Matt Cutts Gives Insight To Bigdaddy

[Las Vegas Homes]

Matt Cutts has given a nice little insight to the Bigdaddy Algo and a timeline. He has addressed some issues a lot of webmasters have been complaining about over the last month or so. I found his post to be informative. Check It Out HERE

[SEO Jeff]

hmm yeah just read it. WOW could this mean DP's coop is no good anymore for anyone who uses it because from what I understand of what Matt said about the links example it sounds like Google won't index pages if they contain bad quality links.

[stymiee]

I don't think the co-op was a boon with Google anyway. But it still seems to work for MSN and Yahoo as they haven't yet learned how to weed that out yet.

[SEO Jeff]

It has helped me a bit with Google but even if I do use coop does that officaly mean that my pages will no longer be added if the coop links exist?

[ServerUnion]

Great post thanks. Still doesn't help me feel better about loosing sites though. It almost seems like there is not effective way for a marketer to compete in SEO.

[markhutch]

It almost seems like there is not effective way for a marketer to compete in SEO.

Music to Google's ears!

[Roman]

No link buying/selling = Don't infringe upon on Googles domain or they'll squash you like the bug you are!

[Basoone]

And also

Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling.

Now thats a big problem for me

[Hudvink]

Google seems to think they are the ones who should decide what sectors you link to.

[markhutch]

Could be in the future that all links will be ignored unless they are from a small list of domains which are recognized by Google to be “trusted” providers. If this is correct then DMOZ, Yahoo Directory and a few others will have even more weight than they have had in the past when it comes to Google rankings. I’m not sure this is going to work out well for Google in the long run, but heck this is the Internet and the long run will be upon us in just a few minutes!

[mdvaldosta]

Very helpful

[Basoone]

Guys how much reciprocal linking can be called excessive? 10s,100s???

[Las Vegas Homes]

Originally Posted by Basoone

Guys how much reciprocal linking can be called excessive? 10s,100s???

I think thats the million dollar question. According to Matt you can cause the site to be spidered less by adding to many links to fast. This leads me to believe that internal links may be the safest for a period of time.

[dkessaris]

We all wanted an answer all this time and now that we got one I really doubt that any of us like it.

[Phynder]

This should start the "your competitor can't do anything to hurt your SERPs" debate - Matt says:

"The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site."

Low trust in the inlinks? Ouch.

[dcristo]

Originally Posted by Phynder

This should start the "your competitor can't do anything to hurt your SERPs" debate - Matt says:

"The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site."

Low trust in the inlinks? Ouch.

Did we read the same article?

The main points I gathered are that excessive reciprocal linking and linking out to unthemed sites are a no no. Both are controlled by the webmaster.

[Basoone]

Linking to a free ringtones site, an SEO contest, and an Omega 3 fish oil site? I think I’ve found your problem. I’d think about the quality of your links if you’d prefer to have more pages crawled. As these indexing changes have rolled out, we’ve improving how we handle reciprocal link exchanges and link buying/selling.

Another Question in my rotten mind is that:

Do this mean having a unrelated links can cost the index penalty?? Or does this mean having unrelated links with rlated links on the same page can cost the index penalty Im confused...Tnx..

[Phynder]

Originally Posted by dcristo

Did we read the same article?

The main points I gathered are that excessive reciprocal linking and linking out to unthemed sites are a no no. Both are controlled by the webmaster.

My quote is directly from Matt - not sure what else to say. He says "inlinks" have an effect.

[dcristo]

Originally Posted by Phynder

My quote is directly from Matt - not sure what else to say. He says "inlinks" have an effect.

Are you referring to this quote?

After looking at the example sites, I could tell the issue in a few minutes. The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site. Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling

So what's that got to do with a competitor killing a site?

[Phynder]

Originally Posted by dcristo

Are you referring to this quote?



So what's that got to do with a competitor killing a site?

Dude - I am refering to this quote:

"The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site."

Inlinks are in play based on what Matt is saying - therefore - not totally controllable by webmasters. Help me understand what I am missing.