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.

What is REALLY going on with Google PR in 2007

Discussion in 'Google' started by visio, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #41
    No.

    There has been confirmation from several sources that this is an algorithm change primarily aimed at nullifying paid links. There were also some manual penalties applied to blatant PR sellers and sites engaging in other blatant link schemes in the process leading up to the algorithm update.
     
    minstrel, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  2. visio

    visio Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    91
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #42
    The fact still remains no rankings were lost during this process.... if google was manually or automatically penalizing paid links we would see it. So far we haven't. Many sites selling and buying links lost PR but no rankings. Go figure...

    HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PR UPDATE... you can stuff the two together all you like but any manual penalties which were done had NOTHING to do with the PR update.
     
    visio, Nov 5, 2007 IP
    lovekills_s likes this.
  3. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #43
    And many sites lost both. Visio is operating with blinders on, people. I'd advise you to ignore him.

    Actually, IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE PR UPDATE AND IT WAS MORE THAN JUST A PR UPDATE. See? I CAN USE CAPS TOO!

    Again, I'd advise people to listen to those who actually have a clue. Visio clearly isn't among that group.
     
    minstrel, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  4. visio

    visio Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    91
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #44
    Haha last time you did that 3 people contacted me regarding something you said didn't exist. They are now my clients. I wonder what will happen this time... see there are people who think for themselves. Those who don't can think what they will about me, I am not worried about them.

    :rolleyes: I guess when you say something over and over you can start believing it.

    Since you will provide not once ounce of evidence to back your statements I suggest you do as you promised you would. STOP posting in this thread. All your doing is claiming nonesense like PR updates are related to serps changes which has been proven wrong many times.


    I am excited you finally found a clue! No I am not not among your group, I have to have more than a clue before I start talking about stuff like this.
     
    visio, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  5. vengad

    vengad Peon

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #45
    thank you this info
     
    vengad, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  6. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
  7. xmcp123

    xmcp123 Peon

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #47
    No, these people are sheep, who will be sorely disappointed. Having a bunch of bluster, and calling anyone who disagrees "ignorant" is (apparently and sadly) enough to convince people you know what you're talking about.
    Anyone with half a wit can see through it.
     
    xmcp123, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  8. visio

    visio Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    91
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #48
    Show me someone like Dave Naylor, Rand Fish, Aaron Wall who agrees with you. They don't. What your doing is posting articles which they wrote which are accurate but were NOT dealing with this PR update. You can try and confuse people all you want but show one real professional who agrees with you. There are none and MATT CUTTS DOES NOT count.

    Your also arguing a point I am not disputing. Selling links can and will get you in trouble if caught. I never disputed that. What I am disputing is your lack of evidence to support your idea that a mass-penalization occurred recently which correlated with the PR drop. You have to go down these other paths in hopes of confusing the webmasters so that they will agree with you based on your say so. Otherwise you would instead of posting article proving penalties exists you would be posting articles which agree with you. So far none have and so far you have provided no evidence that you are right.
    Your case is pretty thin.

    Haha well said sheep must also be rich idiots cause they keep coming back for my consultation services. And i'm not cheap.

    Well instead of arguing about lets let them decide? My posts are open and can be seen by all... so far all you have done is posted insults but no real arguments.
     
    visio, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  9. xmcp123

    xmcp123 Peon

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #49
    1)The gurus are not always right, and I believe this is the case here. That aside however, I have very little faith in them.
    2)There is next to no debate that this was about buying/selling links. People supporting that idea are all over the internet. And they're right. I merely provided a technical account of what Google was most likely looking for.
    3)We can actually agree on something. Matt Cutts does not count. Ever.
    I've posted my arguments before. I've posted my oppositions to you before. You completely ignored them, and were really not very decent in how you handled anything. Even if I were to mark supports with a numerical bullet, you probably would have just skimmed over and complained I have no support.
     
    xmcp123, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #50
    1. Aaron Wall is someone I respect but he has become extremely bitter about Google lately - you need to read his comments in that context.

    2. Some of the links I provided actually ARE from Rand Fish. I'm sorry if including those confused you in some way, visio. I'll try to keep it as simple as possible for you in future.
     
    minstrel, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  11. visio

    visio Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    91
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #51
    I agree the gurus are not perfect and they can make mistakes. My point was that if something has any kind of evidence to support it one of the gurus will write about it.

    See I think we actually agree...

    #1. This PR update was to do with paid links... now wait before you go saying I am contradicting myself let me explain. The reason they PR drop occurred was because of paid links HOWEVER the PR update was not a manual thing... it was done web-wide and was not correlated to individual penalizations. Google could never do that... with trillions of pages it could never do mass-manual penalizations. So the only way for them to do anything was to mass-deflate the PR then get webmasters like minstrel and Danny talking about how it was because of paid links and you will get penalized... their hope was to get webmasters afraid.

    They did do some manual penalizations and bans too to kind of give confirmation to what these webmasters were saying in the hopes it would encourage them to stop buying and selling links.

    If you disagree instead of arguing why don't you explain in-depth what you think actually happened... explain about the pr update, the manual and mass-penalizations if you indeed believe that.


    I apologize if I was indecent to you. If you go into detail I will read everything and if it makes sense I will edit my article with your support. Deal?
     
    visio, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  12. xmcp123

    xmcp123 Peon

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    Alright. Deal. I'll put everything up numbered, so it's easy to sort/seperate everything out.
    1) Point: It was an automatic update, targeting primarily the higher pagerank sites. These sites had the pagerank to make link selling worthwhile, so it's natural they'd get penalized.
    Support: Take a look around. Everyone who benefited from this update had a low PR site to begin with. Most penalizations were minimum of PR5, with PR7+ getting hit the worst
    2) Point: The method in which they identified the sites who either bought links(sellers were found by reversing the process, and looking for high PR/possibly unrelated sites), is looking for anchor text with little to no variation.
    Support: The sites that were caught "in the crossfire" fit into several categories, but 2 groups were stand out as being the most seperated from link buying/selling. Software(StatCounter, PhpBB), and Newspapers/Magazines (SfGate, Forbes, Washington Post). For the software, both statcounter, and PHPBB include their own static link text at the bottom of their software implementations. The result is that they have very static link text, from a percentage-based prospective. Almost every single anchor text would be exactly "PhpBB",or "StatCounter".
    Now, for the newspapers, they are well known enough to be referenced by name in almost every situation. When referencing and article, people almost always link with the text "According to (link)The New York Times(/link),..content..."
    Notice that PHPBB
    3)Point:This would be an effective method for detecting paid links(the abovementioned sites aside because...
    Support: This would be effective, because most people target one, or a few key terms which is always their anchor text. In a pure purchased link campaign, or for that matter, some less efficient link spamming campaigns, the anchor text is almost always the same. If it were natural link growth, a large percentage would include variations, and the word "here".

    I'm pretty sick right now, so I'm not the best at articulating(wait until I'm healed up), but that's a basic summary.
    There's definitely A LOT more to it, but that's the one technique I believe I have sniffed out, out of probably several.
     
    xmcp123, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  13. Danny.Antonio

    Danny.Antonio Peon

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #53
    Hi! Dude,
    Get a page rank 9 site to have a one way link IN to your site. This is the right technique that works for your site, for your one-way-back links to your site in an hour! Such as Bum Marketing, your blogs, and even your Squidoo Lense. This works great in Google, Yahoo and MSN search engines, too. It is free, simple and highly effectual.:cool:
     
    Danny.Antonio, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  14. xeric

    xeric Peon

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    will you tell me more...what u are talking about..?
     
    xeric, Nov 18, 2007 IP