Ad Churning and Irrelevant Site Wake Up Call

I think a static link version of the co-op would be great. ooh here's another idea - context based co-op! Guess that might take a lot of work though. Sure would boost relevancy though.

 

interesting and easy to understand.
http://www.wwwcoder.com/main/parentid/285/site/5033/266/default.aspx
an example of this newsletter
Google's Aging Delay has teeth… and they’re taking a bite out of spam!

It’s no big secret that Google relies heavily on links when it comes to ranking web sites.

According to their patent filing, Google may record the discovery date of a link and link changes over time.

In addition to volume, quality & the anchor text of links, Google’s patent illustrates possible ways how Google might use historical information to further determine the value of links.

For example, the life span of a link and the speed at which a new web site gets links.

“Burst link growth MAY be a strong indicator of search engine spam”.

I think everyone should read and examine this letter carefully and then come back here to discuss

 

Or maybe NOT.

It's just a patent application at this point. That's all.

This article, or a mirror of it, was posted previously and is a good example of misleading information where speculation is presented as fact. Examples:

No it doesn't. It just confirms that Google has filed a patent application.

It doesn't do anything of the kind. It's just a patent application.

No it hasn't. Or at least not yet. It's just a patent application.

No, it doesn't. It's just a patent application.

Also note this comment to the cited article (scroll down to near the bottom of the page):

Now you, as a web designer/webmaster/SEO guy MAY choose to interpret this as a sign that at some point in the future Google may be making some changes as to how it weights backlinks. And you may decide to make some changes on your websites to accomodate what Google MIGHT do in the future. Or you may decide to just leave things gthe way they are until some evidence surfaces anywhere that any of this is happening.

But please stop saying that this is something that is current, happening now, or even that this is conclusive proof that Google is going to implement this... ever. Google may or may not receive approval on the patent application. If it is approved, they may or may not decide to implement it. If they decide to implement it, they may or may not decide to do it in the sweeping form outlined in the application (or they may tone it way down).

There's nothing wrong with speculation and conjecture and hypothesis formulation and testing -- I would just like to see it clearly presented as such and not as fact. Unfortunately, the latter is all too common, frequently as a way of so-called "SEO experts" trying to appear to be "in the know" to get a jump on their competitors.

 

Many times, patent applications are submitted AFTER the technology is built. The bottom line, is we don't know if Google will, has, or is implementing this. While you think you are being objective, it appears to me that you are assuming that this has NOT been implemented yet.


--
Derek

 

I doubt that "many times" is accurate... that wouldn't be very prudent business practice... how do youi know someone else won't beat you to the punch? I think if you look through lists of patents, you will find hundreds that were awarded and nothing was ever done with them...

Exactly my point.

Not at all. I'm not assuming anything. As I said elsewhere, this is neither proof that Google IS doing something nor proof that Google is NOT doing something. It's just a patent application.

I would be VERY interested in scrutinizing any public evidence that it is in fact in place... not the "proof" that Danny Wall suggested existed but couldn't be posted in another thread recently but something we can actually look at.

Believe me... if such evidence exists, I very much want to know about it.