1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Google's recent hit .. to kill paid links or promote uniqueness?

Discussion in 'Google' started by Mong, Sep 5, 2007.

?

Recent hit of Google was due to

  1. Killing paid links promotion

    30 vote(s)
    36.1%
  2. Lack of required uniqueness in contents

    15 vote(s)
    18.1%
  3. Google is damn EVIL. Nothing else.

    38 vote(s)
    45.8%
  1. workshop

    workshop Guest

    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    62
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    Buying something that you know has zero value just so you can on sell it, is an unsavoury business practice. Some would even say illegal. Was google really wrong to pull the plug?

    I dont think so. For once they did something right.
     
    workshop, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #62
    Google doesn't need to determine the motive of the person buying a link. If the motive was advertising for traffic, that's fine with Google - and they've made that very clear. If the motive was PageRank, Google has also made it clear that once they detect a paid link (note the focus on the transaction, not the reason for the transaction) they will discount or nullify the ability of that link to pass PR. In effect, whatever your reasons for buying the link were originally, you end up getting an advertising link that won't affect the PR or ranking of your page.

    Nonsense. You are paying that money to Google. Google is not preventing you from buying or the other person from selling. Google is simply intervening to make sure that your paid advertisement doesn't screw up their rankings. That's also what they do with their own AdWords/AdSense program - they use javascript, in part because that doesn't pass PR.

    Not true. Or at least, it's only true to the extent that Google will continue to do what they can to prevent those links from artificially affecting Google rankings.

    How do you know that authority sites are coming up on top? If you're referring to listings with site links, that's something else.

    What utter crap. This has been repeated ad nauseum. And it's still utter crap.
     
    minstrel, Sep 6, 2007 IP
    davedx likes this.
  3. jhnrang

    jhnrang Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    436
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #63

    Lol mate-

    By authority sites ( its fine if you don't call it, but please allow me to call:p) - I am referring to long established sites with sitelinks.:D

    The Example I cited-

    Nextag is coming up @ #3 & 4 on my DC for the term-- for a sub-page that leads to a page where the website links to other sites. So much for relevancy:rolleyes:

    @ #5 its a sub-page of selectcomfort -#9 ehow.com sub-page

    Now go to the second page --and -- the 9 results are sub pages of authority sites (with those so-called sitelinks) including eBay & Alibaba .Ofcourse eBay does not have those sitelinks like Amazon. But who is Google to question these two sites of their authority!:eek:

    On the second page- 8 sites out of 10 ( I am excluding eBay) -have those sitelinks.

    The first page shows some sites with their main URL and not sub-pages--but wonder wonder-

    Check sites linking to them --and you see they are ranking there because they have so-called editorial votes by sites have those sitelinks.

    The 4 sub-pages we see on first page comes from 3 sites that have those sitelinks.

    There is no official words/notification to call them authority sites. But Google certainly give very very high priority to sites with those sitelinks as even their irrelevant paes rank very high.

    This is just a phrase I took for experiment. Please do experiment on any term you choose and find my example to be true.

    On the other-hand check results after 50 and you will see so many high quality -relevant sites are not ranking.
     
    jhnrang, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  4. enQuira

    enQuira Peon

    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    250
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    Those sitelinks show for specific queries. When google judges other pages of the site are relevent to the same query, they are all grouped and shown in one listing. It tells you that the site is relevent to that keyword not that it is authority in general.
    showing sitelinks for the site name is not a big achievement, especially when the sitename is not the targetted keyword.
    my 2cents
     
    enQuira, Sep 6, 2007 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  5. teatree

    teatree Peon

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    If Google is "Evil" and has too much power, it's partly our own fault.

    How many people on here actually use other search engines when they conduct searches themselves? I bet most use Google. That's why Google has so much power. Because everyone continues to use them to search.

    If people in general made a concerted effort to use other search engines, and promote other search engines, webmasters wouldn't be so vulnerable.
     
    teatree, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  6. Wealdie

    Wealdie Guest

    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    I very much doubt the public at large would change their searching habits due to feeling sorry for webmasters.

    Heck, I doubt the majority of the general population would know what a "webmaster" is - even if bit on the ass by one. :rolleyes:
     
    Wealdie, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  7. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #67
    No. I won't agree to that. The term "authority sites" has a specific meaning, initially defined if I recall correctly in one of Google's many patents.

    You can't just decide to redefine the term for your own purposes. Sorry, but that's not the way language works.

    Again, you are missing the point:

    1. Having a Google listing with sitelinks below it does NOT identify a site as an authority site. Authority sites may well have those sitelinks but they are not defined as authority sites because they have them.

    2. See above: As I recall, Google has a patent (or patent application) where they define "authority site" for the purpose of their ranking algorithms. Since it's Google's algorithm, they have the right to define "authority site" however they wish and they certainly have the right to decide whether or not a site qualifies for "authority" status in their own search listings.

    Again, you have it backwards. The reason those sites get sitelinks in their Google listings is because they rank well for that specific search term and meet other criteria. What the specific criteria are isn't known and Google probably doesn'[t want us to know, but it probably involves incoming links and/or anchor text and/or PR to internal pages on the site and/or something along those lines.

    mhamdi has it right.
     
    minstrel, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  8. Lexiseek

    Lexiseek Banned

    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    115
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #68
    It's time to bury the false claims of "Authority Status" because of the presence of SiteLinks.

    If Google did make a website an "Authority Site", do you think they'd want that term used to sell links? I doubt it.
     
    Lexiseek, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  9. jhnrang

    jhnrang Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    436
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #69
    no problem if you or others don't use the term . There will be people like me who will use. -Its your choice not to use and its my choice to use:D.

    On the other hand- My justification to call them authority is through SERPs- The SERPs are dominated by websites that have sitelinks.

    I gave an example where Google is preferring sites with those site-links - by putting even their irrelevant pages on top of search results.

    Whenever, I type a keyword/phrase/term - I see more than 50% sites that rank inside top 20 even if they have very remote relevance to the term.
    IMHO- they dominate SERPs bcoz- they have authority--and Google trust them.

    Now check this term --very competitive indeed as top 5 position could get a site/company hundreds of thousands of $$$$.

    Unlike the previous example --where sub-pages from site-linked websites were ranking despite far from being relevant- you will hardly find sub-pages for this term.

    WHY?:eek:

    Because 16 out of top 20 sites have those sitelinks--hence authority like score-- hence irrelevant sub-pages can't out-stage them.
     
    jhnrang, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  10. Lexiseek

    Lexiseek Banned

    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    115
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #70
    When you say people like you, do you mean liars by any chance?

    Because you can quit pretending you don't understand that you're misusing the term.

    Here's an "Authority site" based on your logic: Alternative Baby Names

    It has 4 total backlinks in Google.

    If someone bought a link from that website, would it be worth more somehow?
     
    Lexiseek, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  11. Wealdie

    Wealdie Guest

    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #71
    May I kill the "authority" myth stone dead please. I am going to use "Aviva" as an example:

    Do This search for Aviva Directory

    Now do this search for the domain - still shows so called "authority status"

    Now do this search for a whole 2 sentances from an indexed blog post on this directory.

    ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE

    So an "Authority" site does not come first (or anywhere) when seaching a sentance or 2 of unique, indexed content.

    BULLS**T
     
    Wealdie, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  12. jhmattern

    jhmattern Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    794
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #72
    Only if you're not bright enough to know how to run a well-rounded business. I've always refused to "play by Google's rules," and do quite well earning a living on the Web, thank you.

    Having a site's age or "authority" automatically mean better search rankings is beyond stupid, and frankly that's something that's going to have to be addressed by anyone who may potentially enter or grow in the market to overtake Google over time. The fact of the matter is that there's more rubbish in the results from authority sites then you're admitting. Yes, SEO'd to death content shouldn't be what gets to the top. At the same time, a five year old outdated article that is no longer accurate or relevant to a search shouldn't be showing up there just because of the age and authority of the site either.

    I see this all the time, especially in my industry (PR), with old school information for all of the major search terms. And then we wonder why there are so many idiots in the field who can't grasp new concepts... if they try to learn anything on their own online, they run into Google's own version of stupidity, or they use it to back up false claims. I see it all the time in tech-related topics as well. Far too much changes to let age be a factor in any way.

    Then just look at the authority aspect, and consider large content networks. Even new sites launched on them (About.com and Suite101.com for example) get decent rankings quickly because of the authority of the main domain. Fair compared to sites that have been around longer than their new ones? No. Fair compared to better material? No. I can't even count how many of the practically ancient Suite101 articles I still come across (back from when the writers could be completely inexperienced volunteers, and with a lot of bad information in some of them - although the current writers are at least screened to improve the newer stuff).

    I'm all for authority sites, but that's determined by reader trust; not age, number of pages, or who they happen to choose to link to (within reason... but again, that's determined by actual visitors). There are plenty of true authority sites that are relatively new, which can't outrank some of the large older sites out there. That's not user-friendly for a search engine, when people are looking for accurate, informative and current information.
     
    jhmattern, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  13. soju

    soju Peon

    Messages:
    2,517
    Likes Received:
    127
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #73
    I'm with it. I think Yahoo may the sleeping giant that wakes up to bring us back to sanity. Google dropped the ball on this one (or will have done so if this shit continues).
     
    soju, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  14. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #74
    No. You can't just change the meaning or usage of a word because you feel like it. In the context of Google rankings, it has a specific meaning.

    No. That's not justification for changing the meaning and usage of a word on a personal whim.

    That's just dumb.
     
    minstrel, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  15. Wealdie

    Wealdie Guest

    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #75
    If every member of this Forum "boycotts" Google (unlikely) I suppose they would lose about 0.001% of market share.

    They must be quaking in their boots :rolleyes:
     
    Wealdie, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  16. jhnrang

    jhnrang Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    436
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #76
    Learn not to be individually abusive when you argue.:mad: Don't force me to be abusive either- I can give you back the same medicine.
    Learn how to debate without being abusive.:cool:


    In my book, I'll pay more to get a link from this site than get a PR6 link from a site that does not have those sitelinks.
     
    jhnrang, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  17. workshop

    workshop Guest

    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    62
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    I dont understand what you are hoping to achive by making such a prick of yourself. Are you just terminally stupid and do you honestly believe you can continue to bullsh*t your way around everything thats happened in the last six weeks? Irrespective of what Google does with the bad boys, this industry has changed. Get used to it.
     
    workshop, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  18. jhnrang

    jhnrang Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    436
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #78
    I don't think I am dumb by any means of imagination. Before you call me dumb, you will have to travel time to 2006:p and call these and these guys DUMB:eek:

    Matt Cutts does not call them authority sites-- but yes --he says select few sites gets those listings-

    While they have never been officially called authority sites- ( what is there official about most of the things with Google?:eek:) -- but one can guess from Matt's post that - these sites are special.:cool:
     
    jhnrang, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  19. jhnrang

    jhnrang Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    436
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #79
    You stupid Kid --first study, do research, look around and --then come to talk.
     
    jhnrang, Sep 6, 2007 IP
  20. Wealdie

    Wealdie Guest

    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #80
    Please comment on my examples above - then we may discuss your definition of "authority" with a little more respect.

    Interesting how my post - with examples - got glossed over by the "converts" without comment
     
    Wealdie, Sep 6, 2007 IP