1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Using the new rel="nofollow" attribute

Discussion in 'Co-op Advertising Network' started by glengara, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. glengara

    glengara Guest

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #81
    ;-)
    SEMrush
    The guy was heavily crosslinking, according to my "theory", G takes a fairly benevolent view on one links scheme, less so when there are a number in play.

    I don't see the COOP as anything more than another "potential" links scheme.
     
    glengara, Jan 25, 2005 IP
    SEMrush
  2. nevetS

    nevetS Evolving Dragon

    Messages:
    2,544
    Likes Received:
    211
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #82
    excellent points Owl. I certainly agree that the network should evolve to the point where there are no bad sites listing ads - but I also feel that that is an unrealistic goal. Now if one of the search engines put out a "bad sites" listing, or even if there was a third party data source that could be queried it would go a long ways towards making that happen.

    In my mind the responsibility for creating an automated "bad site" algorithm should not sit with the co-op network. Certainly the search engines would benefit and it would make financial sense, but in the days of "my database is bigger than yours" I don't see that happening anytime soon. Child filtering companies already have such data sources in place but they really are targetting a different kind of filter - child friendly versus "bad neighborhood".

    There is a lot of speculation about what is and what is not a bad neighborhood in the SEO community, and therefore a lot of question about whether or not certain parameters should go into the algorithm. It's a very difficult question.

    Time is the real factor here. As the major SE's provide solutions, or make ones which can be at least emulated, then the network can evolve. Blog spamming was a problem 12 months ago, and this "norel" attribute just came about - which even if it is a three year old issue, it is miraculous that MSN, Google, and Yahoo can agree on anything (Movable Type says that all three have agreed to support the norel attribute).

    Should advertising sites be vetted? I want to say yes, but I can think of so many problems with that I just think it's more realistic to hold off on that idea. As it stands right now - it is my understanding that a link TO your site can't hurt it. That makes sense because if that was the case, I would be able to put up a bunch of bad sites, link them to my competitors, and drop their rankings.

    Monitoring the sites that ad's point to is definitely a better way of doing things. I can't say that doing both is a bad idea, it's just one that is difficult and complex to implement. One possibility would be to filter out the sites that are advertising for you. If you saw a backlink that you really didn't like, you could say "don't let this site display my ads". This would also be problematic in implementation because it would more than likely provoke a redesign of the back end workflow and probably increase the traffic and CPU usage on the network servers.

    Not trying to knock down any ideas, because all ideas are good ones. And I think the more meaningful discussion that happens regarding enhancements to the network the better. I wish I could offer up an idea myself, but I looked in my brain and I got nothing going on up there :).
     
    nevetS, Jan 25, 2005 IP
  3. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #83
    nevetS, perhaps I did not understand your post and need to re-read it, but the main concern, IMO, should be what ads are being published on your site(s)/page(s) pointing outward, not what other sites/pages are linking to you.

    According to my understanding of things, Google (et. al.?) expect a publisher to be responsible for the content they publish. Ergo, if you link to a bad neighborhood (which I understand to be a site/page that is being penalized/banned), you may get penalized/banned yourself.

    So the issue is really, IMO, are you comfortable that all potential links published on your site are not pointing to a bad neighborhood? As you mentioned, there is a problem with vetting as it would require a continuous monitoring situation as sites/pages could possibly change over time from "good" to "bad".
     
    Bernard, Jan 25, 2005 IP
  4. General Grant

    General Grant Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #84
    Why does everyone worry about this, how would it be possible for Google to know that the 5 links at the bottom of my page belong to a CoOp?
     
    General Grant, Jan 25, 2005 IP
    ResaleBroker likes this.
  5. mopacfan

    mopacfan Peon

    Messages:
    3,273
    Likes Received:
    164
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #85
    Grant, They don't care. All this worry about the coop is so over the top. Don't sweat it GG.
     
    mopacfan, Jan 25, 2005 IP
  6. mopacfan

    mopacfan Peon

    Messages:
    3,273
    Likes Received:
    164
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #86
    That's just plain silly. Then every news site or blog that points out a bad site would itself become bad in the eyes of Google. All you're doing is perpetuating the "fear" that linking to "bad neighborhood" sites is going to have a negative effect on your own site. Maybe if you have dozens of links on every page to casino, porn and ffa sites. But that's not what we have in the coop. Not even close. Please quite peddling your fear mongering unless you have unequivocal proof to substantiate your claims.
     
    mopacfan, Jan 25, 2005 IP
    ResaleBroker likes this.
  7. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #87
    I'm peddling fear mongering? That's news to me. Please review my earlier contributions to this thread. I have not made any value judgement on the coop, but I do believe that there are risks inherent in the structure even if they have not been realized yet.
    http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

    Forums are littered with webmasters who have experienced this. I'm not going to go digging them all up for you. If unequivocal proof is the new standard for posting on SEO forums, there is not going to be much for anyone to post about.
     
    Bernard, Jan 25, 2005 IP
  8. nevetS

    nevetS Evolving Dragon

    Messages:
    2,544
    Likes Received:
    211
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #88
    I think the fear mongering / FUD / namecalling all was happening by people who have 1-5 posts to their credit.

    The thread started out as something along the lines of "if you don't put the rel=nofollow tag in the network, you are just a bunch of spammers", and along that line I feel that that idea was proved to have no foundation.

    More recently in the thread, a few of us began discussing the fact that the network has room for improvement, but we were really just shooting ideas back and forth rather than saying anything bad about the network.

    There certainly lies the opportunity for abuse of the network in it's current state, but as was pointed out, there are plenty of things in place to minimize that opportunity. The fact that all ad's are human-reviewed goes a long way to that end. I'm very comfortable with all sites that I'm currently linking to. I haven't clicked on everything, but I have clicked on quite a few and it looks to me like everything is above board.

    My last comment was just a response to Owl's earlier comment, and it goes in an entirely different direction than the rest of the thread so for that I apologize for any confusion.
     
    nevetS, Jan 25, 2005 IP
  9. Eadz

    Eadz Peon

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #89
    Could the nofollow announcement from google be any more clear?

    If google reccomended directly using nofollow in the ad network would that make a difference?
     
    Eadz, Jan 25, 2005 IP
    nevetS likes this.
  10. nevetS

    nevetS Evolving Dragon

    Messages:
    2,544
    Likes Received:
    211
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #90
    I don't know why I can't help replying to people with less than 10 posts to their credit that insist on spreading FUD. You guys are worse than SCO.

    Responding just to this quote specifically (no need to rehash old topics... just read through the thread if you have to).
    Part 1:
    Users are not adding links by themselves. The links are added by the co-op network, which we all implicitly trust to not add any bad neighborhood links. Bad links have gotten through, and DP has an excellent track record of removing links quickly which violate existing standards. Links that violate some non-existing standard when reported are discussed and I personally feel that anything that is out of line would get booted if there was any real clarity as to why it was bad. Digital Point is VERY responsive. More responsive than anybody could expect even for a paid solution.

    Part 2: Is the ad network a blog, a referrer list, a guestbook? No. In all of those situations it is very easy for Joe Porno to come list his website on yours. In the ad network ads are human reviewed prior to release and meet a set of guidelines both for the ads and for who they point to. We all agree to place ads that meet those guidelines on our site. If I were to be writing a piece of software like that, I would put that change in place - assuming that it wasn't in conflict with another part of the design that would cause me headaches.

    The only reason that other ad networks like Google's, Overture's, and the hundreds or thousands of other networks do not link directly is because they have to track ad statistics. There is no reason for that in this network since there is no payment for ads. If we were to direct all of our clicks through digital point it would not only be pointless, it would also put a much heavier load on their servers. Adding the rel=nofollow attribute does not make sense because the recommendation for usage points out that it is not intended for usage on the network. To that end, why don't we put five more tags on there? How about "title" or "alt" or maybe wrap it in span tags or div tags? Because it isn't necessary and it provides little to no benefit.

    But hey, thanks for bringing me back on topic.
     
    nevetS, Jan 25, 2005 IP
  11. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #91
    bernard

    I actually have never seen this happen to anyone, I had another thread looking for people who it did happen to so I could figure out what they had in common.

    its kind of weird people must be too ashamed to admit it
     
    ferret77, Jan 26, 2005 IP
  12. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #92
    http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3279

    That one's on short notice. Be sure to read through page 2 where GoogleGuy states:
    YMMV.
     
    Bernard, Jan 26, 2005 IP
  13. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #93
    yeah i have seen that one post

    did you notice that the site that used to have the hidden .css has a pr 6 and like thousands of backlinks
     
    ferret77, Jan 27, 2005 IP
  14. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #94
    ferret77, many times people see what they choose to see. Perhaps you are not reading the same forums that I do.

    FWIW, PR <> ranking on SERPs.
     
    Bernard, Jan 27, 2005 IP
  15. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #95
    That is possible, I see what profits me the most

    I am very skeptical of SEOs and coporate messengers, sometimes they may not have my best interests in the fore front.

    Just curious but did you research of any of that stuff in the thread or did you just believe it at face value, where any of the other sites that linked to the phermone site penalized also?

    Do you think it was the pr6 phermone site or the pr 0 one or the pr4 better orgasms site (which still has the hidden css up)

    why do you think google doesn't take PR away from bad neighborhoods?
     
    ferret77, Jan 27, 2005 IP
  16. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #96
    I have no reason to believe that the members posting to that thread were attempting to mislead anyone. You are welcome to link to all those sites yourself (selectively or collectively) and see what happens.
     
    Bernard, Jan 27, 2005 IP
  17. glengara

    glengara Guest

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #97
    *why do you think google doesn't take PR away from bad neighborhoods?*

    That's an interesting question, to which I have no answer.

    That they do show "normal" PR for sites that are in fact barred from passing any, I have little doubt.
     
    glengara, Jan 27, 2005 IP
  18. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,297
    Likes Received:
    2,602
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #98
    Personally (this really doesn't have anything to do with the ad network BTW), I'm starting to think the "bad neighborhood" thing is bunk. Google doesn't take away PageRank from them, they don't take them out of the index and they don't tell you what sites are bad neighborhoods... Yet they tell people to be sure to not link to them.

    If there isn't a way to actually tell which sites are bad neighborhoods, can Google really expect people to not link to them? I'm sure Google links to thousands of bad neighborhoods within directory.google.com, and it doesn't seem to be penalized (they aren't using rel="nofollow" for those entries even though they have no control over them).

    I've spewed out thousands of links in my life via blogs, forum posts and everything else I've ever written. I don't check if they are bad neighborhoods before I link to them (but my point is that I couldn't check even if I wanted to).
     
    digitalpoint, Jan 27, 2005 IP
  19. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #99
    you should really research stuff glengara instead of just guessing

    http://www.google.com/search?source...D:en&q=link:http://www.herbal-smoke-shack.net

    The links from better orgasms site shows up as backlinks

    so you apparently can get backlinks from bad neighborhoods

    how the hell do you identify them?

    ecspecially if you don't know css?
     
    ferret77, Jan 27, 2005 IP
    yfs1 likes this.
  20. zamolxes

    zamolxes Peon

    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #100
    I couldn't agree more. This "bad neighborhood" thing has become an unjustified collective paranoia on many seo forums.
     
    zamolxes, Jan 27, 2005 IP