How can you tell if Google is punishing you (because of the ad-network)?

Kewler I have PMed you response to your PM. I will stick to my feeling around this, though. DP COOP still has a better, immediate, overall score with se's. Yes Google's algo's have changed but I can see see no evidence, anywhere that may suggest that they are penalizing as some suggest.

Besides, I got a feeling the big guy is up to something.

 

glad to hear it man ... i feel the same but i can only go on common sense, i'm on the ultra slow growth plan on LV and it's barely a week old. i plan on using up all 120 anchor combos i have alotted.

like anything else ... linux vs ms, php vs asp ... to be blindly devoted to either is a mistake ... use each system to extract the most it can offer you.

unless 1 starts to do more harm then good. i have my suspicions on a previuos project ... too much / too fast is too easy to detect.

 

Skattabrain... just keep patience... how long are you in?
it takes you weeks to get a substantial amount of links placed, but once they are there it's amazing...

 

no worries, i'm on ultra slow on purpose .. i have 175,000 in voltage

 

Well I hope there are no negative effects from either as I am using both (on different sites of course!!) but as Link Vault are no1 for Link Vault http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=link+vault in about a month of being live, I can only assume its not triggered a sandbox / filter!!

edit: #1 permanent links - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=permanent+links / 37 millions result is abit more impressive lol

 

A very interesting read.

I am now seeing why Shawn sticks to his guns with this COOP. It IS NOT A LINK NETWORK, but rather an advertising network. When you read this article it may become more clear to you.

 

I could rank for "permanent links" in my sleep. Nobody even bothered to buy an adword for that term

 

true ... but do you think google cares? even if they don't, i need to see proof (on new sites) that its effectiveness to raise G's serps is still positive.

 

When I read that article it makes me think the COOP is a bad idea. It specifically talks about link history and how quickly links come and go. All of which COOP does rapidly.

 

Not sure Glenn. It's your call how to take it...

Got my attention.

It comes down to how Google calculates/ determines artificial link inflation. For example this COOP is rotating links which is NOT designed to create a false sense of ibls. So the way I see it the 'full out assault' cannot be targetting this COOP . LV may not be so lucky as there intent is CLEAR as day. I just don't see how Google would determine artificial link inflation. I really think this is what we need to brainstorm first. Once we get a read on this, we can then make a decision.

Because of Shawn's stance on this I think the worst we can expect with this COOP is devalued. Which has already happened, but not penalized.

If we are going to effectively promote our sites to the new Google we need to get to the bottom of what an artficial link is...ANY IDEAS

 

I agree Homer. We are all speculating and thats the best we can do. This is the part that really got my attention:

So what else does Google consider in determining the aging delay?
• The anchor text and the discovery date of links are recorded, thus establishing the countdown period of the aging delay.
• Links with a long-term life span may be more valuable than links with a short life span.
• The appearance and disappearance of a links over time.
• Growth rates of links as well as the link growth of independent peer pages.
• Again, this suggests that rapid link acquisition and the quality of peer pages are monitored
• Anchor text over a given period of time for keyword consistency.
• Inbound links from fresh pages… might be considered more important than links from stale pages.
• Google doesn't expect that new web sites have a large number of links so purchasing large numbers of brokered links will likely hurt you more than help you.

I should note that Link Vault allows dozens (and for some people hundreds) of anchor text and links with an addition of 1 to 20 new IBL's per day (per url you specify). And also the ability to put URL's on hold. So you could turn it on just over the weekend for example and create a pattern of working on the weekend to add links.

Reading that entire article several things became crystal clear in my eyes:

1. Varied Anchor Text is good
2. Life Span of the IBL's is good
3. Quality of the website linking is good
4. Affiliate heavy pages linked in or out is bad
5. high turn over on ibl's is bad (not sure on obl's)
6. some question on "authority" sites and out bound link rates, but for non-authority sites, too many OBL's bad.
7. just the major ones I saw, there were others in that article.

 

gford ... your spot on.

static link, huge ability to vary anchors, page quality, themed (although it needs more signups), adjustable release (notice i said adjustable, not slow)

you could literally leak out 1 new perm link a day ... or 300 if you have the vaultage. lv addresses all of these issues, but it does it SO well ... it makes me nervous at the same time. know what i mean?

 

Homer, that article is simply about the filing of a patent by Google. The article in my opinion is misleading from the outset:

It doesn't confirm anything of the kind. It simply confirms that Google is exploring a concept which may or may not ever actually be used and protecting that concept from being patented by anyone else while they are deciding what to do.

Google owns numerous patents, as do most major corporations. Some of these are to protect things they are already doing, some to protect things they think they may or may not use in the future, some to protect things they have no intention of ever using but wish to secure rights to from their competitors.

So this does NOT mean that Google is currently "penalizing" or "discounting" coop links (indeed, there is evidence to the contrary elsewhere in this forum). At the same time, it is not evidence that Google is NOT currently "penalizing" or "discounting" coop links.

It isn't evidence of anything except that Google has filed a patent.

 

Let's put aside the term 'patent'. I truthfully read the article for what it was worth to me...information that I may or may not elect to regard as important in my quest to reach #1 in rankings.

I don't disagree with your explaination of Patents and Google. I don't think, or at anytime do I infer that Google is dishing out penalties to this COOP. In fact, after reading the article I am a little more confident in this COOP because Shawn clearly states the point and purpose of this COOP. It is other COOP's that I am now thinking a little more about. Right now I think they may be under the radar but possibly not for long.

I don't know about you but I have noticed a big difference with Google's valuing of rotating ads, recently. I will agree with some that are also seeing the same thing with MSN.

This tells me that they are davaluing these links...although Google does show MANY coop links when you link:www.yourdomain.com, but what are they worth? AND if they are seen as valid backlinks WILL they also, one day, be treated as 'links to ARTIFICALLY inflate rankings'? These are the questions we need concern ourselves with. Hopefully through sharing ideas, opinions and experiences we can remain a cut above the rest.

We know that Google introduces new algos for the greater good. It's up to us be be on or ahead of it...I believe we are doing this now

 

LOL..... I needed a laugh guys.... (page 1) Forums are great... you can get away from web designing and SEO long enough to finally get some laughter...

 

To get ahead of the curve, we don't need absolute, rock-solid evidence of what the engines are doing, or are going to do.

It's simple -- put yourself in their shoes. Ask "What needs to be done to get the most relevant results for the people using your engine?" The answer is what some of us have been pushing all along:

The coop needs at least some semi-static links. 100% churned links will eventually be discounted completely if not worse.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that the experiment on the charity site increases back links like crazy, but the site falls dramatically in G's SERPs.

 

Yes I agree with you, Joewood. Besides Google will never permit us to have rock solid evidence. It is my belief that we can uncover alot right here, then take it or leave it...the point is we will never know, for certain, what the all mighty G does and is doing.

Is probably the main reason why they are constantly changing the posts. But there are many other reasons...what we are discussing here is probably another one of them. The SEO cat and mouse game that seems perpectual. Frankly, being a cut above the rest is what separates Good SEO from BS SEO.

Your guess is as good as mine. It comes down to how Google perceives rotating links. I am not sure I agree...Shawn and Google have to decide that. After reading the article I posted a few posts back I have more belief, confidence and trust in this COOP. Think about it...Shawn has always been 100% up front about this COOP. He has much more wisdom that I with SEO and trust he has good reason for sticking to his guns. Does he risk losing many of his current members to other COOPs? Yes. Will those members eventually find there way back? Maybe.

Possibly. We know now that you can be caught in a catch 22...not enough bls= crap SERPS, Too many...triggers a flag “Burst link growth MAY be a strong indicator of search engine spam”. Seems like a finer line.

If this COOP eventually becomes 100% useless as a promotional tool, will there be changes? My bet is yes. We don't have enough conclusive findings yet. As long as I can see my overall rankings improving I will keep most of my COOP weight right here.

The bottom line is Google is making the SEO margin slimmer and slimmer. I can see the outcome for us is to dig deeper.

PS: ProductivePC, I love your broken image avatar. Would you mind if I used it for something I am doing?

 

sometimes going with hunches and feelings is better than waiting to prove something ... lots of wasted time .... why wait to confirm it don't work when most in the know will tell you it doesn't work anymore if the site is new and the phrase is competitive.

of course, i'm not analytical like many seo's / programmers, but it works for me.

writing is on the wall peeps!

 

I'll try to get back on topic... Google doesn't penalize you because you use coop... Sure, I've had some pages removed from G's index because of the coop, linking to banned websites, but that was solved...

Now, the thing about coop, the going up in the SERPs isn't as noticible as it was in the past.

Right now is very hard to go higher than you are if you were running the coop for a while... It's like a progressive slide down the SERPs as the links tend to loose their value. Link Vault has that better figured out, but again, it could fail too...

The best way of going up in SERPs is still doing the good ol' link exchange with related websites

 

I can agree with part of what you have said but not your last statement...reciprical links suck and appear to have little to no value. I have an article that states Google see recips as next to nothing especially when all links point to one page. This signifies auto linking to Google. Recips can work if the lb is to a variety of your pages instead of all links>index.