo to achieve that filtering. Unless of course there are pages being downgraded because they are using links from known sellers, but so far I don't see that happening do you?

Foxy

Jun 27th 2004, 9:15 am

You, of course, wont feel this way because you are typing misleading statements which can cause confusion to newbies.

That I did not do.

Mel, very possible, but I still think the results we are seeing now are more in line with new filters G is placing in their stated anti-linksales campaign.

I'm not sure I would call them filters, but suppose IBLs are "downgraded in importance" what would that mean?

schlottke

Jun 27th 2004, 9:52 am

I personally think that because I specialize in links and have for some time and am quite avid at learning all I can about my chosen profession that I have a tad more experience with links and linking in general. You, of course, wont feel this way because you are typing misleading statements which can cause confusion to newbies.

For being a 'link professional', your site is lacking in the whole, 'link' area. You'd think a professional that you claim to be wouldn't need to post in forums and attack people's ideas in order to get their back links... :rolleyes:

awall19

Jun 27th 2004, 11:00 am

There is not a single major engine that is using relevancy in links as yet.
Teoma is. That is the core of their technology.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 11:11 am

For being a 'link professional', your site is lacking in the whole, 'link' area. You'd think a professional that you claim to be wouldn't need to post in forums and attack people's ideas in order to get their back links... :rolleyes:

Actually quite a bit of business does come from forums, DUE to the fact that I tell it like it is. At least I dont say things that are completely wrong and then post slurs against a type of business when someone in that line shows the truth about what they are talking about.

I guess "only link sellers would think that, oh you are a link seller" somehow doesn't qualify for that.

I posted known things to prevent people from being mislead. If the poster cant handle that, that is their issue to deal with.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 11:12 am

Teoma is. That is the core of their technology.

True, I dont consider them in much. I should have in this regard.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 11:13 am

For being a 'link professional', your site is lacking in the whole, 'link' area. You'd think a professional that you claim to be wouldn't need to post in forums and attack people's ideas in order to get their back links... :rolleyes:

Why would my sales site matter? It gets 1000+ unique visitors a day and does quite well for being a brand new sales site. The only sites that matter regarding PR and IBL's are the sites we sell links off I would say :)

Foxy

Jun 27th 2004, 11:25 am

Actually quite a bit of business does come from forums, DUE to the fact that I tell it like it is. At least I dont say things that are completely wrong and then post slurs against a type of business when someone in that line shows the truth about what they are talking about.

I guess "only link sellers would think that, oh you are a link seller" somehow doesn't qualify for that.

I posted known things to prevent people from being mislead. If the poster cant handle that, that is their issue to deal with.

Oh I can handle it OK it is you who can't

No you don't say it as it is - you say it as you see it - which is biased.

You keep on saying that I posted something completely wrong and yet you have not answered any of the questions I put forward - and I did not post a slur against a type of business - that is your interpretation.

You did not post known things - you posted your interpretation of it - and, if anybody has any doubt that things are not good in this link industry go look at this link

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1432

and then come back and tell me that there has not been a change in the links.

I do get a might tired with the "oh I've got loads of experience" routine expecting everybody to suddenly accept as the Gospel what you have said and kneel down at your altar.

Spare me.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 11:34 am

Foxy you are basing what you say as fact, when it is merely something you read from a forum thread in which there are hundreds of other forums threads showing the exact opposite. It is not my fault you fail to realize that i do not state anything as fact that I do not know from a certainty that has come from, yes, "experience", and also from reading "every" forum daily for the past several years. I can not help it if the facts get in the way of something you said.

The fact is link popularity has been here as long as search engines have, and has been a controlling factor in their ranking algorithms. you do not have to believe that this did not just happen in February of this year, but it is a fact that most everyone here knows already.

You said 2 things which I diagreed with and told it as it really is:

Except I don't think IBLs are that important in the SERPs - only in the PR and that has been downgraded in the SERPs so that it has a much smaller value.

When you said this, I actually thought you were joking to stir things up a bit in the thread. IBL's and their associated anchor text have always had a significant role in the SERPS. That is a fact and widely known.

Just up until February it used to be, that with good on page SEO you could get to the top, not any longer. You need links. But what sort?

Not in the past 5 years has only on-page factors gotten good rankings for a competitive term. This is just another fact and also widely known.

You dont have to like it, but when I have been wrong in the past, there are always oodles of people popping in to disagree with me. I do not see that happening here, do you?

schlottke

Jun 27th 2004, 3:20 pm

Why would my sales site matter? It gets 1000+ unique visitors a day and does quite well for being a brand new sales site. The only sites that matter regarding PR and IBL's are the sites we sell links off I would say :)

If you're making the money, thats all that matters. I just would think that you want to prove you can get a decent PR before selling to other people. If I was going to buy links and I wanted a PR6 I'd be nervous to come to someone with a PR4 as their main site, just my personal opinion though.

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 4:44 pm

If you're making the money, thats all that matters. I just would think that you want to prove you can get a decent PR before selling to other people. If I was going to buy links and I wanted a PR6 I'd be nervous to come to someone with a PR4 as their main site, just my personal opinion though.

schlottke, my main busines is brokering links between webmasters and seo's. The pr of my sales site is not relevant in the last.

Mel

Jun 27th 2004, 5:53 pm

OK Foxy I have waded through all 800 posts of the Grand Experiment, and so far no one seems to have drawn any conclusions as to what it means, it is an interesting bit of research, but there are lots of impoderables that one cannot simply evaluate based on that experiment.

If you would care to summarize what you think has been the conclusions of that research I would be most interested. I have asked in the thread for a summary or conclusions, but so far no response.

BUT Foxy if you want to be taken seriously you have to be able to back up your statements, and I think that trying to convince people who work with websites daily that inbound links are not important is going to be very hard to do, as is justifying the idea that you can get top rankings on competitive keywords based on page content alone.
If that were the case it should be easy enough to demonstrate in your experiment, just provide a page with well optimized page content and let it rank highly for a competitive keyword with no IBLs and I will become a believer.

While I agree that there is a lot of hype floating about the web concerning SEO the importance of IBLs is not among it IMO. It may well change in the future and google has indicated that it is not happy with purchased links, but the reality is that so long as there is an internet, there will be advertisements, and those advertisements will link to the sponsors page, so unless Google is going to attempt to destroy the entire web advertising business they will at least have to differentiate between paid links and advertisements. This is a very fine line to walk, and I suspect that google will not try to walk it.

schlottke

Jun 27th 2004, 6:29 pm

WilliamC

Jun 27th 2004, 7:51 pm

"schlottke, my main busines is brokering links between webmasters and seo's. The pr of my sales site is not relevant in the last."

Well you'd lose me as a client just by seeing you yourself cannot get a decent PR, so why should I trust that you even know what you're doing?

- I am not attacking you, just trying to point out a potential clients perspective. Once again, Im not trying to be rude- just honest.

Understandable. But do a whois lookup and see when that site was started. To be honest I have not tried building links as it is just a sales site, and I much prefer to spend my time on the sites that actually have to show good stats. I can understand your point tho. I suppose I should work at least a little on that site.

Foxy

Jun 28th 2004, 12:06 am

Thanks for your imput Mel - the experiment is still ongoing so well done for reading it but as for
I have asked in the thread for a summary or conclusions, but so far no response.

I did respond by saying that we had talked about it and were considering doing so - however everybody was away at the moment.

BUT Foxy if you want to be taken seriously you have to be able to back up your statements, and I think that trying to convince people who work with websites daily that inbound links are not important is going to be very hard to do,

I agree, but what I put forward was that IBLs affected the PR and that had recently been downgraded so therefore the effect of the IBLs on the SERPS had also been downgraded.

as is justifying the idea that you can get top rankings on competitive keywords based on page content alone.

I said that it used to be the case that one could and I did not mention the word competitive.

If that were the case it should be easy enough to demonstrate in your experiment, just provide a page with well optimized page content and let it rank highly for a competitive keyword with no IBLs and I will become a believer.

We have, with one real IBL, and so far that page, after one week, is 10 for allintext and 11 for allinanchor for a three word very competitive phrase and,

12 for allintext 13 for allinanchor and 7 for allinurl for a two word very competitive phrase.

Not a bad start I would have thought! It has started me thinking differently.

But don't expect miracles and there are quite a few of us putting in input into this - so it rests with all of us not just me what we do next - and that takes time. :)