Google Violation

Wayne,

It appears you don't know where that money is either based on how you pay people for what they have done. So here is my offer. If the money is there and I find it before I tell you where it is you have to agree to the following:

1) You pay your former webmasters and partners all the money you owe them.
2) You quit dissing your competition and former link partners. Instead spend that time getting your sites found in SERPs.
3) You get professional help for your pathological lying problem.

Deal?

 

Show me the evidence rather than the rumors. As for "PR in the past", where do you see any evidence whatsoever that it's changed?

Well, they know better now. Are you saying you agree that Diann should clean up her linking practices?

With all due respect, I don't think you're entirely grasping the concept. If you end up with a home page with 200 outgoing links, you're not grasping the concept at all.

Did you miss the part where I said "Nobody else cares"?

 

Minstrel,

1) You might be surprised how many people DO care.

2) As for the linking this is something that came out at SES and has been posted in the supporter's forum at WebMasterWorld under "Hints from Search Engine Engineers about Links." The post begins with:

As some of you may know, there was an opportunity this past week to mingle with a few prominent search engine engineers.

I won't name names, but after a few drinks I was able to get a few 'hints' regarding links. So, for what they're worth, here's some of what I was able to get from them.

You can read the rest of it there and keep in mind, "if it is in fact true more variables are now being factored in." Also at this time it is open for interpretation.

 

Three Bricks Short, you're missing the point and confusing PR with Google ranking.

There have always been a lot of factors figuring into Google ranking beyond PageRank (Google has been telling us that it's "more than 100 factors" for at least 2 or 3 years now) - and yes those other factors are evolving over time.

That doesn't alter the fact that the way backlinks affect your ranking is based first on how much PR is passed to your page. And it doesn't alter the fact that the way Diann has her site constructed is passing virtually zero PR to her "link partners". Unless her "partners" are doing the same thing, what that means is that she will benefit from links to her but her "partners" will not benefit from links back to them (in terms of PR). Thus, it's not a mutual benefit arrangement from an SEO standpoint.

Now, I've repeated this at least three times so far in this thread. I've also said each time that if you or her other "partners" understand this and are happy with it, knock yourselves out. I wouldn't accept it. Your mileage may vary.

 

Minstrel,

This is an excerpt of a post I made on another forum on 2/21/2006 regarding PR and if there had been a change.

"Because the opportunity presented itself here are the results of a test I ran.

Late last year I removed all the links from my directories to a site ranked #1 for "phoenix real estate" and with a PR5. At the same time I added a number of extra links that pointed to the #2 ranked site for that same keyword and that site also had a PR5. These extra links contained no anchor text except the domain name.

I watched for changes in rankings everyday, but nothing changed. After this last PR update the #1 site fell to a PR4 but is still ranked #1. The #2 site is now a PR6 but is still ranked #2."

 

TBS, that is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand. Please re-read what I've posted CAREFULLY:

There are many factors that determine Google ranking. PR is only one of them. There are numerous examples of lower PR pages outranking higher PR pages for a given search term. There is no debate about that part.

BUT: The fact remains that the reason for link arrangements with other websites is to pass PR from one site to another. The linking system in place on Diann's site does not pass any significant PR back to her link partners. On the other hand, having all those link partners linking to her almost certainly DOES help her PR and her ranking. For that reason the arrangement is, in my opinion, inequitable. For that reason, I would not consent to participating in the arrangement, because it basically benefits Diann but not her link partners.

It is equivalent to having me link to you with a straight (normal) link and you linking back to me with a "rel=nofollow" link: you benefit and I don't.

If you TRULY understand that (I'm starting to wonder!) and are happy with that arrangement, fine with me. If you are confused about the situation and believe you are deriving any real PR benefit from the links to you from Diann's site, you need to do some more homework.

 

Serious mud slinging here!

 

Ok, I have read six pages of this dreck, and I can only offer a few observations:

1. Neither side is completely innocent. You have both made mistakes, and neither side can just let it go.

2. Everyone here is a shark. After reading this thread, If, by chance, I moved to Las Vegas, I would make sure any realtor I used was not connected with this mess in any way. I wouldn't want to deal with any of you.

3. DigitalPoint is not the place to air your personal vendettas about each other. For the most part, we don't care.

 

Its not just the PR Diann doesnt pass back, the way her links are structured doesnt allow some of those partners to get the benefit of having their links indexed by Google and counted / showing as a backlink for them. Yet she has links indexed in Google by some of those partners that are on her homepage link farm that she offers no benefit to them.

This is not the first time they have been told this. Vegasmack was a link partner with them and told Diann several times that the way her homepage links were structured they offered no benefit to most of her link partners.

You are right on both counts. It is my fault for allowing them to drag me in to this mud slinging instead of staying on topic. I will say however that it wont happen again. If they cant stay on topic, there wont be a response.

No minstrel I believe they grasp what you are saying, the problem is if they admit they understand it, then they have to admit the way these links are structured are of no benefit to most of their link farm partners.

 

I can't believe that this thread actually turned back into a serious discussion of the actual issues of SEO.

So then.

• Hidden Text - naughty
• 100's of outgoing links - pointless benefit to linkees
• Framed and Non-framed version - good design sense

My Dad's bigger that your Dad and he drives a Ferrari and everything and he says he doesn't know what your Dad is doing with your Mum because he can do a lot better than that, look at how the kids turned out fer Christ's sake.

Or something.

I'll shut up now.

 

LVH, this is not an accurate statement if you are assuming that they are not crawled and therefore do not pass PR. The assumption made earlier in this thread and passed on as fact, that Google doesnt crawl past a certain number, is not true.

Correct me if I'm missing the basis for your statement.

 

minstrel, you are missing this by a mile. Most of those sites Diann links to link back to hers and everyone elses in the same manner, so she is not cheating them of anything anymore than she is being cheated by them. At best it is a wash with PR. She knows this, as do most of those in that referral network, but they dont seem to care and it hasnt hurt them. They want the anchor text.

Why do you believe that she benefits at their expense? Have you even looked at those other sites? Many are at or near the top of the SERS in their markets (Phoenix, Florida, Phoenix, Austin, San Diego, Hawaii, Orange County, L.A., etc) and have similar PR.

What TBS was pointing out was that it wasnt the presence of PR, but rather the absence of anchor text that was notable. Before you further question his aptitude, you should now that his sites drive a tremendous amount of targeted traffic. Even LVH knows that Three Bricks Short knows what he is doing.

 

See this is funny cause the same Matt Cutts thread you had pointed out, Diann stated it wasnt for Seo purposes the homepage links, it was for referrals.

No LMAO I cant say that I agree with that. Sorry to say but anybody with thousands of links can look like an expert, but Jay Griffin is far from that category.

They have a link pointing to Diann at say their number 14 link. She has a link point to them at say 130, she gets the benefit of a one way link. They get no benefit because whether you believe it or not and Google has stated they dont look past 100 links. I believe even Matt has mentioned this on his blog, but dont hold me to it. Even Vegasmack has pointed out to Diann several times about her link structure, why do you think he asked to be removed.

Diann is not dumb, she knows what she is doing with these links, but all this may be moot when Google takes away the weight they give to recip links. At that point this link farm will have to build a lot more sites.

 

I don't think so.

If so, they are doing it without any help from the links on her site.

I believe that I pointed out that both were an issue before TBS even showed up in this thread.

"aptitude"? I think what I'm questioning is his knowledge. As for the traffic his sites get or give, he wouldn't be the first person in that position who held on to misinformation and mythology about search engines. It's not a counter to my observations about the absence of benefit from Diann's links.

That isn't going to happen... although that isn't stopping a lot of people who don't know any better and a lot of people who should know better from procedding as if that is already happening.

 

Given a choice I would rather be in the category that looks like an expert but gets top rankings than be a know it all but is nowhere to be found.

 

Diann stated she was in it for referrals. Her partners want that and the anchor text. Still no problem. Only LVH has a problem with it.

"Google has stated they dont look past 100 links."

No they havent, and as stated before, this urban legend has been debunked before simply by setting up a domain that has never been crawled and linked from a page with more than 100 links. This has been tested hundreds of times. Its old news, and once again LVH is wrong. The guideline was just that, a guideline. The important issue was keeping the size of the page under 101k. Suggesting a limit on links was to help people stay under the 101k.


LVH keeps mentioning that Diann's link setup is bad for her recip link partners. LVH, yours is worse.

The bottom line here is that after dozens of posts, LVH has decided to shut up about anything not SEO related. That's all we wanted to accomplish.

 

That's been "debunked" too. It doesn't alter the fact that both are very good recommendations that with few exceptions should be followed. And it doesn't alter the fact that a page with over 100 outgoing links is pretty much useless as a backlink source.

Don't flatter yourself. It wasn't you who accomplished that. In fact, you and your buddies haven't yet even followed suit. At least spare us the hypocrisy.

 

You use the word fact way more than you should. It is simply a function of math. PR is log based, so those links still pass more PR than a link from any link page on LVH's site.

said the pot to the kettle.

 

Really? Do the math yourself: Those links are passing virtually zero PR.

Take the page mentioned in post #1 of this thread:
http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com/las_vegas_new_homes_index.htm

My Google toolbar tells me that page is PR2.

How many outgoing links would you say that page contains? Maybe 400?

.85 * 2 / 400 = 0.00425

 

man what a shit fight, and I only read up to page 2.