Are you making things up as we go along here Mel or do you really believe this So what you are trying to say is that ADSENSE should not try to serve relevant ads in relation to the content on the pages that the ads run on But that relevance really does not matter in regard to how web pages relate one to another PS: What about landing pages that serve related links like this one Mel? www.fordvanparts.com Should they link to just anything or stick with the subject matter to get folks to click on the links on the landing page?
I have posted the same arguments in five or more forums, I would guess by now that you might be covinced that I believe it.
So in other words a directory does not really need subject headers, it should just put all the links on one big page since relevancy has no meaning
Whoops you edited your post while I was answering you. Adsense does not have anything whatever to do with relevant links, it has to do with serving ads that are relevant to the content of the page. As I have gone to great detail to explain carefully, a link does not have to be to a site on the same topic in order to be relevant. Search engines consider a link to be essentially a vote for another page and any pages owner can vote for any other page. Do you really suppose that just because a page has a name like ford van parts they should not link to any other site they choose??? Its a free country and you can sell underpants from a parts store if you want to.
Now you are confusing (deliberately?) relevancy with relevant links, they are two different subjects entirely. Come on Anthony you can do better.
So if I make Ice Cream and have a PR 9 page it would be alright for me to sell links through a text link broker to a maker of Bug Killer so he could pick up PR You feel that Google will go along with that, right Mel
I will rebut this one with you Mel. I am a beleiver that relevant links carry more weight than non relevant links. Yes they are both a vote, but if we use Ac's examples 'ice cream' linking to 'bug killer' would not carry the same weight that 'ice cream' linking to 'dairy farm' would. What does this have to do with AdSense. 1 thing...SEO. The more I use and monitor my AdSense campaign the more it is becoming apparent that your earnings are all about SERPs in organic index. If I am an AdSense publisher curently rank #200 in a high paying term my earnings are considarably less than top ten ranking under same term. I know this thread is not about AdSense, so I won't elaborate. My point is that SEO techniques such as linking from a relevant source play a role in EPC with AdSense.
Well of course you will get more payout if you are ranking highly for popular terms, thats the way the system is designed, but what on earth does this have to do with the topic of relevant links? Can you show me an example of where a site ranks highly ONLY because the links pointing to it are relevant? I can show you literally hundreds of sites that rank well for competitive keywords based on non relevant (by your definition) links.
Often the premise of "traditional" advertising is getting your message to the most people that you can for the least amount of money. Throw out a big net and you will catch a lot of fish. Not all of them will be good fish perhaps, but it is sometimes more efficient to go that route. Is it logical to conclude that advertising on a higher PageRank site will throw out a bigger net and potentially grab more customers??? Higher PageRank sites are usually higher quality and more successful. So why not buy your ads on the highest PR sites possible. Is that such a bad thing to do??? I think it would be preferable to be advertised on a successful PR 7 or 8 site, than pay the same or even less to be on a "perfectly matched" site with lesser PR. PR 7 and above sites have "magic" you know. Wouldn't you like some of that magic to rub off on...
My only bone of contention with your comments is what I said above Your statement is broad, particularly When relevant links is, arguably, the best way to improve in serps and PR...hence higher payout with AdSense. That's what I'm saying..they are connected. If you wish to wrap it with a title of SEO, I don't disagree. As far as my definition of links...I think it the same as yours. Unless you disagree on the relevance theory illustrated in my previous post.
Well yes Homer but by that reasoning then Adsense is also connected to page titles, H tags and anything else that helps you rank better, and I think that is perhaps a little bit too loose a definition.
It certainly is, Mel. All basic SEO rules we have come to learn also apply to AdSense. But I think we're straying from our originators post...Google speaking out about links. I accept the blame for that You will likely have more knowledge of the benefits of the buying and selling of links than I. I do not participate in the buying and selling of links anymore. It is simply too risky.
I think I see where you are coming from Homer, but the fact that you need good serps to make money on Adsense has nothing to do with the way that Adsense works or with relevancy, its the higher rankings that make you the money, the way you get them is incidental and has no effect on Adsense. If you get your rankings on searchterm A by virtue of being pure as the driven snow and having only great content, or if you are a down and dirty spammer who uses sneaky redirects and keyword stuffed landing pages to get your rankings Adsense rewards you in exactly the same manner so long as you are ranking for the same keywords and it still displays ads based on the content of the pages it has spidered.
Mel would you at least highlight some of the points you think you are making in your posts. You don't seriously expect anyone to read this? The length combined with your writing style is endangering ppl to FAK (fall asleep on the keyboard).
No Problem ST. In a nut shell I am saying that I do not believe that there is actually a penalty incurred for buying links, I don't think Google can actually detect it as easily as some here think, and at any rate I doubt that it would incur a penalty as that would be a license to kill off all your competitors. If they are a factor more likely IMO is a devaluation of one kind of link or another. I really doubt if Google is adding extra points for relevant links, but it may be the case that if they are you can still add enough non relevant links to rank well anyway. I really doubt that there is anyway to fairly determine what is a relative link and what is not and have seen some high powered SEOs like Danny Sullivan express the same view. That should be some more grist for the mill.
OK, Mel I'm not letting you off that easy... Disaggree, I have evidence that they are dishing out penalties. Not like they used to eg. PR0 or grey scaled. They are simply allowing the spider, allowing the bls and assigning a 0 value. So the webmaster sees that he has now accumulated thousands of bl's from a paid bl...no PR increase and no improvement in SERPs, ever. Disagree, casting vote theory seems to still be at the heart of Google. If my 'dairy farm' site links to an 'ice cream' site the reward would obviously be greater that a link from 'tammy's hardcore'...that's a no brainer I won't say I disagree with you on this one because you have, cleverly inserted the word 'fairly'. But who said anything about being fair. We already know that Google is not bound by any kind of rules...they appear to be making thier own law. So because you have said 'fairly' I can't, in fairness disagree with you. But all I can say is some things in life just aren't fair
If they were doing it this way it would not be a penalty would it? In addition this begs the question if they index the anchor text of the link in the directory. There are thousands if not millions of sites that rank well on some combination of page content, internal links, reciprocal links and yes even purchased links. But the really big problem with this idea is the notion that it is in fact possible to differentiate between legitmate purchased advertisements, purchased links, reciprocal links, paid directory links etc etc . Then think about this for a moment. If purchased links are totally devalued why are there still link sellers still in business and the number of sites selling links increasing daily, and why do thier customers continue to pay for the links monthly if they are not helping thier rankings? Yes casting vote theory still seems to be at the heart of Google, but there is no reason at all that dairy farm linking to ice cream should receive a greater ranking consideration than a link from tammys hardcore. Tammy may in fact be a better judge of good ice cream than the dairy farmer. Its only a no brainer if you don't think about it. If I decide to, for instance, recommend a website designer or a copywriter on my website that is an honest, fair and perhaps even an expert opinion, and an extremely relevant link, but according to your theory it would not be. If you consider in detail at what really constitutes a "relevant" link I think you will have to conclude that the subject of the site that the link comes from may have very little to do with the relevacy of the link. Say I have a personal site about cats and when I get a great deal on a new car I put a link the website of the dealer who gave me that great deal. This is an honest, informed and relevant link, but according to your theory it would not be treated as a relevant link at all. Now suppose the car distributor who sells my dealer cars puts an identical link from his site to the dealers site. According to your view that would be a relevant link, because they are both car related sites, but according my view that is more likely to be a link placed for personal or corporate gain, not as an honest recommedation and should not be considered as a more relevant link just because it came from an related industry site. Yet another example. Suppose I have a site selling auto parts and decide to break it up into 50 different sites each selling one particular line of auto parts and to link all those auto parts related sites together with a judicous selection of anchor text links for ranking purposes. According to your theory all these would count as relevant links, when its just another example of gaming the search engines. Google is not about fair as you have pointed out, but Google is ALL about relevancy, they either live or die by it. If Google cannot accurately determine which are really relevant links and which are not (and you seem to agree that they cannot) then they cannot afford to decrease the relevancy of thier SERPs by increasing the ranking power of links that may or may not be relevant based on the theme of the site. Google have concluded from the very inception of thier search engine that the anchor text of a link says more about the relevancy of the link than the site it comes from, and while I agree that this can be gamed by webmasters it is still a better measure of relevancy than the theme of the site, and Googles conception of anchor text has never included the theme of the site the link came from.