Did Google just Admit your competitor can get you Penalized !!!!

I have abandoned my site.
If I can get it back great!
If not, who cares in the end.
But I do know quite a lot of people who sure as hell ain't backing G now. sell sell sell

 

I think they will change it in next update. They have done some stupid things the last 3 updates and search results have suffered.

 

Keep sellin stock
Watch!
LOL
Serve their right.
http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#cha...ine;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined



LOL
3 Hail Marys and lift the ban plese guys...

 

G. stock has been going down for couple of months now

Another bubble has burst.

 

ANybody come out of the DP 50 penalty yet?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=Goog

 

I know I haven't

somebody give me some hope

 

$685 is still a lot of rupess

 

Apparantly it was started by two guys... one who was called Sanjee but changed his name to Sergi as he liked Vodka and Caviar

 

Am I missing something here, are the sites that are having problems with backlinks using links only or is there an article or some kind of useful information that the links are part of. I guess what I am getting at is, does Google have a way of saying this is an article, related to the site, therefore the backlinks are good, verus, this is just a backlink in a link directory for example that doesnt related to this site so therefore the link is bad ?

I am new to all of this so please don't take this wrong.. I am trying to learn how to get my sites listed and ranked well and this is important as I am building links using articles etc.

 

Could it be that our sites got too many backlinks too fast and were thrown into the sandbox !!
Links devalued to see how long they stay linked?

Does anybody know how long sandbox phase lasts?

Also, can a 10 year old site even be sandboxed !!!

 

Not really. Some of my keywords improved, while others sank even further.

The highest position I hold is 20 for my site name and exact url. This is pathetic.

 

I don't think it is sandbox as we know it is affecting our own names even with DMOZ links!
The sandbox seems to last about a year, but in my experience they keep getting better up to 4 yrs old. Trust rank I guess.

Which brings me onto a Trustrank penalty. It is invisible and works against PR in the serps



A hypothesis.
What if a Trustrank algo has been introduced.
This algo could be based on a statistic. % of poor links to good juicy links

This is to deter PR link sales

Say that G has determined that statistically a trusted site should get
100 PR 0 - 3 to get 1 PR 6 link
or something like that
The maths don't really matter

I suspect may of us profile wise have
just as many juicy links as those poor 0 - 3 links
I have also noticed that sites outperforming me are doing RECIPROCAL LINKING !!!

So if your profile is wrong, say buy a PR 8 link, and we know they have already illuminated those sites by the PR drop a few months ago....

BANG the Trustrank penalty kicks in. Dropped in serps as a penalty. If on the other hand you had bought a few low PR links. It would not be enough to overcome the activation threshold. Thus juice matters.





The answer IF this were true would be to drop some juice, especially those with unrealted metatags, and index page links, in favour of inside pages of good context and metatags.
And actually seek out lots of shite low PR links to alter the overall profile.
IF this were to fix the problem then HOW LONG MUST WE WAIT?

Well the sandbox is 9 months ish, but maturing to 4 years.
That is how long in worst case senario it may take to overcome this.
In otherwords download thesite, and start again on a different domain name??

Just food for thought.

 

I think you're probably right about the link profile triggering a filter - no site would naturally get links from mostly PR3+ pages. But you should be careful that the low quality links you're looking for are not on bad neighbourhoods - you only want links from relevant pages, regardless of their PR.

Just because a link is low PR doesn't mean its shite, unless your goal is to sell links on your high PR site.

I think reciprocal links, in moderation and with very related sites, still works well.

 

I know few guys, who don't care about website niche they buy links from. Those guys spend over $100K a month on links. Do you think they are light-minded just because they don't give a shite where those links are coming from?

If this is your own theory, stick to it, I'm sure you will do great in a long run

 

I guess I meant to say
"you preferably want links from relevant pages, regardless of their PR" rather than
"you only want links from relevant pages, regardless of their PR"

Nope. I'm just telling you my experiences. If someone else has different experiences, I'm pleased to hear about it and learn from it. I wish I had that much $$$ to spend each month, so they must be doing something right

 

Believe me, you will NEVER! learn from such experiences unless those guys run out of business and start selling stupid e-books so they can pay for their cars and houses.

 

Hello Guys,

I just read this Matt Cutts Interview and it gave me some hope, even though he does say that it is not impossible for a competitor to bring you down but it is hard ! ! Here is what he said:

"How concerned are you over the tactic of aggressive link buying to competitors' sites in order to take down competitors? How long, do you think, it will be until competitors start taking each others' sites out in Google with aggressive link buying?

Matt Cutts: I do not think a smart competitor will even try that second one because they would be more likely to help. The thing is, we are very aware that site 'A' could buy links to site 'B', and then spam-report site 'B' and try to frame site 'B'. So we try very hard, in all of our spam techniques, to make it so that one site can not sabotage another site.

If you will notice, we do not say that it is impossible. The reason we do not say that it is impossible is, if you remember sex.com a few years ago, somebody - if I remember correctly - sent a fax and claimed to be the site owner and grabbed the ownership of sex.com and kept it for a few years, until they were forced by a court to relinquish it.

There is always the 'far out', possible case where somebody could do identity theft and grab your domain and hurt your domain that way. So we do not say it is impossible for a competitor to hurt another competitor, but we do try very hard. In fact, you have noticed that, with link buying in particular, we have been concentrating in the last couple of months more on the link selling aspect of that.

The odds that someone can come to us and say: "Oh! Someone hacked my site and sold links on my site for four months, and I had no idea! And, oh, yeah, I did bill it in Google Checkout, but they hacked my Google Checkout account, too! And I am being framed! It is a conspiracy!" - the odds of someone plausibly being able to make that argument are a lot lower. We do try very hard to prevent someone from hurting somebody else, and we are very mindful of that."

So in other words, you can be brought down by a competitor but its pretty hard and I guess selling links is more dangerous then buying links.

As far as my site with -50 penalty, I think I will just continue working on it and getting relavant backlinks and unique content and hopefully it will go back up in SERPS. If the linkk profile is unbalanced then it will go back to being balanced in some time I assume.

***Here is the link to the entire interview: http://www.stephanspencer.com/search-engines/matt-cutts-interview

 

Interesting thread. But do not seem that we are heading anywhere except G. Just wait n watch whats their next plan. I lost my SERP's quite a bit. Well lot more pages are not in index as they used to be. I updated some content and YES they were back with marginal SERP increase.

 

Charlee your post quoting Matt Cutts made me even more worried about this..... his example seems really strange and meant to mislead.... I mean, how stupid to say that "someone could do identity theft and grab your domain"

like that is so far fetched and if someone grabs your domain they could turn your whole website off too, so by saying that he is using a really stupid analogy that doesn't address real-life possibilities in link-damage strategies to damage competitors sites

I think Google is trying to cover something up here

 

It would be nice if G actually acknowledged this - 50 DP. At the moment I feel like a victim with two black eyes..... but nobody believes me!