Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 117
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: October 24, 2007 - 8:27 am
Posted By: Wiep 255 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://andybeard.eu) my network
Category: Google SEO
Most of the websites that got hit have been selling direct links, but network cross linking also seems to be an issue...
21 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
rustybrick
-
chriswinfield
-
Wiep
-
B10G
-
DaveDavis
-
toddmintz
-
JohnWeb
-
thejenn
-
oscarrules13
-
imnotadoctor
-
Sebastian
-
webconnoisseur
-
markus941
-
TimDineen
-
toprank
-
pops
-
bigpond
-
Lyndon
-
oggin
-
semlady
-
Khook20
-
rjonesx
-
tnash
-
bhartzer
-
dedmond29
-
Hobo
-
UtahSEOpro
-
DoshDosh
-
fantomaster
-
bsaric
-
Eavesy
-
wdeloach
-
andrewsho
-
aimClear
-
Skitzzo
-
Meg
-
flyingrose
-
ray143
-
AppleVenus
-
robwatts
-
mikemurray
-
AndyBeard
-
RobD
-
SEMSpot
-
ManishPandey
-
Rhea
-
onreact
-
jimbeetle
-
MattKeegan
-
simo
-
CaymanHost
-
Jill
-
jphillips
-
aglobalwarming
-
peterdavanzo
-
SexySEO
-
JDA
-
Sueblimely
-
byosko
-
VladTheAffiliate
-
emom
-
planetc1
-
DVOLA
-
NickWilsdon
-
xenopii
-
Kalena
-
mktgrl
-
fumbleson
-
AliciaA
-
DanielScocco
-
andreawasik
-
cmiddlebrook
-
Justilien
-
dharmesh
-
blogrush
-
swags2804
-
tappingcreativity
-
jfrei
-
rabeidoh
-
daniboy
-
sza
-
floppy
-
mandat
-
fusetheweb
-
karacoatta
-
courtneytuttle
-
Hugh
-
Bella612
-
ruchirkc
-
salute
-
amandamiller
-
spiderbait
-
Lodispoto
-
Digitalmusings
-
MattSawyer
-
smodo
-
davidgrant55
-
barbaravorety
-
konvictcollin
-
rajiwebstar
-
fedevit
-
nejron
-
tubalusa
-
firby
-
traduzione
-
ramya
-
TrafficGuru
-
rach
-
anglemona
-
Natgem
-
nolimitdomains
-
neelakanthap
-
Rolette
-
uebersetzer
-
HafizD
-
alex365
-
Maing
Comments
Again, why link-based punishments will be nearly impossible to pull off correctly.
Very interesting. Find any squeeky clean ones that don't follow the pattern yet?
I thought Forbes, pointed out by Wiep, but they have links to "Best Credit Cards"
"Find any squeeky clean ones that don't follow the pattern yet?"
NewScientist.com and Space.com both went from a PR7 to a PR5
Interesting...that may be pointing to a stock split or currency devaluing on their part then. Perhaps there were too many PageRank 10's up there at the top so they had to shuffle the requirements.
Google created the PageRank monster and now they are tearing it down. I am sure they have something bigger, better and safer in the works.
Is there actually any proof that showing a lower PageRank on the Google Toolbar actually has any real life consequences?
I would guess that it's just a visual thing, in which case it's perfect for Google since websites often sell their ads based on the visible toolbar PageRank.
But is it affecting rankings, traffic or conversions (other than where link selling is concerned)???
Good post. Misleading title. I think it's way beyond "Digg favorites" as you can see....
It doesn't really matter whether it affects anything or not (from everything I've ever read or heard it's usually a snapshot from a couple months back). Google made PageRank (even toolbar page rank) matter because it's the only visable cue they give us as to a site's value. They promoted PR as a tool to measure a site's value and by doing this, they've just downgraded some of the biggest sites on the web.
I'd expect Matt Cutts to make an appearance soon saying they screwed up and they'll roll things back. Even money though that they tried this out to see how much of a backlash they'd get and to instill just a little bit more fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the hearts and minds of link sellers everywhere.
"For a company such as Google with a stock price based extensively on anticipated growth and public sentiment, it doesn't take a huge swing in goodwill to have a dramatic effect on valuation. Google has just slapped their biggest fans."
Oh, please. Google is supposed to bend the rules for certain sites that are their "biggest fans"? Google got trusted by providing the best search results. The secret of their success since 2000 has been superior results. This blogger is suggesting they should help out certain sites now?
Anyone involved in SEO knows toolbar PR is highly dubious. It has unfortunately become a metric of site quality and is the currency traded by link brokers. Google would do their users a favor by eliminating visible PR to throw a monkeywrench into the sorry purchased link market.
"to instill just a little bit more fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the hearts and minds of link sellers everywhere."
If that's their strategy, I say: good for Google.
Oh for crying out loud, Crimsongirl, what rules are these sites breaking? Did you read the list of sites? Forbes, Washington Post, Problogger, Copyblogger, and on and on. Get a grip on your naive love affair with Google for long enough to realize they screwed the pooch on this one.
I'm not even going to get into your comment on link sales.
@ bartimus, have you met crimsongirl? I think you two would be a great match. I'm sure Google will release their "bigger, better, safer" something right after they figure out how to base their rankings on something other than links. (read as, not any time soon)
This cracks me up.
So how many sock puppets does Google have on Digg?
Buried :(
If they are really (by hand) targetting public sites to slap so that they'll attract attention to these penalties, then they'd have received a more optimal amount of publicity if they had timed this for during the SMX Social last week.
I suspect that Forbes is/was selling links:
http://sphinn.com/story/4184
They have changed what they are linking to in the "Resources" section of the page since I referred to in that posting. They are now linking to internal "Resource" instead of to external sites, which they were linking to using such anchor text as "mortgage rates".
In my opinion, this is all good. After all, Google wants to return the absolute best search results to its users. If it's being gamed, the users may not be getting as good of a search result as they might get if there were no attempts at manipulation. Pretty simple, in my opinion.
"Oh for crying out loud, Crimsongirl, what rules are these sites breaking? Did you read the list of sites? Forbes, Washington Post, Problogger, Copyblogger, and on and on."
Forbes sells pages. I've seen them ranking for sites unrelated to Forbes magazine coverage. The ranking pages are sponsored by my competitors. Do I want Forbes punished for this? Yes!
My main enemies aren't sites that sell links. I just don't like people who buy links and then rank higher than me in the SERPS. I would like the purchased link economy to disappear ASAP.
Sadly enough crimsongirl the selling of links will not go away anytime soon. At worst it will be moved from the mainstream life to more underground affiliations to where not just anyone can buy proper links that actually will improve your website.
As far as I know Weblogs Inc doesn't sell links, but Yahoo does
AOL's blogs have just been given a massive penalty by Google - no penalty for Yahoo
Google and every other large site has massive interlinking
"As far as I know Weblogs Inc doesn't sell links"
Those "sponsored links" didn't have a nofollow tag until this morning...
I like Aaron's quote. I agree the title is misleading.
Just to let you know, the post has now been updated 6 times with feedback from those hardest hit, and also a link through to a podcast with Aaron from B5 discussing it with One By One Media