•
•
•
•
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the Search Engine Optimization section within the Site Management category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 391,138 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 3,154 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our Search Engine Optimization advertiser: Affiliate Marketing
Views: 5711 | Replies: 53
 |
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lawn Guylen, NY
Posts: 10,879
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 32
Solved Threads: 106
Well what he's saying is that Google has confirmed that they consider the content of pages that link to a page in determining it's ranking in the serps. Which I guess means bad content on backlink pages = lower in serps. Good content on backlink pages = higher in serps.
But then this stems back to Google's premise that the whole point of pagerank is that if a lot of pages all link to a particular page, that page must have some pretty quality information on it. So in Google's eyes, a page with "good content" might be equivalent to a page with a high PR (since a lot of pages are linking to it because it does have quality linkable content). So they might just be saying that a high PR backlink is worth more than a low or 0-PR backlink.
But then this stems back to Google's premise that the whole point of pagerank is that if a lot of pages all link to a particular page, that page must have some pretty quality information on it. So in Google's eyes, a page with "good content" might be equivalent to a page with a high PR (since a lot of pages are linking to it because it does have quality linkable content). So they might just be saying that a high PR backlink is worth more than a low or 0-PR backlink.
Dani the Computer Science Gal
Do you run a computer-related website? Feature it in our niche link directory!
Do you run a computer-related website? Feature it in our niche link directory!
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,422
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 34
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by cscgal 
But then this stems back to Google's premise that the whole point of pagerank is that if a lot of pages all link to a particular page, that page must have some pretty quality information on it. So in Google's eyes, a page with "good content" might be equivalent to a page with a high PR (since a lot of pages are linking to it because it does have quality linkable content). So they might just be saying that a high PR backlink is worth more than a low or 0-PR backlink.
That's pretty much how it works. PR, relevancy, and "trust/authority" determine how valuable a link is. A link on a Wikipedia page that is on-topic is worth a lot. A link on a link farm is worth nothing. And of course there is everything in between. There is no reason to have a link hurt a site. Simply making them worthless has the desired effect.
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lawn Guylen, NY
Posts: 10,879
Reputation:
Rep Power: 32
Solved Threads: 106
canadafred and stymiee, I don't think that your two theories are that far off, actually. canadafred is saying that a high-quality backlink has a positive effect and a low-quality backlink has a negative effect. stymiee is saying that a high-quality backlink has a positive effect and a low-quality backlink has no effect at all. Whichever theory you believe, just having low-quality backlinks or having a majority of low-quality backlinks will result in being virtually invisible in the serps.
After all, if your internal pagerank is nil, lowering it will still be nil, and keeping it the same will still be nil.
After all, if your internal pagerank is nil, lowering it will still be nil, and keeping it the same will still be nil.
Dani the Computer Science Gal
Do you run a computer-related website? Feature it in our niche link directory!
Do you run a computer-related website? Feature it in our niche link directory!
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,422
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 34
We definitely both agree on two important points:
1) As you mentioned, high quality links are good
2) High quality content is what people need to focus on as that gets high quality links
1) As you mentioned, high quality links are good
2) High quality content is what people need to focus on as that gets high quality links
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 197
Reputation:
Rep Power: 3
Solved Threads: 0
Junior Poster
•
•
•
•
... You're not using common sense and that is all you need to grasp the concept. If this was true what would stop people from using this to sabotage their competition? I expect an answer ...
... not much
•
•
•
•
... Congratulations. You just figured out that Google uses incoming links and other off site factors to rank web pages ...
... both positively and negatively. That's the point of this whole discussion. Google uses incoming links as a factor in ranking web pages. Depending on the keyphrase competition, this could be an important factor.
Great links = could have a positive effect on rankings
Shitty Links = could have a negative effect on rankings
Now let me say this then. In general keyphrase competitions, nothing, and I mean nothing affects a web page in rankings more than the web page itself. There are exceptions but these are glitches and not the norm.
Canadian SEO Expert Fred Joly
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,422
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 34
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by canadafred
.
... both positively and negatively. That's the point of this whole discussion. Google uses incoming links as a factor in ranking web pages. Depending on the keyphrase competition, this could be an important factor.
Great links = could have a positive effect on rankings
Shitty Links = could have a negative effect on rankings
Now let me say this then. In general keyphrase competitions, nothing, and I mean nothing affects a web page in rankings more than the web page itself. There are exceptions but these are glitches and not the norm.
Bad links will never have a negative affect on rankings and I have shown why. Unfortunately you haven't shown why they would hurt rankings.
And, with Google, links are far more powerful then page content. That's why Googlebombs succeed. It's very clear evidence of the power of incoming links in Google's algorithm.
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 197
Reputation:
Rep Power: 3
Solved Threads: 0
Junior Poster
Re: SEO Site Linking •
•
•
•
Originally Posted by stymiee
... Bad links will never have a negative affect on rankings and I have shown why. Unfortunately you haven't shown why they would hurt rankings ...
Alright John, I'll bite. Here is a real world example of mine.
** Warning **
Moose Hunting Pictures ( sorry folks I work in the Canadian tourism industry ).
This web page is graphic in nature. It shows pictures of harvested moose during the fall hunt so all you animal lovers out there try and control yourselves as I show this example.
Take a look at the Google Backlinks for : www polarbearoutfitters com/fishing-hunting/moose-hunting-pictures htm
There are two Backlinks that Google acknowledges are significant. One is mine the other is spam. Therefore, half of the recognized important linking pages to my page are spam, and not just regular spam. No. No. No. No. No. This is spam of the worse sort. This spam link comes complete with hidden and covered up text, hidden and covered up images, one single solitary URL amongst this cloud of crap which points to my web page and it is using irrelevant anchor text to do so, hidden dirty words, etc. etc.
Although my web page is a simple page, it used to bring in its own search engine traffic to the web site. Now it brings none. It brings none now John. Four months ago it was #4 at google com for moose hunting pictures, now all of a sudden this link appears and it is dropped to #19.
I've sent email requesting removal of the link of course. No movement yet.
Tell me man, am I really missing something here or has this link caused my web page some problems.
Last edited by canadafred : May 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 am. Reason: clarifications
Canadian SEO Expert Fred Joly
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,422
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 34
This is a poor example.
1) Google rankings fluctuate all of the time. Every day in fact. If you look throughout this forum, or any forum, you'll see threads started virtually every day about how someone's site has dropped. You'll also see reports of they they recovered. You'll see reports of everything. Google's algorithm is constantly in flux and thus so are their results.
2) Google doesn't report all backlinks when you do a backlink search. They also only update their link: search results every three months or so. This means the information you see is stale. This means you can't correlate what you see in their link: searches with anything you see in the SERPs because not only do you not have all of the information but that information is stale. Even better, they update their rankings daily which means as soon as they find a link it would affect your rankings. So that link couldn't suddenly appear and hurt your rankings. It would have happened the moment they found it although you wouldn't have seen that link for weeks or months doing a link: search.
3) Did you take into account other factors in how sites are ranked? How do you know the sites ahead of yours didn't acquire quality links or do other things to improve their position? Maybe you had a quality link to your site removed and never knew about it? There are lots of reasons why a site moves around in the SERPs. And this search term is so uncompetitive that a site can move up in the SERPs quickly with one good link. Losing a good link can have an equal affect.
4) This wasn't a controlled experiment. Not even close actually. You literally made a declaration that link hurt your rankings based on a simple incorrect observation.
5) This still doesn't address why links would hurt a site. There is no logic to it and I haven't seen any logic given. Again, if this was true everyone could take out their competitors with poor links.
1) Google rankings fluctuate all of the time. Every day in fact. If you look throughout this forum, or any forum, you'll see threads started virtually every day about how someone's site has dropped. You'll also see reports of they they recovered. You'll see reports of everything. Google's algorithm is constantly in flux and thus so are their results.
2) Google doesn't report all backlinks when you do a backlink search. They also only update their link: search results every three months or so. This means the information you see is stale. This means you can't correlate what you see in their link: searches with anything you see in the SERPs because not only do you not have all of the information but that information is stale. Even better, they update their rankings daily which means as soon as they find a link it would affect your rankings. So that link couldn't suddenly appear and hurt your rankings. It would have happened the moment they found it although you wouldn't have seen that link for weeks or months doing a link: search.
3) Did you take into account other factors in how sites are ranked? How do you know the sites ahead of yours didn't acquire quality links or do other things to improve their position? Maybe you had a quality link to your site removed and never knew about it? There are lots of reasons why a site moves around in the SERPs. And this search term is so uncompetitive that a site can move up in the SERPs quickly with one good link. Losing a good link can have an equal affect.
4) This wasn't a controlled experiment. Not even close actually. You literally made a declaration that link hurt your rankings based on a simple incorrect observation.
5) This still doesn't address why links would hurt a site. There is no logic to it and I haven't seen any logic given. Again, if this was true everyone could take out their competitors with poor links.
Last edited by stymiee : May 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 am.
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 197
Reputation:
Rep Power: 3
Solved Threads: 0
Junior Poster
Re: SEO Site Linking 1) [more indicators for ya]None of the other web pages on the website were negatively affected recently[/more indicators for ya]
2) "Google doesn't report all backlinks ..." [sarcasm]no kidding eh, where have I been?[/sarcasm]
3) I watch the keyphrase competitors closely and they aren't doing anything particularly different than normal. That's SEO 101, watching the keyphrase challengers that is.
4) [polite response]Your opinion is noted.[/polite response]
5) [Cutts]... Reciprocal links by themselves aren’t automatically bad, but we’ve communicated before that there is such a thing as excessive reciprocal linking ...
and
... Now I didn’t click through to check out that site; it could be the best SEO site in the world. But the entry doesn’t give great experience for users; heck, it’s not even a complete sentence. And it didn’t look really relevant for users for a diamond ring site to exchange links like this in potentially up to 329 different categories. As Google changes algorithms over time, excessive reciprocal links will probably carry less weight. That could also account for a site having more pages in supplemental results if excessive reciprocal links (or other link-building techniques) begin to be counted less. As I said in January: “The approach I’d recommend in that case is to use solid white-hat SEO to get high-quality links (e.g. editorially given by other sites on the basis of merit).” ...[/Cutts]
counted less ... think about that John. Is not being less awarded the same as being penalized. If you can't have the reward, that sucks doesn't it?
2) "Google doesn't report all backlinks ..." [sarcasm]no kidding eh, where have I been?[/sarcasm]
3) I watch the keyphrase competitors closely and they aren't doing anything particularly different than normal. That's SEO 101, watching the keyphrase challengers that is.
4) [polite response]Your opinion is noted.[/polite response]
5) [Cutts]... Reciprocal links by themselves aren’t automatically bad, but we’ve communicated before that there is such a thing as excessive reciprocal linking ...
and
... Now I didn’t click through to check out that site; it could be the best SEO site in the world. But the entry doesn’t give great experience for users; heck, it’s not even a complete sentence. And it didn’t look really relevant for users for a diamond ring site to exchange links like this in potentially up to 329 different categories. As Google changes algorithms over time, excessive reciprocal links will probably carry less weight. That could also account for a site having more pages in supplemental results if excessive reciprocal links (or other link-building techniques) begin to be counted less. As I said in January: “The approach I’d recommend in that case is to use solid white-hat SEO to get high-quality links (e.g. editorially given by other sites on the basis of merit).” ...[/Cutts]
counted less ... think about that John. Is not being less awarded the same as being penalized. If you can't have the reward, that sucks doesn't it?
Last edited by canadafred : May 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am. Reason: clarifications and syntax issues
Canadian SEO Expert Fred Joly
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,422
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 34
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by canadafred
1) [more indicators for ya]None of the other web pages on the website were negatively affected recently[/more indicators for ya]
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by canadafred
3) I watch the keyphrase competitors closely and they aren't doing anything particularly different than normal. That's SEO 101, watching the keyphrase challengers that is.
Plus factors go deeper then what they are doing directly. Links to your site may have been devalued while links to the other sites may have gained in value. Those changes trickle down and benefit them and hurt you. That's SEO 201. Kinda advanced.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by canadafred
5) [Cutts]... Reciprocal links by themselves aren’t automatically bad, but we’ve communicated before that there is such a thing as excessive reciprocal linking ...
and
... Now I didn’t click through to check out that site; it could be the best SEO site in the world. But the entry doesn’t give great experience for users; heck, it’s not even a complete sentence. And it didn’t look really relevant for users for a diamond ring site to exchange links like this in potentially up to 329 different categories. As Google changes algorithms over time, excessive reciprocal links will probably carry less weight. That could also account for a site having more pages in supplemental results if excessive reciprocal links (or other link-building techniques) begin to be counted less. As I said in January: “The approach I’d recommend in that case is to use solid white-hat SEO to get high-quality links (e.g. editorially given by other sites on the basis of merit).” ...[/Cutts]
counted less ... think about that John. Is not being less awarded the same as being penalized. If you can't have the reward, that sucks doesn't it?
You completely misinterpreted his post. Let me explain it for you:
1) Reciprocal links are not one way bad links. So this is irrelevant to what we are talking about.
2) Reciprocal links require the webmaster actively participating in the scheme. Like I have have said already, you won't be penalized for something you can't control. Webmasters have full control over reciprocal links and thus they can be penalized for them.
3) That Matt Cutts post talked about poor content on the website that was having problems. Once again, that is in full control of the webmaster. They made a crappy site intend to manipulate the SERPs and they paid the price for it.
Once again, my argument is sound and you haven't provided a counter theory.
Last edited by stymiee : May 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm. Reason: Even with spellcheck i suck at spelling
John Conde
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
Brainyminds | Merchant Account Services | I Love Code
IT'S HERE: Merchant Accounts 101 Everything you need to know about merchant accounts!
|
•
•
•
•
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb Search Engine Optimization Marketplace
Linear Mode
•
•
•
•
adsense adult advertising blogging book business coding complaint copyright development dmca earth engine failure forum google hybrid internal combustion engine internet legal malware marketing mcafee microsoft monetization msn news operating pagerank patent phishing privacy publishing revenue search security seo serps sex silverlight site software spyware support system technical web webmaster wiki yahoo
- Previous Thread: Google Univeral Search Results
- Next Thread: Matt Cutts:buy and sell links
