As a programmer who is quite experienced in working with algorithms, I personally think that detecting paid links is virtually impossible and the potential for an alogrithm to expose "false positives" and punish them is far more likely to destructive than constructive.
Thank you for that. Would you concur this is safe to say?? Algorithm for beginners. Algorithm is a set of instructions the program should follow, much like a flow chart. What an Algorithm can do 1. Follow all links from link Seller A. 2. Find all sites linked from Seller A. 3. Devalue PR score of all sites found to be linked to by seller A. What an Algorithm cannot do. 1. Find sites selling links. This cannot be done because the Algorithm is not given a finite set of instructions.
algorithm Add to that the enormous computing power Google has available in its considerable network and the enormous inventive power it has assembled in its highly educated staff and, with all due respect, I don't care if you've worked on "algorithms" personally - because you couldn't do it is hardly proof that Google can't.
You are very illiterate and a heck of a copy & paste artist. I said and please use your bifocals or whatever you need to read.... I worked on initial algorithms within a computing environment. We used them to find large financial losses for large banking concerns, pharmaceuticals, and large box retailers with 1,000s of stores. I never worked on trying to find links.....please learn to read.... If you read what I posted above, and algorithm is simply a program of set instructions.. Given that there is no instruction available, nor a way to find paid links, as they are no different than a non paid link, unless tagged Therefore there is NO Possible way to find links sold or bought using an Algorithm Try to copy and paste that to your monitor as you seem very dense today!
Actually, no, an algorithm is not a set of instructions, it is a mathematical process. Far be it for me to agree with minstrel, but you do happen to be wrong on that and it really is annoying for you to go on about it when you keep using incorrect concepts. The reason why Google cannot find the links necessary algorithmically has nothing to do with them not actually having the algorithm, or being able to come up with one. It does have to do with: a) a huge percentage of errors, that would cause many innocent sites to get penalized (as has been mentioned), and b) the computing resources that would be needed to actually do those kinds of equations (thinking in terms of a neural network here, which probably would actually be able to do this quite easily after training) would be prohibitive to run against an index the size of Google's. -Michael
Where do you think I said you did? If you construct a set of instructions with sufficient ingenuity, and have enough computing power at your disposal, you are not limited to "averages" (as you previously stated) or in any other way as to what you can do with those instructions. Translation: You can't think of a way to do it. As I have already stated, I don't doubt that. It doesn't mean Google with all its resources cannot accomplish it. Faulty premise - faulty conclusion. As Cutts said, a logical fallacy.
They are different, just not obviously different. Things like a lack of link relevance can hint towards a paid link. Also the link growth of the websites it's linking to - e.g. www.website.com is 1 year old but all of the links were generated in the first 2 days then maybe they are paid links, now we might think the websites linking to this website are selling links. If I can come up with two somewhat plausible methods, imagine what Google could do.
Which is exactly what happened recently as Google was trying to refine its algorithms. The problem is correctable by further refinements of the algorithms. Google has that computing power and certainly is more than willing to aim it at the problem of paid links in order to protect the integrity of its search results.
I know of no algorithm capable of discerning the monetary status of a link and or existence of payment for said link or not.. Reciprocal links, perhaps, but paid? Nope... There is nothing outside of a pure coincidental guess that could possibly illustrate whether someone has bought, paid, or sold a link... Until I see concrete proof of this, I just cannot buy it as the truth...All I have seen or heard is a minute group of people claiming that Google is penalizing paid links because they saw two directories go from PR0 to PR7 to PR?, or saw someone go from being over indexed, to completely unindexed... It's been rumor after rumor, and boring claim after trite claim touting this BS... I cannot believe for one second that Google spends it's day, specifically targeting web sites, many of which are it's (Googles) bread and butter in an effort to scare people away from promoting their sites. Hyperlinks in essence are all bought and paid for in some way or another.. Since the beginning of the internet people have either agreed to link to one another in an effort to gain something reciprocally... EXPOSURE.... From a College Site I had in 94' that I exchanged links with a buddy in a neighboring college, to the Auto Dealer that Links to his partner Lender's, Insurance Brokers and other related places.. In return, they link back as well... It's called reciprocation.. Whether you do it for a buck, or the potential buck by getting visitors in return for passing potential visitors, or a buck, there is NO DIFFERENCE!!!!! To try to distinguish between either is IMPOSSIBLE!!! I just do not believe it happens. Until I see proof of it happening, I am not buying.. Proof to me is not, "hey, look at these 2 sites... they bought links and now look...."... Malarky.. BUNK, CRAP... BS.. Whatever.. It's not magic, there is another reason.. Look for it.
They do not have to identify that payment has been made. I think you know that's not how it works. rather, whay you do is scan for elements common to paid links and use those to create a profile - and then compare links against the profile. What do you think Google did with all the data from paid link reporting over the past few months? What do you think that was all about? It wasn't just a game hatched on a day that Cutts was bored. You haven't been following this closely enough. We aren't talking about a few manual penalties against directories, although that happened and has been confirmed. We are talking about numerous sites hit and, initially, quite a number of false positives who later regained their PR and rankings. I've said many times that I've never seen any evidence that Google punished reciprocal links but the factors of relevance, ratio of relevant to non-relevant links, and a host of other factors does figure into how Google sees a link. See the post above by live-cms_com. He's right on. To try to distinguish between either is IMPOSSIBLE!!! I just do not believe it happens. Fair enough. But to refuse to see the evidence is not the same as the absence of evidence, and again the fact that you don't know how it's done and can't think of a way to do it means very little. You don't have to know how its done and you know full well Google won't tell you how they do it.
I would not agree with him either as he is nothing more than a shrink whose reading level is in dispute. As for your definition of an algorithm it is incorrect. What is correct is this; In mathematics, computing, linguistics, and related disciplines, an algorithm is a definite list of well-defined instructions for completing a task; that given an initial state, will proceed through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually terminating in an end-state. Next when you stated Matt C said it illogical to think buying or selling links would devalue a website is in reference to his 2005 blog post! Here we note the puppet claiming Google can find links algorithmically which as noted by the numerous sites selling links above and replete with Google PageRank shows that this is nothing more than smoke & mirrors on the spam teams part. Do a little research next time .......
You have not proven anything other than you like to argue to make yourself look right...... Practice what you preach...provide some facts which you cannot do. Google used the reports to give to 3rd world empoyees to try an ferret out paid links. A paid link looks like this the robot http://www.paidlink.com A non paid link looks like this http://www.paidlink.com What would google scan (this is a whole different topic) that would be able to tell the difference?? I guess in your world there would be a symbol or something to say a link resembles a paid link??? WTF kind of BS are you spouting??? LOL The only common element of paid link is the site selling the links Find some other element and report back to us with some valid evidence you can prove. Next Google does not need to give you any evidence about how they score recips, and since you have no idea how link a, b, or c, is scored, you have no clue what you are talking about. Waiting for your evidence.... even though I know there will be nothing but further disagreement... Peace!
I think it is bunk.. I think I have said that several times.. Actually I have.. All I have seen is a few sites mentioned, most of which had other things in common far and above buying links... What is truly disturbing is that Google's algo can and will rank and index sites that scrape other sites higher, meanwhile putting the original site's pages into supplementals... That does happen, and can be proven.. If I pay for inclusion in one of the search engines directories, will I then too be penalized? Did it ever occur to anyone that the algo is seeing other things it does not like? If paid linking penalties and blacklists at Google really exists, is it not possible that many false positives will continue to exist, and many may never be corrected? I just do not see what good it would do to penalize sites that exchange links, whether they pay for them or not... It seems to me the lack of interlinking would mean the end of Google as we know it.. Again, why would they intentionally attack those that feed them? Personally would it not make more sense to go after the people that buy incoming clicks in order to double up on clicks to their own sites? I'm talking about people who buy PPC to their own sites that they run PPC on, all from the same company... Seems that would be really easy to track. Doubt that would ever happen, cause again... why attack the place where your bread and butter comes from? Again, I've seen no proof.. Telling someone to use a nofollow is retarded IMO, because isn't that what I want to happen? Don't I want the SE to follow my link, and their link? Isn't that what linking is all about? Again, back to a couple of college friends swapping links.. Should we have used nofollow? What would be the point... The only time I would use a nofollow is to keep someone from benefiting from a link I have. The thing is, the benefit comes back to you, so why use nofollow? All Google is going to do if they are really punishing sites is punish themselves.. Why would they do that? Their bread and butter is derived mainly from those of us who spend money making them money!!! Ok, but this is assuming that there is more than one thing at work here.. Not just paid linking, but a host of other factors. Too many links too fast.. Too many pages too fast.. too much of this and too much of that... I think I have contended all along through every silly thread that delves into this narcissistic quagmire of paranoia that google is not penalizing sites based on paid linking alone... There is something else the algo sees that it does not like.. What evidence? I don't believe it is done..
You won't get any from him. He cannot answer why the top 3 link selling sites have PageRank and he will never answer the question as it proves him wrong 100% He ignores any question where he can be found to be wrong and write long drawn out posts trying to avoid the obvious answer., My last response to this is I know for a fact google cannot catch paid links.....otherwise rankings would have dropped and they haven't. Not after 4 years not after 3 years, not after 2 years not after a year, and not after 2 months for others Peace!
Because it is BS... Because you do not attack your bread and butter. It's called double speak.. A paradigm shift if you will.. AKA.. BS.. Fluff... Sometimes saying a lot of nothing creates more controversy than saying something, and saying nothing at all creates even more.. For me, I don't think it is so much a question of "they cannot", as it is "they do not"... Either way, I agree.. Hell, I had a web site, actually two very popular ones both PR6 that have been around for 10 years, are naturally/organically ranked and linked and have been so since day one.. Each has had only relevant links, never bought, sold or asked for any and both lost PR in the last update for the first time since PR began... Figure that out? Neither site is SEO'd, neither as any adsense or other PPC, affiliate links or anything to that affect.. Both lost high status, basically number one or two consistently for 10 years for their keywords... No rhyme or reason to it at all... On the flip side, at the same time this happened, both sites have seen a 500% increase in sales. Figure that out.. 500% increase in sales over a 30 day period.. The highest sales volume ever in fact for one of the sites as a result.. All the while, no longer ranking high up for my keywords... (btw, the site was never optimized for the keywords..) it just ranked naturally because it is what we sell)... crappy placement, some pages de-indexed, and of course, PR dropped.. But sales rose.. 500%.... Hopefully the PR keeps dropping, cause the more it goes down, the trend seems to be higher sales.
Whatever it is, I will take it.. One thing I have to note though is that my incoming traffic from ASK is up about 45% this month as well... I've noticed an increasing number of incoming requests from ASK lately across the board...