Google Update?

I'm going to hold you to that SEO_AM

 

So I was right when I told you there will be update ate weekend. So I can predict updates

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1084&page=4&pp=10

 

I have 12,000+ new backlinks. Will it help me to improve my PR? What do you think?

http://www.google.com/search?q=link:www.bdbd.ru&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&lr=

 

I'm not seeing any backlink changes. I have exactly the same.

 

doubt it.

most of us are seeing huge increases in backlinks.

 

One site I'm tracking lost about 70 backlinks last update but at this update the same number has been restored plus a few I didn't ask for...

Q1 - Why the drop and restore? Did someone lose PR and their IBLs not count? Did they get it back?
Q2 - I've been holding back on a sigfile and reciprocal link strategy, should I continue to experiment with "organic" growth, i.e. let nature take it's course?

Interesting to see that the BL tracker indicates some of the big corporate competition lost a lot of BLs (to below my client's number of BLs) though their PR remains the same.

 

Q1. Only Google can answer that one. We can all speculate, but at the end of the day nobody can really give you the facts.

Q2. If you dont want your site to be found by all means hold back, maybe even take offline then.

If you are offering something of value to the public please get into reciprocal linking and put it in your sig so that we can find it easier.

 

I feel the pressure...

Strange update this time. Me thinks there was a shift in algo further away from PR importance. Might be the Stanford patent and, possibly, royalty demands for usage. If so, relevance and BLs gain higher profile than even before.

 

Perhaps this is a Google respond to AllTheWeb and AltaVista's recent change to displaying all of the links with their link: commands.

 

Hi payoutwindow,

Thanks, that's cool, I'm not expecting concrete answers.

LOL As for not wanting the site to be found, I don't think that's an issue; traffic is quite healthy, though I won't get complacent. Q2 was a rather rhetorical question and link strategy will probably get the time it deserves in the next round of work for the site. It's just interesting to see how links develop, positively and/or negatively, when you're not working on them.

 

Lever, almost all of our links are natural. They are the best to have primarily because they are usually relevant to the content. We also focus on directories from relevant categories. Google rewards big for relevant natural linkage.

 

Thanks SEO_AM, that's very encouraging to hear. To me, this illustrates the passive/aggresive nature of SEO which is all rather fascinating...

 

Like other post on this thread, we are seeing a lot of new backlinks without the PR update. This seems to be the "trend". Looking forward to better PR and more BLs. Good luck to all of your!

 

PR update will follow this backlink update?

hey Zander YOU CALLED THE UPDATE BEFORE ANYONE ELSE KNEW IT WAS THERE.

 

a lot of PR1 links showing up as backlinks... on one domain I gained over 500 backlinks, most of them PR1. can't wait to see how this affects PR and ranking

 

Nope

All backlinks from 'resource' pages are now not showing for any of my sites, nor for my competitors . I'm assuming they are still counted as my SERP positions are relatively unscathed and have been steadily increasing . One thing that this 'resource' page invisibility will do is make searching for suitable link sites all the more difficult - maybe this is what the big G is after?

Stranger still are the backlinks showing up from minor pages deep within sites and an increase in forum backlinks.

Mick

 

After a bit more research I have discovered the odd backlink from a 'links.htm' page and a 'resource.htm' page but they are very thin on the ground indeed. I guess G just wants to keep us on our toes or is it a sign that something is not quite right in world of G?

Mick

 

google has never, ever filtered based on the file name of a page.

resources.htm, resource.htm, links.htm, they're all fine, and always have been.

 

"Pages named X are penalized" is one of the most persistent rumors (SEO myths?) that I see.

The Search Engine Reverse Engineering Project is currently running a test of this at Do search engines penalize pages named links.shtml?.

Results should be "in" after the next (current?) Google PR update.

Right now, the links.shtml page has a higher PR than the newsgroup-contributors.shtml page!

This could be a result of:

1. It being the higher link on the page. (not likely)
2. The second page just didn't make it into the last Google update. (slightly more likely)
3. Google's duplicate page algorithm being smarter than I give it credit for. (more likely)
4. Something I have not considered. (much more likely)