I found many people said that sites without much promoting got decent PR, while hard promoting ones can't even get PR. Is that true?
That's true .. Google states that they like "organically growing websites" .. in other words sudden link growth implies link buying. Also google states " a good website can't suddenly appear with hundreds backlinks" .. Cheers, Venetsian
1 - PR (toolbar page rank) is meaningless 2 - G has been penalising sites for doing things so quickly it seems un natural eg 100 links over night adding 500 pages within an hour content on pages is completly different with each page view (eg RSS content only) etc etc
bullshit Got PR5 for a site which I submitted to hundreds of free directories in couple of days I made it live on internet and then forgot it. The site is 3 months old.... The other one I didn't submit to lots of directories but got couple of good backlinks in other ways is now showing PR3 Why you come up with this kind of "someone said" .... who cares and every site journey is different so saying the ones promoted hard google penalized is kind of stupid don't you think ?
Why do you think sites that promote hard don't get PR? Maybe there goal isn't to get a high PR..? Google has always been tough on websites with abnormal amounts of backlinks.. i don't think nothing has changed!
I guess directories work in a different way because they are separate websites .. and most abnormal linking is by having large amounts of links on single website .. that's why you got the pr 5 so quickly (even unbeliavable) Cheers, Venetsian.
I really dont understand the argument. But in order to get penalized you need to gain some massive backlinks in a short amount of time. Its almost difficult to do unless you are trying to do it.
lol yeh.. link dumping etc, mostly blackhat methods. Otherwise i can't think how i could get 1000 links in one night lol
Ok .. then can I ask .. what is the suggested amount of links one site can grow per month in order to gain quickly high pr ? I'm just qurious.
Getting penalized for acquiring too many back links overnight is a load of nonsense. Give us hard evidence, not "I think I heard some clever dude say to his even more so clever friend that knows someone on the inside - so he says - at Google, that it might be bad to get too many links" If this were true we could make high website PR go away if we act like a DP posse. hmm... funny idea /miko67
When you have a new theory, test it out (3 trails atleast) before publicizing it to the world. The world doesn't revolve around theories..all we care about is facts and if you don't have facts, even if you come out and say "hey, I think the world is round" but no facts to support it...no one's gonna stop and care or take you seriously. Unless of course it's about string theory and cannot be tested anyway..
Which makes it easy for me to knock my competition out of the SERPs by pointing a whole bunch of links at them in one day. It is awesome! By the way - if anyone wants to knock me out of the SERPs - feel free to point a bunch of links at my sites and try.
It looks I asked a stupid question sorry about that. I just want to hear your guys opinion. all I hope is that google keep rational.
I don't think it is a stupid question and it gets asked all the time. Yes, the basic assumption I am making is that Google is acting in a rational manner (potentially flawed logic). I would assume that Google would not allow off site factors to affect your site's ranking in their index - like things your competitors can do to your site - pointing a lot of "spammy" links at your site in a day.
My newest site is less than 3 weeks old, but it has hundreds of backlinks and is predicted pr 5. Also, there are about 300 pages that I put up once the site launched. Will this hurt my rankings with google? As of now, I havent seen a PR change, is it because these things or is it because the update isnt done? Thanks!