How can you tell if Google is punishing you (because of the ad-network)?

Do you have a URL or copy of this article you mention?

 

Sorry gford I don't. But if you think about it it makes sense. Those that are using programs such as Adweb or any link management software are actually trying to artifically inflate rankings.

 

1000 links to the homepage reaks of SEO/Link Network. I have a feeling it's important to vary your anchors and urls as much as possible.

maybe this is the biggest thing coop needs .... removal of the 20 ad cap to lets say 50 or 100 even. especially if lots of weight is involved.

if you have 54,000 in weight ... i think you need tons of ads. 20 ads for that kind of weight is a real narrowed focus.

 

Links won't hurt you!

The year long experiment I have been monitoring has more than 2000 links pointing to the page. 100% of those links ALL are the exact same anchor text. 99% of the backlinks come from sites that have no relevance to the theme of the experiment page.

The page is #3 in Google, Yahoo, and MSN.

THE most important thing to know about linking is that 2000 links all coming from only a couple of different websites are almost worthless. One hundred links coming from 100 different sites is worth far more.

The "problem" with the coop, as far as using it to gain links, is that it is like the game of musical chairs. Whose links will be displayed when Google comes to spider and cache the page? Many of the pages that our links are displayed on may not get spidered all that often.

Those with very high weight and thus much more exposure have a much greater chance of being on pages when they are cached by Google.

So, yesterday you could have had 1000 impressions of a particular ad but if Google was not there when those impressions occured, no links were counted.

If you are lucky enough to have your link on a page when it is cached, and that page does not get cached that often, you'll have that link for quite a while.

 

With all due respect, Homer, don't believe everything you read. There have been rumors and speculation dressed up as fact for a number of months about Google penalizing or discounting reciprocal linking. It's a myth.

1. reciprocal links per se aren't penalized in any way
2. having multiple links point to the same page isn't penalized in any way

The reality is, that the above perfectly describes "organic linking" as well as "artificial" link building -- and it's fine either way.

The only thing you should be worrying about is the quality (and quite possibly the relevancy, IMO) of those links.

 

Speculation, wild guessing, and misinformation posing as fact.

Well said! If you want to worry about something, worry about LV. That's very clearly a link exchange program. If Google can figure out a way to devalue/penalize it and feels it's worth Google's while, I'd worry more about being an LV member than a Coop member.

 

Actually there is a typo in my message. Should have said 'have read' NOT 'have'

3 years ago I purchased a rather expesive program for link management. Basically this program arranges link exchanges through it's own community of users. Always your back links are pointing to one page. The years have gone by...I use this program daily. I have accumilated 1000's and 1000's of recips. Why are they disappearing from Google's index? I don't know the answer for sure! But what I suspect is that ALL links point to 1 page> index.htm or any other page for that matter.

The point is, this program only allows you to specify 1 link back location. That being the case I am convinced that Google is seeing some type of patterns in reciprical linking that may trigger a flag. I have no solid, concrete evidence but it seems logical? And of course, I may be wrong. I just can't figure out why the 3 years I have spent developing recips seemed to go straight down the crapper

 

That's a pretty good description of pure unbridled speculation, if you ask me. If you feel comfortable betting the mortgage on a wild guess, joewood, good luck.

Not exactly. An article disguising wild speculation about the meaning of an 18-month old patent as "known fact" is on the wall. I'm really not willing to base my SEO strategy on anything that flimsy.

It was only a short while ago we were hearing and seeing the same things said about reciprocal linking. In fact, that one is still cropping up.

It really doesn't matter how often a piece of speculation and misinformation is repeated or by how many people -- it doesn't make it fact -- it's still misinformation.

I am astounded at how much attention this rather weak article is getting.

 

I have some sites with 99.99% irrevelvent reciprical links pointing at the front page kicking ass for pretty compettive terms

 

Homer,

Just because Google does not report the backlinks, that does not neccessarily mean Google is not giving value for the backlinks.

The page I wrote about in my previous post has more than 2000 actual links pointing to it. Google reports 143 links to that page!

I think it was late June, last summer, when Google started to report crappy link results. As many of you know they use to report only links that were ~PR4 or above. This reporting seemed pretty accurate.

BUT, last summer they made some change and started reporting crap for backlinks. There still seems to be no rhyme nor reason for what they report these days.

One thing is for sure. Of the links Google now reports to my page, if those were indeed the only links Google really counted, my page would be nowhere to be found in the serps!

Caryl

 

It's not that they are pointing to the same page, Homer. It's that it's an obvious link exchange program. As you pointed out a while back, far from being a liability, the "vanishing" Coop Ads may actually be a benefit in that respect.

Thinks about this: every time somebody views a page on one of my sites with an Amazon ad on it, that ad contains a link back to the Amazon site. Do you think Google is going to penalize Amazon for that? Or that the number of those backlinks is discounted by Google? How is the Coop Ad Network different?

And before anyone jumps in to say that's not the reason people join, don't. That may not be the reason YOU joined. It may not even be the ONLY reason I joined. But I am seeing a few click-throughs pretty much daily to the sites in my Coop ads. And if that is the sum total of the benefits I derive from the Coop, that is perfectly fine with me.

 

True! I have recently come to the conclusion that Google holds the truth very close to their chest. In fact I think what we see is what they want us to see. They work from an entirely different page.

I must say what I have posted in this thread should certainly NOT be considered gospel. I am sharing my findings in hopes to find answers, thanks mcdar. Your test seems to contradict what I think.

Yes it is rather obvoius now that I think about it. It seems that linking these days needs to be a little more strategic. As far as the COOP links. I have never seen so many visible in Google's index pointing to me. PR hasn't changed. Again at the risk of sounding redundant...I question the value of these links.

Umm, be patient and have a close look. I tend to agree with Dr. Minstrel here. I am still keeping significant weight here for a reason. The writing is FAR from on the wall...respectfully. Besides LV is too slow and there are constantly having server problems. Although I think LV platform of linking will be the way to go as the members increase. Who can agrue with static links vs rotating links? If someone can please do..I'm up for a good rebuttal today

 

20 new links per ad x 60 ads per day ... that's a lot of new static links ... every day.

nothing slow about it ... sure the interface is slow ... but there is so much calculating going on.

but admittedly, like minstrel said ... it resembles a link exhange more than coop does ... even if i don't see a real difference other than "the marketing messages" and ad delivery method of each.

lv says it's an ad network too, ya know? do you expect google to care either way? i dunno.

i'm not yanking out coop though, if that's how i sound. i have a lot invested in this advertising system.

 

I ditto that...if only we could have the best of both worlds.
Yahoo is still amazing. Another interesting note. 1 week ago I pulled my flagship domain out of this COOP (for my own reasons). Serps have not been effected either way...for better or worst.

 

I have found this link today by td2man. If found it very helpful understanding some of the latest tricks G is up to

 

I don't agree with everything t2dman says, but I learned a long time ago to pay attention to what he says... his articles are always worth reading.

 

We were talking a little earlier in this thread about reciprical links. Some of this seems to concur with what I am seeing.

 

has shawn posted the coop hack for this? i have a bunch of sites running coop and even more sites being promoted by coop ... i need it bad.

 

But note, Homer, that this isn't a condemnation of reciprocal links... only those targetting the same search term for different pages, assuming that t2dman is correct, which isn't yet conclusively demonstrated in my view.

As I noted in another thread, I always look forward to t2dman's posts and always find them of interest and well worth reading, but that doesn't mean I always agree with his conclusions.