Matt Cutts says Co-op is bad???

Sure Google sell adverts, NOT links this is the big difference here.

I am NOT defending Google by any means, but those who buy links answer this question HONESTLY

"how many of the links I buy, would I buy if they had the nofollow tag applied?"

I ask this because it is this which distinguishes an advert from a bought 'link'. If you are buying advertising, then you really don't give a rats fart about how the link is configured (unless they are using technology that prevents a portion of websurfers from seeing the advert). If you are buying traffic, then the configuration is not an issue. If it IS an issue, then you are buying a backlink (even if it is a consideration that affects whether or not you buy, it is NOT an advert per se).

It might appear a bit black and white, but I would say that is how Google will distinguish.

 

Simple truths often are black and white.

 

Minstrel, I think you missed this one

 

Indeed you know that, and I know that, but there are those who would sell their mother rather than admit they are not buying advertising, they are buying backlinks

 

But that isn't what the poster quoted. He quoted me saying that AdSense scripted links do not inflate PR.

Maybe you're right about his intention, but the post as it is doesn't make sense to me.

Were you able to get a price on those mothers, OWG?

 

I have been given a quote on a mother, but she is only 5'4" I wanted one with a better Height Rank than that. Even though this mother will stand in leicester Square all day, and Millions of tourists will see my sign for cheap underground tickets, I STILL think that having a mother with 2" or more Height rank will do me more good, regardless of where she is standing

 

Do you find really ugly mothers or really hot mothers receive more traffic? My research says ugly mothers convert more; hot mothers just attract browsers.

 

I spent way more on the Hot mothers for very little return, in fact I acted like I ad more money than I ad sense <groan>

 

I expect she feels the same way about you

Really? I would have thought the opposite - that browsing hot mothers would loosen wallets more frequently.

I always thought that was just part of being Welsh.

 

what are you guys talking about?

noone's buying links for better ranking, PR or indexing, everyone knows it's against google guidelines

 

I found the following statement by Matt Cutts really interesting

I consider that Matt gives one of the main reasons that sites continue to have pages in supplimental results, or badly indexed. In the first days of big daddy, my PR6 index page forum disappeared into supplemental. Once Googleguy/Matt had made the changes, within weeks my site was back.

I consider that my site got back so soon because it had high PR, and top SEO - no dup content or other issues.

Basically, I see that many sites have low PR, and have one or more SEO things incorrect. Like too much interlinking between your own sites, or need to have vBSEO on your site, or not using unique titles and meta descriptions, or over using reciprocals, or the coop... These are probably enough to mean that Bigdaddy is not including the sites in the main index, that the settings that initially effected my site, and were turned down to include my site, and others; that the settings have not been turned down enough to effect other people sites.

My premise is that if you get more things on you sites correct, that you will then get over that Bigdaddy threshhold, and so be able to have your pages properly indexed.

I certainly see that for sites that I SEO correctly, and when I get them good PR, that the pages rise rather nicely to where they should sit on the SERP's.

 

I picked one of my spammiest sites, Buying and Selling on eBay, and ran a little test on it.

It had somewhere around 20k of co-op weight pointed to it. I pointed 66k of co-op weight to it. Traffic dropped around 75%.

The site dates from very late 2004, but it has never had a good number of natural high-quality inbound links. It is well submitted to directories and I have written and submitted an article or two promoting it.

The drop happened so quickly that there is good reason to question the cause and effect relationship between the coop change and the site's penalty.

It should be noted that the original ~20k of coop weight, according to the guesstimates presented in this thread, was way too high already. However, it had a noticeably positive effect. Traffic is now down to the volume where it was with no coop weight pointed to the site.

 

My 2 cents
I think any temporary link is bad, here today gone tomorrow, it simply doesn’t look good on your google records.
Link-vault looks like a nice solution, but sooner or later google will be able to detect it, and will simply ignore the links.
Just go back to natural linking, is the time proven solution.
Cheers

 

It would be foolish to think that google can't detect LV links - If you look into LV in enough depth, you will find that most sites with LV inflated Google SERP's dropped extreamly heavily last October/November - I am not sure about COOP inflated sites, but I believe the alogrithm change at the end of last year pretty much put an end to the use of COOP/LV type programs to inflate SERP's, and anyone overdoing it got completely knocked off the radar.

 

It is possible to overdo anything. But you will actually find a good number of sites that are doing quite well with the LV. Especially sites that already rank okay, and have high PR, and just need that little extra push so their serps go from okay to excellent.

 

LV links should be even easier to detect than Coop links, and discount. I suspect that for sites doing well with either Coop or LV, the key is probably the non-Coop/LV links, not the Coop/LV links.

 

Google uses an interdependent algorithm. 20k of weight on one site might represent 1% of the overall linking element, while on another it might be 50% or more. It is ludicrous to think that the rule is applied across the board with an even hand.

Constantly we here, Matt Cutts and other sources use phrases like ' seems like most of them, or a lot of those or that' etc. Because Google uses a base 5 sliding scale algo they can take into account just about any combination of elements, and act accordingly.

If a site is about a subject, contains plenty of unique information about that subject, is linked to by other highly respected sources on that subject, plus a host of lesser on topic pages then it is unlikely that being involved in LV etc will have much of an effect. The opposite will be true as well.

 

OWG:

My point on that note was that, according to conventional wisdom in this topic, 20k was way too much for this site. This site isn't a winner by any measure that I can imagine.

 

I suspect not

 

OK. I'll see your suspect and I'll raise you a suspect.