Raise the Cap?

No, no, no... I see what you're saying for sure... but as the size of the network grows, the cap becomes less and less important. When there were only 200 sites, and my site made up 5% or 7% of the weight, a cap makes sense, but now my site makes up maybe .1% of the weight or something, where it could be worth double... as the network grows, I think it's only natural that the cap grows as well, as the need for the cap lessens as the number of sites in the network increases...

 

Well, I added it to one of my pr 7 sites on over 4,000 pages to test it, and I have gotten one click from it. Personally, I'd like to see actual sites that the ad runs on, cause I only saw that one site. At this point, I'm kinda thinking its useful for small sites, not larger ones. People here have posted u get 1 lik for every link u give. So theoretically, I should have 4000 new links right? Cause, I don't see em.

Therefore...I see what you mean Tim.

 

Where are you testing your links from? Google or MSN Beta Search? Reason I ask is because the MSN Beta search updates every few days or so using link:www.domain.com

 

I use Google as the standard, but also check Yahoo and MSN.

Google = 11,400
MSN Beta = 9,690
Yahoo = 20,900

 

I guess not... ?

 

I have about 100,000 weight behing one of my domains and have only seen links in yahoo and msn increase by about 200. How long did you wait before seeing substantial links increase??

 

Search the forum and this has been answered before. It takes about 100 hours to reach full weight and maybe another week or so to see the tangible links. MSN beta search seems to pick up the links faster.

 

Yeah, should have made it bit clearer. MSN (not the beta version) and yahoo doesnt really shown much of an increase in links. However I know they are there because MSN beta version are showing them.

What can we take from this? Standard MSN and yahoo bots are either slower at crawling the web or do not update their links as quickly as MSN beta.

 

Based on what I see and others may have a different opinion on this. All the mainstream engines will "count" the links for SERPs purposes sooner than you actually see them in a link: command. Certaintly this is true for Google but I am not too sure about Yahoo & MSN.

 

It took about a full month before it actually showed on Google the fruits of the network... I just feel like it's come to a hault now... my weight's not increasing because I've hit the cap, yet my site continues to grow and provide more backlinks for sites that haven't hit the cap.

 

Thats a very good point you raise Tim, to be honest I can not think of anyway of getting round this other than either raising the cap or every time you reach the cap move pages to a new domain. Not ideal but at least you will get benefit from it.

 

Sites shouldn't have to be designed specially to get the optimum results from the co-op network.

The weight cap should be relative to that of the network.

Ex:
As the network grows, with more sites taking part there will be less chance of the text ads being shown multiple times, therefore as the network grows large sites will become more valuable, providing more links to more unique sites -- yet the large sites with the cap won't be benefit as much, somewhat losing out, putting more in than what they get out.

 

Maybe Shawn can put this to vote? I think he may be traveling this week.

The more I think about this. I tend to agree with Tim. If there is not a cap for total weight, it might be a bit unfair to have a cap for base weight. There should be a cap for both or not at all.

I suppose you could control those hight PR sites with tons of content but making every page beyond a certain amount count less and less and not a finite zero.

 

I'm sure Shawn stated somewhere that the cap could go up or down as it is relative to the overall weight of the network. Just a question of time I suppose before it is reviewed.

I do disagree somewhat that the larger sites are losing a lot. The fact that their numerous links will be spread out over more domains will still be an advantage over the earlier situation of multiple links on the same domain. So I would still say encouragement of the smaller sites benefits everyone in the network, capped or not.

Mick

 

As the number of text ads for unique sites increases in the ad network the more valuable larger sites become -- FACT (David Brent style ). So larger sites weight cap should increase with that of the network.

If the cap of the large sites does increase with that of the network then thats fine , and i'll shut up.

 

I'm not saying that is what should be done, but if your in Tim's position and want to get weight for the rest of the pages he is showing ads for then that is the only option available to him.

 

Have a look at my Digitalpoint thread on how the Digitalpoint co-op works.
The cap should also be lifted, otherwise, it is better that we break up our sites into subdomains of 4000 pages each and have multiple accounts.

I mention how given PR is around a log of 6, the co-op weighting should also be based on a log of say 6. A PR6 site should be worth more than a multiple of one more than a PR5 etc. Otherwise easier to break up the site and get an instant Pr5 multiplier (Y + 5) than keep the existing site and work for a PR6, 7, ... which only gives an extra (Y +1) weight

The current maximum is enough to hopefully transfer enough PR and link value to make any 4000 page site rank well for its search phrases, even if a new domain. There lies the only problem of not having too much interlinking between the subdomain sites, otherwise Google treats them as one site. So any links between sites better to be via a transfer.php type link that the robots are excluded from.

Such "valid" optimising of sites to get the most out of the co-op, would be stopped if the cap was lifted and the PR multiplier was based on a factor of say 6.

 

Co-op network arbitrage

 

I mentioned "transfer.php" and got a pm asking about it. So I have started a thread entitled "How to safely interlink sites"Enjoy