Calendar
Network
Feeds
Sugarrae
It actually is an adsense ad and not an image of one - from the source:
google_ad_client = "pub-3167622637866239";
google_alternate_color = "9AE4E8";
google_ad_width = 234;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "234x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_color_border = "FFFFFF";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000ff";
google_color_text = "000000";
google_color_url = "000000";
I am guessing you can't click on it because the div with the picture and name is laying on top of it, but that is just a guess, cause I suck at css ;-)
>>>No idea why they would be doing this though
Yeah, the why was curious to me too, but hopefully, they'll be forcedto provide Google with some type of explanation if this gets in front of enough people.
Even if it isn't clickable to the point of costing advertisers money, it adds to their impressions and drops their click through rates - which affects their bid prices.
And actually, some are clickable - finally found one thanks to a tweet that made the suggestion to look for shorter usernames from bunltd (and my realization I needed to find a shorter username that was coupled with a longer ad title) - see addendum at the bottom of my post: http://www.sugarrae.com/is-twitter-cloaking-their-site-to-show-adsense-ads-in-their-cache/
>>>mistake
I might agree if the adsense wasn't seemingly being cloaked to only appear in the cache and wasn't on status messages from yesterday.
I'd just like to know the "why" behind it.
xDFuNK what exactly are you seeing? Cause I have viewed the source of a bunch of the non cached ones, including the one you linked to, and don't see any adsense code?
That said, i haven't viewed the regular page giving off googlebot as my user agent...
xDFuNK is right... code is there no matter what if you're not logged into twitter - however, it only is VISIBLE to the end user if the end user is Googlebot (and thus why it shows in the cache): http://www.sugarrae.com/is-twitter-cloaking-their-site-to-show-adsense-ads-in-their-cache/
Ok, now I am just going to look like I am picking on Ann... I'm not... but,
"find most powerful pages and 301-redirect them, and let all the rest go 404."
That just doesn't make sense. If you had a change jar at home, would you advise someone to only remove the quarters, dimes and nickels and throw the pennies out?
I obviously agree that there are many possible ways you could handle dead pages:
http://searchengineland.com/080624-144233.php
But I just think the reasoning in this post - a hypothetical guess that it could cause a penalty with no supporting evidence and a correlation to search engines crawling sites with a lot of 404's better (backed up by a statement that "some webmasters" experienced this, with no citing of sources or internal testing).
This post seems like it was simply put together from reading multiple things on 404's without any actual internal testing or additional knowledge from real word implementation to know if the advice is actually true or not. If there are sources or tests or the like to actually back up the advice, it would do well to post it. That would definitely make for an interesting read.
>>>Rae, which method would you choose in this case? Would you really use 301 across the board? Does it make sense, you think?
I've actually had to do this several times... we buy a site and a lot of the pages are crappy (in our opinion) and we want to get rid of them. But, you know what? They get trickle traffic.
Say each page maybe only gets one visitor every two months... but there are 300 crap pages. I certainly am not throwing away 150 visits a month (of whom, like 50% or more will have toolbars sending Google about 75 or so signals of "yes, people visit this site!").
Or lets say there is an inbound link to every thirty pages... that is ten links. I am going to 301 to it's closest parent page or utilize a single 200 page that collects this minor juice (and human visitors) to spread it (or in Google approved fashion, sculpt the juice to flow) to other pages in place of a 404.
A penny on it's own is worth nothing either... it is all about the collective power of these deleted/dead pages in my mind.
Again, if there is actual information citing that these redirects cause a penalty or that a site with lots of 404 pages get crawled more frequently, I'd love to see it (not being a smartass, I simply love to learn and research). I am open to having my opinion changed - but need some type of rebuttal other than theory, to counter what we've seen in practice over and over if that makes sense.
>>>it's about different tactics, methods
I agree... but I am disagreeing based on various tests I've run on my own sites and information traded with other SEO's also experimenting... a method is a method providing there is some fact/experience behind it... otherwise, it isn't a method, it's a theory - and having one stated as fact/a proven method is what I took issue with. Ann has answered several other points, except the one asking where her opinions and statements in this article came from.
P.S. Gab, making a mock 404 that serves a 200 OK code to the engines to catch the juice is something I suggested here: http://searchengineland.com/080624-144233.php as a possible solution... but that is not truly a 404 (because it doesn't serve a 404 error code) and is not what is being recommended in the article on SEJ. That said, we've tried it a few times and are seeing some promising results... though we've had to be careful not to have the page optimized and ranking ;-)
>>>301 means "moved permanently" - it is even not logical to use it if you mean to just delete the low-quality page. It's more about common sense than experimentation!
And a nofollow means "I don't trust this link because I can't vouch for it" yet, you're fine with using it to sculpt pagerank (which is not what nofollow MEANS and is simply a way to utilize it for SEO) but you're argument to back up Ann is that we shouldn't utilize a 301 for SEO because that "isn't what it means"?
I guess you need Rand or Matt to say it's ok to use something in a different way than it is intended for you to be fine with it.
SEO is more about common sense than experimentation? At least that statement gives me a feeling of income security.
@Ann You might consider your solution most reasonable, I consider it wasteful for the many reasons I mentioned. I have no problem disagreeing - just that I am disagreeing based on experience, and even though your own experience you just mentioned lines up with mine, the article comes off citing the experience of others as fact... would just rather see it stated as opinion/specualtion and not that "if you don't 404 deleted pages, you're going to get a penalty" based on the article title and content.
>>>but I do have problem with people deliberately misinterpreting my words which I hope you didn't
It would seem to me with that statement that you're calling into question whether or not I deliberately "misinterpreted" your statement there. I tried to extend an olive branch in regards to agreeing to disagree on our professional opinions and you smack me in the face with it.
Ann, if you had ever met me, you'd know if I wanted to "call you out" I would and I don't need to disagree with a post as politely as I can to do so.
Your last comment was simply a personal digg where every post prior to it of MINE was a post regarding your opinion on SEO and not you as a human being. And since you don't know me, I find the insinuation bullshit.
You titled your post: How to Get Rid of Multiple Subpages & Not Get Penalized
Then you ended the post with: " The best way-out is to try something in-between: find most powerful pages and 301-redirect them, and let all the rest go 404."
Bold your emphasis, not mine. There was no "deliberate" misinterpretation or accidental interpretation of your article gist. Just a logical conclusion.
>>>because, unlike you, I don't believe there is one definitive answer to the posed question.
The point of my posts above seem to have flown over your head or are being purposely ignored. I don't believe there is one definitive answer. Your article leading people to believe they need to 404 a deleted page to avoid penalty based on specualtion is what I took issue with.
And now I am off to do things that make me money for the day.
To quote the article (bold their emphasis, not mine):
"A wealth of online valuation tools attempt to determine a website asset worth based on a variety of factors (besides evaluating any website price these tools might be a good source of overall website info):"
the tools were cited as being useful, thus why I took issue.
I desphunn this. I'm not trying to be an ass to Ann, but did anyone even bother to check the validity of the "resources" mentioned at the bottom of the post using anything other than an ego site?
I checked a site currently earning 15-20K a month (and has been for over a year now) and these were the results:
http://www.smartpagerank.com - $408
http://www.dnscoop.com/ - $6496
http://www.cubestat.com/ - $18,325
Ok, maybe it just doesn't get that industry. So I fed it another site - this one doing 3K per month (and has been for several years):
http://www.smartpagerank.com - $336
http://www.dnscoop.com/ - $1272
http://www.cubestat.com/ - $4,493
I checked these things against ten other sites I personally know the revenue of and it wasn't close for a single one. All three of these "resources" are about as valuable for determining website value as a magic eight ball is for determining your future.
if you're too lazy to reg for another blog, I guess I'm too lazy to respond ;-) (hahahaha)
You're right JohnHGohde... I am upset that I don't get Sphunn enough. If you would please remove your head from your ass, you'd see that I am a former Sphinn moderator, a current columnist for Search Engine Land, a former WMW mod, a speaker at SMX, SES and Pubcon. And I only say that to point out how truly ignorant and uninformed your comment was.
You're EXACTLY the type of sheep I am speaking of.
You're the person I'm speaking to.
Disagree with my opinion all you want - but have some actual BASIS and FACT to your argument.
@graywolf this is why I have no interest to save anyone.
Mods, delete if you must.
@evilgreenmonkey thus why I didn't submit it and desphunn it
That's exactly my point. Anyone who tuned into my web show the other day is likely getting a chuckle. I predicted this outcome from this post to a tee. Even with a desphinn campaign, I couldn't battle the sheepacity.
@Hooley yes, besides, I think your ultimate choice of dude-who-rides-scooters-down-escalators-in-las-vegas-while-buying-goldschalgger-rounds.mobi is much more brandable and mobile ready ;-)
Story: Is Twitter Cloaking Their Site to Show Adsense Ads in Their Cache?