First off, I think that the idea of the co-op network is fantastic. Although I participate with some sites, I'm not sure of the future. The main concern is how the major SE's view the co-op and will it lead to penalties. On the one hand, even if the co-op grows to 25k sites, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of millions of web sites on the internet. Should this relatively small group be penalized for anything? On the other hand, it can obviously be targeted by G as a direct way to manipulate the SERP's - a definite no-no with their guidelines. They already know about the co-op network. Now what will they do about it? Remember, G is a dictatorship and they can smite anyone for any reason - without recourse by the site owner. I know that Shawn has been working on trying to refine this system, and I hope that he accomplishes his task. His job is made tougher as the network continues to grow and grow. I believe that the relevance of links to and from a site is important, and will be even more important as search engines evolve. Ideally, this would mean that the framework of the co-op is a DMOZ category type structure, and users could choose what category of ads to show on their own web sites. That would leave it up to the site owners to choose the degree of relevancy of their links. But would this begin to infringe upon G's Adsense program? Could it still lead to penalties? The relevance of links to and from a site also serve a greater purposes - targeted marketing and conversions. Frankly, I never place or trade links without taking this into consideration. Sure, it takes a heck of a lot longer to build backlinks - but in the long run it leads to greater conversions and sales. Can the co-op be positioned to maximize site traffic and ultimately stay within the guidelines of the TOS for G and other SE's? Does the co-op need to suspend operations to refine the product? Will all of our sites go *POOF* one day because of our participation? The co-op is a great idea - how do we make sure that it lasts?
Exactly, I think big G is bound notice coop as soon as it gets big enough, afterall its not exactly helping google. It would also be a big "boom", for the people who are considering buying weight or have indeed, bought weight.
There's no reason for Google to penalize the network. It's not against any of their guidlines, and does not hurt the quality of the serps. It's advertising, plain and simple. There are dozens of paid networks out there that are very similair that Google doesn't penalize. You're right through - Google does run the show and can do whatever they want. The above statement is just my opinion.
I agree. I dragged my computer to a internet connection. Time to get drunk and celebrate all my new high ranking kw's that I have no doubt are a direct result of the co-op! I haven't added any quantity of links in about 4 weeks, maybe ten tops???? with all the personal stuff I have to deal with! To top it off, my site revenue jumped big time! Now if I can only get G in line I won't need a stinkin job...lol Maybe stiff competition in serps will loosen "God" up with some of the ticky tacky bs they pull. Keep up the good work shawn. I'll stay in the network despite G. Cheers
Actually, Google MAY consider it as violating their guidelines. Here's a snippet from the G web site: All that Google has to do is read this forum and see that 99.9% of the discussion regarding the usefulness of these links is about backlinks and SERP's - not bringing in potential customers through the ads. That's why I think that the co-op should allow site owners to choose what general type of sites our ads appear on, as well as the general type of ads that we show on our own site. Then it becomes a marketing tool as much as a backlink tool.
All un-natural linking is a link scheme, is it not? Inconsistent themed reciprocal links are a link scheme, right? Buying and selling links are a link scheme, right? Leaving posts on forums just to leave a link is a link scheme, right?
You're on the right track I've seen every type of linking ever conceived, besides "natural links", on someone's potential watch list for Google to ban.
Quote from HHI's post quoting Google "avoid links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods". This is what Shawn is going to keep the co-op from becoming if members would help him, instead of looking to turn it into a bad neighborhood. How many of you are going to help create a self policing network? If he sets up a spam or bad member reporting system, are you guys and gals going to use it to report bad sites that ads are pointing to?
Of course, now that Google is a publicly traded company they will have to be more careful. What if G eventually bans most or all sites that participate in this network? Or what if they just ban co-op participating sites that also use Adsense? Would this open Google to potential restraint of trade litigation? Are there anti-trust issues involved?
Well the first thing we would need to do is define "web spammers or bad neighborhoods". Very amorphous terms with no clear definition. We almost have a case of "spam is in the eye of the beholder". My InfoPool while being a collection of legitmate and informative articles, is clearly designed as a repository for quality links. Is that spammy or a bad neighbourhood? For those that think all SEO is spammy -- which by the way often seems to include Shawn -- then the answer is probably yes. But does Google think so? Apparently not. All the articles seem to go PR4 to PR6 on the first PR update after being published. Your suggestion of a reporting system seem like a vigilante effort to me. We need a little protection and due process including a definition of the terms before we setup a reporting system and string the offending sites from the highest tree. Your mentality on this is very close to the Bush adminitration and the Patriot act.
I buy an ad on your website, will they outlaw that next? The co-op is just a barter of ads instead of paying cash. It has been done in the advertising industry for over 100 years, get it through your heads that this is all the co-op is. The more you guys keep talking of bans of all members sites from the search index the more YOU make the network out to be something that is bad. I think some members here are trying to sensationalize this sort of like the National Enquirer sensationalizes stories. If you have that much fear, just drop out of the co-op now, end of your involvement and you are safe. But to keep flogging this silly idea that the network is going to put you out of business is just silly. PS: Compar, should I send the DP mafia your way then?
Bring them on baby. I can handle it. BTW how the fuck are in 2005. Hope you have a good year. From what I understand it can only be up from here.
I am only going up if you help me, until then I will be building block buildings on the masonry crew 2005 has been great so far, I made .50 cents on Adsense Back on topic Compar or Shawn will ban both of us
Co-op is not a link farm. So therefore it is bound by the rules of G's link analysis. Which is 'G likes permanent links'. Co-op BLs are NOT permanent. They are temperary. Next time G hits a page that had your link on it, chances of your link being there again are slim (obviously your chances are based on weight). So only the top weighted members will increase their chances of G seeing incoming links from the same page as somewhat permanent, and then.. it's still temperary. So the big question here is.. will G like temperary links to a site and treat them differently than permanent links which are always on the same page G found them on the previous crawl? IMO the co-op offers a pretty BL display in G but it's long term effectiveness toward PR and Serps is up in the air.
"Co-op BLs are NOT permanent. They are temperary." Yes, but the other side to that is that those links are always being replaced by new links on other pages. To filter this, Google would have to keep track of the history of specific pages that link to your site. I think that would be a significant change to Google's current system (not saying it can't be done, but it would add alot of complexity).