IMO it would look more suspicious having a static link than rotated links from Google's point of view. I have no evidence for this and OWG has already mentioned this, but could it simply be a 'sandbox' or 'filter' or 'whatever you want to call it' where if a large number of backlinks are picked up with the same anchor text that it filters the result(s) out for that anchor text? This could be done via the coop or through your own intense link promotion, so to blame the coop for it would devalue the network, and make people panic, which won't be good for any of us. What I have witnessed in the very short time that I have had weight, MSN appears to be picking up these backlinks very quickly - I already have 2,000 BL's pointing to my page, with over 1,700 of them via the COOP this has jumped my keyword term to #12 within a week, where it wasn't listed in the top 100 prior to implementing the ads on my forum. IMO MSN are slow on identifying intensive link campaigns, where Google and Yahoo appear to have some sort of filtering / sandbox thingy in place.
Great start - I would add: If running ads - How many Is home page cached Rough coop "weight" pointing at the site Time from adding coop to running into trouble The fact that people include their url will be very helpful as we can all take a look for "other" possible explanations for our troubles.
Suspicious is the wrong word. Ads by definition have a commercial intent thus they rarely complement and even less supplement content. The brilliance of ADS is that it gives the user a gracefull way out.... IMHO sites with ADS and a "high" ctr should not even be on the net. It is also easy for the big three to simply agree cache compare without giving anything away (no cache just hit the page twice) - which will "unfortunately" put an end to nearly all of the "games". Coop is brilliant tool to be used to it's max if and when required but taken with a pinch of salt. Expat
Here's my recent finding. A 3-months old site got 12nd place for a competitive search term. 2 days ago, <POOF!> no where in the SERPs, beyond 1000th placement. The weights is just over 2,000. Before the big vanish, I used 7 different search terms for anchor text. The weight distribution per search term was 14.3%. And the position got stagnant. I became 'greedy'. So I used 5 search terms. The weight distribution became 20% for each term. Now, everything is gone for all keywords. By the way, I use a mixed of 2-word, 3-word, and 4-word search terms. So, competitive factor should not be taken into the equation. It seems that Google likes new site with low anchor text density. Preferably, less than 15% of total IBLs. Take note: The treshold for total IBLs is most likely dependable on the average IBLs of all top-20 sites. Don't overshoot it. Conclusion: Therefore, getting links too many, too fast is not a good idea. By the way, this assumption applies to new sites only. However, there's no guarantee that new sites won't get into the onslaught even if linking is done properly. Alternative solution: Dump Google. It is getting harder to rank in top-30 for new sites. I estimate that it would take at least 9 months. Embrace MSN. Presently, its algo resembles the one used by Google a year ago. It is pretty easy to get top-10 ranking within 2 weeks if there're lots of weight apply to the site. Old Wine. Let your site ages for at least a year while it is getting traffic from MSN. When it is rippen, work for Google ranking. A Big Question in Mind: How important is the age factor to Google?
Right, but the ads on business.com are not spiderable, they are redirected and tracked. And probally aren't counted as links - judging by google's cache of that page and the fact that google doesn't count the business.com site as a backlink of www,ordermotion.com and neither does yahoo. Unline the DP network, which creates ads which are identical to hyperlinks that are under the webmasters control ( the reason rel=nofollow is reccomended for the network). I don't think you'd have this "dumping sites" problem if you used nofollow or tracked the clickthrus like most internet ads. That seems the easiest solution ... and means that people that want to advertise their products can, without any risk.
I read the post.. the links digitalpoint was talking about are not listings, but sponsored ads, that change randomly on referesh, and redirect.
Ah, sorry, I haven't read the whole thread and I overlooked that in your post. As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say, "Sorry, nevermind!"
Hmmm So I sell widgets. There's a site in teh top ten that also sells widgets. So I throw a link to his site in the Coop, or blog all over, or do whatever to slam him with a sudden influx of inbound links. According to the hypothesis here, I can knock him out of the rankings by doing so. Sites (theoretically) don't have control over who links to them. I could put IBLs to my competetors from link farms or other bad neighborhoods. I could submit my competitors sites to thousands of such places using WebPositionGold. I join any number of linking network out there, some at $20 a month and less, and put my competitors sites in them. But is that what Google is doing? And if so, that's leaving a big hole for me to sabotauge competitor sites.
You are correct - it strikes most of us that you shouldn't be able to destroy a site by adding a bunch of links. To date none of my sites that run coop without receiving ads have been damaged and none of my sites that receive ads without running them have been damaged. My sites that do both - different story! Coincidence? Maybe.
I was digging today and remembered a site biz-directory.org basically you can have for free/ $50 or $800 a directory script that allows you to php a new directory for the free version they leave 2 site wide links on your directory to their site as you can imagine they must get hundreds of thousands of links search for the link text "free php directory script" in yahoo and msn = #1 placing google = nowhere could this be some proof that either it's a) sitewide link penalty b) same anchor text penalty or something else For my (almost banned site- you know, PR6 no serps all link and no text doing site cmd) I did have 4 sidewides coming in and a little coop)
Yes - just checked and Javier is not in the top 400 in G though there are many many results about his script. Seems to me that the best result for someone looking for a free php directory dcript would be Javier - its a damn good script after all.
yes I use it but it adds a little to my site wide observations For everyone else who has a December Meltdown, did you have any sitewides at all pointing to your sites (or is the theory c^&p)? Sitewides with anchor text btw not domain name (as my #1 comp links sitewide via domain name and he/she is still ruling the spam roost)
Interesting. Google reports over 11,000 links on a link: search, but if you search for the domain name or just "biz directory", you won't find them. Looks like it is being penalized IMO.
It appears it was... Look in the footer links... You'll see the usual suspects in there... http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach.../dir/5/9.php+site:www.biz-directory.org&hl=en
OK...I'm for all practical purposes gone from G also for all KW's. Here's some rough stats: URL: See Sig. Have ads pointing to it. Varies from 1 to 6 or 7. Weight of about 3000 now. Was as high as 8000. Display 5 text ads on all pages. BL's prior to Coop: About 150, mostly theemed. Up to 2100 on 12/15, 950 on 12/22, down to 844 since 1/5 Indexed pages: 400 prior to Coop. (9/04) 390 on 12/15, 280 12/25, 240 1/1. Still 240 PR 3 to PR4 on 12/29 Average KW position 150-200 prior to Coop. After about a month significent increases in SERPS and AllInAnchor. About 12/25 drop in SERPS but recovered within a week. SERPS started dropping about 1/4/05. AS of 1/22 not in top 1000 for any KW's no AllIn results. As of 1/28 site:mydomain shows 288 pages but mostly with no description. Site main page doesn't even come up when searching for site name. Looks like I'm toast. Anyway...hope this helps anyone who wanted stats.
If it's dupliacte content I guess I'm dense and don't understand why? Each page is named different and has different content since each lady is different. There are similarities but there are with any site that has any sort of theme. If Google considers this duplicate content then the hell with them. I've picked up almost what I've lost through Microsoft and Yahoo.