Downside of Rotating Ads?

[yonnermark]

Quick couple of questions:

1. If a site has 1000 pages and it serves a different (random) network ad with every page view, googlebot lessen the value of those links?

What I mean is, isn't a static, permanent text-link better than one that jumps around between different sites/pages?

2. this question is closely related to the above. I have a dynamic website which has several hundred pages. I'm trying to decide what to do with the ALT tag of the header logo. I have 3-5 main phrases that I want to optimise the homepage for. I can either just have 1 of those phrases as the site-wide ALT tag or I can rotate ALT tags so that they change with every page view. I'm just wondering if google might not give as much weight to these constantly changing links compared to fixed links.

THANKS VERY MUCH!!!!!
Mark

[digitalpoint]

I haven't heard of any devaluation of a link because it was different (or not there) the last time Googlebot visited.

[a389951l]

What are the current thoughts on what google does with the old link? Meaning, as google indexes a page and the link is different every time, do the older links (replaced) have any value??

[digitalpoint]

I doubt they have any value. Only what Google sees as the most recent.

[yonnermark]

I would have thought an established link would carry more weight than a brand new link. But I'm not google.

[digitalpoint]

Well think of it from a technical standpoint. Imagine trying to not only have an index of the most recent pages (which of course Google does), but now you also want to have a full "snapshot" index of every day for let's say the last year? And take every index into account when calculating relevancy? :)

[disgust]

that's definitely a decent point for it.

honestly, I'm pretty sure I AM seeing an increase in serps due to the tool... but I suppose I can't be positive.

if links really are "sandboxed" (it seemed to be the common consensus that the incoming links themselves were sandboxed, not the new site itself), then the benefit may be less than optimal, but hey, I'm seeing results (and other are too), so I'm definitely keeping it- and adding it to almost all of my new sites- for now :)

[jonnyplatt]

One sandbox theory I heard was that it's not so much the links that are sandboxed but their anchor text effect

[digitalpoint]

I'm not entirely sure there is a sandbox effect to be honest. People see *something* going on, and maybe it's a sandbox, but if it is, it's definitely not universal... there is more to it.

Because I haven't seen any sandboxing on any of my sites, and people seem to be doing well with the ad network (no ad is static, so a universal sandbox would make it not help your rankings).

[rickbender1940]

I'm not entirely sure there is a sandbox effect to be honest. People see *something* going on, and maybe it's a sandbox, but if it is, it's definitely not universal... there is more to it.

Because I haven't seen any sandboxing on any of my sites, and people seem to be doing well with the ad network (no ad is static, so a universal sandbox would make it not help your rankings).

I tend to see results no more than 48 hours after a link is crawled (well PR4+ links). The funny thing is, a lot of people trying to sell links are always spewing nonsense that you have to buy links for 3 months in order to have an effect because of the "sandbox" ... how convenient for them, eh?

[yonnermark]

Because I haven't seen any sandboxing on any of my sites
Sandboxing hits new SITES, not new LINKS. That's why I understand it to mean.

[digitalpoint]

I haven't seen sandboxing on my new sites either though.

[yonnermark]

how many links did you point to the new sites?
tens, hundreds or thousands?

[digitalpoint]

Maybe a few hundred at first.

[yonnermark]

Right, because there is some discussion about the sandbox only being triggered if a new site suddently appears with thousands of links pointing at it. May your new site stayed below the radar because of having a modest number of IBLs to start with