News Source: http://www.linkbuilderz.com
Published: Apr 14, 2009 - 04:05 am
Story Found By: samantha85 1134 Days ago
Category: Link Building
47 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.linkbuilderz.com
Published: Apr 14, 2009 - 04:05 am
Story Found By: samantha85 1134 Days ago
Category: Link Building
47 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Marketing Day: May 21, 2012
- RSS: Your Social Media Monitoring Secret Weapon
- Yahoo And Alibaba Finally Agree To Divorce, Chinese Company Will Buy Shares Back For Billions
- One Day After IPO Mark Zuckerberg Marries Long Time Girlfriend Priscilla Chan
- Microsoft Launches Socl Social Network: A Look Inside
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 21, 2012
- “Ads Related To…” Text Officially Rolls Out On AdWords’ Top Ad Block
- Does Your Enterprise Have A Social Silo Just Wasting Money?
- WAP Search is Dead! Long Live WAP Search
- 8 Features Advertisers Really Need From Google AdWords
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
wow..that list idea is really awesome
great article! ui have tried list idea couple of time to list in wikipedia...and it usually works
I don’t beleive what the author has written; wikipedia links are nofollow’d.
I can’t believe people are sphinning this. Wikipedia spam as a seo tactic? Wikipedia links are nofollowed and worthless. This article has zero value. Come on people, this is the type of SEO mythology which gives our entire industry a bad name.
Im with ’arteworks’ why is anyone sphinning this? The information is elementary and the tactic is useless.
The tactic may not be a good one, but I appreciate hearing more about Trust Rank. As I think about my client base, I know that they are completely confused about the topics of Trust Rank vs Page Rank. I doubt they could tell you the difference. So from that standpoint, I thought there was some value here (a bit). But I agree with you. We don’t really advise anyone to go near wikipedia if they are a commercial site. Just seems like a bad idea to us.
I agree completely . wikipedia is no followed and usally worth less !
After reading this comment by purdue512 aboveAs I think about my client base, I know that they are completely confused about the topics of Trust Rank vs Page Rank. I doubt they could tell you the difference. So from that standpoint, I thought there was some value here (a bit). I wanted to leave a couple comments to help with clarification:The search algorithm known as Trust Rank belongs to Yahoo!. They hold the patent on it, not Google. Google owns the trademark term "trust rank" and uses it to describe a phishing filter they have. Google representatives have spoken about this issue and it’s on video if anyone would like to see it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8mUXQzwEvsRegarding the paper cited in this article on Topic Sensitive PageRank - again so it’s clear - this paper was written as a "what if" type scenario, not as a report or review on what Google is using in it’s algorithm. This paper is old-old and while it has a couple of thought provoking ideas, is not a definitive source of information on Google’s algorithm. Regarding Wikipedia and it’s being seen as an authority link in Google’s eyes.... that’s probably true but only Google knows for sure.It’s assumed Wikipedia ranks the way it does because of it’s inbound link structure. Since they use nofollows on their outbound links the pages being pointed to don’t receive any link popularity or "authority" as the article implies. So from an algorithmic standpoint, outbound links from Wikipedia = not much help.However, getting a link on Wikipedia is good for traffic and link pop when the info is scraped and used by another site. The link travels but not as a nofollow. This is a fact we’ve seen repeatedly.As for the comment in the article that Google "gives sufficient importance to anything coming from Yahoo" - well.......... only Google can say that with any authority.
Loren? Jordan? I assume you didn’t read this before you Sphunn it?
Factual inaccuracies be damned; this article renders itself unworthy of sphinning thanks to its utter scorn for proofreading alone.
@debram - Now I’m really confused. I thought Google had the patent on TrustRank? I know the paper authored by those two Standford University CS folks also had a Yahoo person on the paper. I actually read that entire paper over the weekend. I had to sleep for like 10 hours after :-) But after watching that video, I clearly had fallen into the same trap that many others have. And I don’t really feel that bad - they are called the same thing... So the big question for me is: What was Rand talking about on Friday? When he says Trust / Authority is rising in the Google algo - I had assumed this meant TrustRank... But probably not. (sorry if this is off-topic. but I am stunned)
Yes, people often use the term "trust rank" when talking about Google’s algorithm when in fact the algorithm known as "trust rank" was awarded to Yahoo! a few years back. But Google trademarked the term when they launched a phishing filter so they own the term. Yeah I know, who’s on first.The Yahoo! person you reference is Jan Pederson, he was and still is (as far as I know) a Yahoo! employee when the paper was written. Trust rank the algo is different than the published PageRank we know and uses the concept of link popularity differently to determine which pages should be trusted and ranked.I didn’t hear/read what Rand said so I can’t offer an opinion :)
While wikipedia may have no-follow links. It’s not always about page-rank and link juice. SEO is a science, not just a gain as much page rank no matter what, or being a link whore.Wikipedia articles have a very high readership and a very natural reading flow from the end reader. This is the best way to gain conversion for your industry.
"Trust rank the algo is different than the published PageRank we know and uses the concept of link popularity differently to determine which pages should be trusted and ranked."My understanding from reading the patent (and since it’s 10 min before Idol I’m just gonna ramble here not edit this sloppy ass comment) is PageRank-based algoes have difficulty distinguishing between spam pages and quality low-visibility pages (quality pages that happen to be link-poor). Yahoo’s TrustRank tried to deal with that issue by using a set of seed sites (DMOZ, etc) and then trusting sites that those seed sites linked to, and the sites that those trusted sites linked to - etc. etc in a trickle-down, recursive calculation.When we talk about trust and Google, its less about seed sites and more about sites with patterns of link manipulation. Even authority sites like SER can have zero trust because it is obvious to Google that link selling is going on there. Character of the webmaster is also a factor, a reason why Matt Cutts always wants to know an entire portfolio of a webmaster’s site when conducting site reviews.Anyway, I wouldn’t use the word TrustRank when talking about Google. Like Debra pointed out, its way too confusing.
BTW just read the first few sentences of this post - total BS. Don’t mix authority and trust they’re two separate beasts.
@arteworks you underestimate the power or wikipedia links. An authority site can send tons of relevant traffic even if it does not impact your SERP.<div></div><div>Just because something doesn’t help you in Google doesn’t mean its unimportant.</div><div></div><div>P.S. for a safe and valid way to get into wikipedia, find an image topically relevant to your website and submit it to commons.wikimedia.org</div>
How in the world did this get 35 Sphinns!?
to all the SEO GURUS out there ..GET SOME LIFE :P@arteworks = Read the no-follow theory again and again and gain..and keep reading till the point where you clearly see that IT IS ONLY TO STOP PAGERANK FLOW....@wmcook follow the above advice..will be good for your carrier..@purdue512 agreed that this is a well kept secret of black hat or grey hat or whatevaer hat seo guys and it works like charm ..but this is not unethical as you have to do research to make a list of that much value ..so editors at wikipedia dont remove it. :)@whajosti em fed up of you guys ..please follow the advice given to the abocve two SEO GURUS..will be good for your carrier too@debram I think Google whole algorithm run on WHAT IF basis. :)...there is no hard n fast rule that if you maintain this thing..you gonna get this thing..it always like IF you do this..you may get this.. :)And talking bout "Only Google can say or Only google knows.." there is thing we called EXPERIMENTS ..do it dear.you gonna find some very interesting loop holes in G Algo :) and beleive me Trust Rank and hub rank and topic sensative PageRank..they all exist and are functional..but you have to research a lot regarding it..and in the end you still not clear bout these as Google dont exactly tell you bout there implementaion..but they exist..in very similar fashion..like Google supplemental index USED to be exist..@springbok..you are a black hatter :P...(no i wont tell you bout maself)@ Halfdesk ...You can create thopusnd of terms for the same function...drinking..sipping..intake..I am not saying that I am RAND FISHKIN..I really dotn want to be...my bad time still far..Nor i am saying to all YOU GREAT SEO GURUS..that i am right and your are wrong..I am just giving you guyz a suggestion..BEFORE COMMENTING OR EVEN THINKING OF COMMEMNTING ON SOME TOPIC..DO EXPERIMENT ...COME UP WITH RESULTS AND THEN WE TALK..NOW if you guys say share your experince or proof...think again buddy..thats why black hat seo tactics are still so effective as those guys dont BS ...they do work..I only comemnt there as these guys has disclosed one very powerful way to be in wikipedia ..and yes this is not SIMPLE SEO or so called ETHICAL SEO..its SIMPLY GENIUS SEO... :) (i dont know how they come up with this idea...May be they read at some BH blog or may be they do it themeselve..dunno..as they arent using any major BH tactic yet)One more advice,,.read fantomaster blog ..good for you guys :)
haha!
"Read the no-follow theory again and again and gain..and keep reading till the point where you clearly see that IT IS ONLY TO STOP PAGERANK FLOW" Me thinks you need to go and read the nofollow facts, especially those stated by Google employees. Nofollow for Google means that they do not follow it, so it passes NOTHING. No pagerank, no link juice, no anchor text, no authority, zip, nada, nothing.
Hey guys. I REALLY appreciate the responses here. Good, bad and otherwise, I appreciate and respect everyone’s time on my question. @debram Thanks for the response. Very helpful indeed.@Halfdeck Agreed. It IS way too confusing... But one clarification question: Are you saying that there is no analogy to the Yahoo TrustRank equation set in the Google algo? I know nobody knows for sure but Google, but is there a consensus on that? Given the problems with PageRank pointed out a bunch of times here, I would guess there has to be.@seoz87 I agree with several of your points. There is simply no better way to learn anything in life other than hands-on experimentation. SEM is no different. Of course, trained as an empiricist, I’m a little biased ;-) Keep it real!@CraigPayne I thought I had read somewhere of an experiment someone did with only nofollow links. I sure wish I had the citation. Does that ring any bells for anyone? I thought they suggested that *some* juice actually passed... I almost didn’t mention this because I can’t back it up, but I know I read it somewhere...As always, with respect.
My god, what absolute shite - we were discussing TSPR back in 2004, not least because Dan Thies flagged it for consideration after the Florida update.And now, 5 years later, it’s a hot topic on Sphinn?As is trying to game Wikipedia for "authority links"?C’mon folks - all you back-scratching vote-sharing morons have turned Sphinn into the laughing stock of the SEO industry, and this is yet another example of how you do it.
@purdue512 - you said: thought I had read somewhere of an experiment someone did with only nofollow links. I sure wish I had the citation.You may be thinking about this article Michael VanDeMar wrotehttp://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2007/10/09/you-may-be-screwing-yourself-with-hyperlinked-headers/andhttp://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2008/11/16/yet-another-link-test-single-source-page-multiple-links-nofollowed-middle/Might want to look a the comments after each as well
lolz at the losers who give negative points to me..hhahah...you childish-brain-morons..anywaylets face on thing..there is still big controversy regarding no followfirst Google said its for not giving the credit to a linkthen it was for page rank sculpting then They said implement it on paid links..What exactly is a purpose of it ?? If you ever happend to read about it in google webmaster help site,,,all they emphasizes is on paid links and PageRankEven your darling Matt cutts says that"There are lot of factors that help determine whether a site or person linking using the nofollow tag (From Wikipedia or otherwise) carries “trust” or not. If they are trusted sources, then the nofollow tag could be ignored."Here is the video proof for you SEO GURUS :Phttp://www.youtube.com/v/x4UJS-LFRTU&I hope it will be do some good for your careers :Psecond if you people are the guyz who believe on every word Google says..then you are just a bunch of dumb asses losers :)Finally its waste fo time to argue with a person who believe in santa claus...be happy losers :)PS: WOW for all the OTHER GURUS...we are not talking bout grammar and spell mistakes here so please dont waste your time here go get osme job in school or college :S
Why on earth are you replying in such a ridiculous manner? Nobody made personal attacks on you - if you disagree with what people have commented, you have a platform to put the other side of the argument.Calling people "dumb asses losers" and "childish brain morons" just makes you look like a petulant child.
"but is there a consensus on that?"No, there’s no consensus. In fact there are many people who believe Google will auto-trust authority sites and that trust is about being linked by other trusted sites. I believe trust is about webmaster intent and patterns of behavior. Either way, its impossible to prove.
"Even your darling Matt cutts says that"There are lot of factors that help determine whether a site or person linking using the nofollow tag (From Wikipedia or otherwise) carries “trust” or not. If they are trusted sources, then the nofollow tag could be ignored.""lol Fantomaster lapdog, Matt said if Wikipedia trusts a link, Wikipedia might think about removing nofollow and letting the link pass PageRank. He didn’t say Google may ignore nofollow if it trusts a link.Enjoy talking out of your ass. #overandout
@ of cindy..dont bother...but calling something bullshit otr someone back-scratching vote-sharing morons is alos not good...but yes you cant see its no follow :Panyway i hav not target anyone..is just for those guys who give negatove point to me..and if they can give negative points to me i can call them morons..any problem ...???
@ halfdck i really cant hear word like REMOVE NO FOLLOW TAG IF IT WANTS TO...and yes if you can be google’s bitch... any one can be any one’s dog :Pmoreover to finish all this thing here is simple situationyou got a link from a .gov domain with 8 PR. the link is no follow..What do you think that How Google gonna treat this link ??
I really think a moderator should step in here - this conversation is not adding any value, nor is it a good reflection on professional search marketing.
Just cause I am passing through... a few tidbits on TrustRank.. etc...1. From what I know it’s an open concept in the IR community and no-one really has the unique liscence to use the methods. Sure, the name can change, but the concepts aren’t anyone’s personal domain. They are common IR concepts and Google or anyone can use them. Much like PageRank... a patent from last week, awarded to Yahoo, includes an modified random walk and cites the PageRank papers/methods. So certainly Google could, and likely does, use a flavor of TrustRank. A good example is ’User Sensitive PageRank’ or what’s more commonly called ’Personalized PageRank’ - both Yahoo and Google make mention of it in various patents... 2. Yahoo has more recently been working with a modified version which is called HarmonicRank... which is itself a flavor of TrustRank. So even the original Yahoo TR approach has changed over the years.3. Topic Sensitive PR - that is a stanford paper NOT from Google...so once more, it can be used referntially by ANY search engine. As you can see they referenced HITS and HillTop and PageRank in that paper... so it’s no ones domain... ya know? Sooooo... for the record, is it likely that Google is working with a flavor of Trust/Harmonic Rank? Sure... TopicSensitive? Not so sure... they purchased Sep’s Kaltix back in 03 which was User Sensitive PageRank... that one is certainly likely (he’s the lead technical engineer in the Personalized Search dept)...that’s if from me... stayin outta the rest of the madness in this thread..lol
wikipedia links are nofollow, so I don’t beleive what the author has written
This article recommends posting industry URLs to Wikipedia to get a link back to your site. Makes no sense.
this is ridiculous. this article is completely false and the advise contained will not aid your SEO effort.
The spelling and grammar is as bad as the advice. Not good and should be avoided.
Spamming wikipedia isn’t seo. Plus, the editors there aren’t entirely stupid, and will delete spam links.
What a load of rubbish. crappy attempt at linkbait trying to rank for "authority link building"
Why on earth have 29 people, some of them contributing members, Sphunn this: it’s atrocious and inaccurate.
Factual inaccuracies about Wikipedia links and totally piss-poor spelling and grammar.
wow I’m glad only a few mugs I recognize sphunn this up any more than one or two woulda been embarrassing.
This is just not a sphinn worthy article. Poorly written and weak info.
Echo the comments above this is not a particularly well written article and the advice is bad
what and how this thing went hot is beyond me though the comments are quite interesting
There are good reasons to not always focus on dofollow links (referring traffic/building relationships, etc.) - but thinking nofollow links will help with SEO is just wrong
this is a very bad reflection on professional searh marketing please shut down
This is just stupid! I mean Wikipedia links are no followed..
This is just stupid! I mean Wikipedia links are no followed..