- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
the one problem with this battle is that as soon as google make an adjustment then we will all adjust and then run into the next similar problem. i think there will never be an ‘ideal’ solution for everyone but finding a better balance is a start.
Bart
I agree with the article
well i think that’s the author’s point; is that by making suspicious links simply ignored that it takes out of the equation any chance to adjust to the situation. i mean, what are ya gonna do to adjust? … perhaps to get around the situation you might …. try getting links the legit way? that ought to fool Google!
I think the author has a better mouse trap. Heck anything’s better than the situation as is; I can hear the pitter-patter of keyboards now; rushing to add their most unfavorite competitor’s links to go site-wide on their website’s as I speak.
while I applaud google’s idea; to more than just ignore cheaters, to try and actively punish them; they need to make sure the innocent don’t get caught up in the wash. And I’ve said that for a long time about the scraper sites getting legit sites banned. I wonder if google ever made an effort to make certain they are banning the site or pages that were created secondly? thats huge in my book though I don’t count on google for free traffic anyway thank goodness.
I’m not sure that Googlebowling has been proven to be an effective way of hurting another site’s results. The author of the article didn’t point to an example. It’s possible that Google does exactly what the author suggests, and simply ignores those links.
I believe there was a thread at SEOChat or one of the other SEO forums where they were actually trying to Googlebowl one of their own sites to determine whether or not this was something that could actually be done. Last time I saw it, there weren’t conclusive results yet, but if someone has seen that discussion over there, and knows whether or not they came to a conclusion, I’d be interested in seeing the info.
I may even try to find that discussion myself tomorrow if I have time.
greek39 wrote:I demonstrated it 3 months ago by being indexed on yahoo in postion 25 within a month. I took it down I felt it was unfair.Let me start by saying I don’t want to get on your bad side greek39. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you a are a technical person who has good knowledge of how to cause havoc with another site. But my question here is if you had a decent ranking on Yahoo or any other site for a competitive keyword, why in the heck would you give that position up? A good ranking equals good dollars in this business of ours.
As for the question of Google Bowling, there is a very long thread on SEOchat about this. First, I will admit I haven’t spent the time to read through that thread. Second, let me say that Google Bowling doesn’t sound like a legitimate issue. Why would Google create an algorithim that takes into account something that you have not control over. For instance, say that there are 100’s of sites that hate George Bush and all of those sites link to him as a “miserable failure” causing his site to come up first in Google for this search (check it out, it is for real). Does Google now associate anything about George Bush as either miserable or a failure? Not likely. Those sites have all created link text that causes Bush to come up for this search, Google doesn’t have any prejudice for George Bush, it is all part of an algorithm.
So, it is possible for a competitor to buy sitewide links for you and cause your ranking in the SERPs to fall? It sounds plausible, but creates a situation where Google’s algorithim can be manipulated, and the thought that they would allow that is…well, unlikely. Possible, certainly. Does it mean it is so? No really.
I’m not going to pretend to know the answer here as I don’t work for Google, but lets start with a simple question. Has anyone on this forum had a site banned from Google? If so, do you think your site was banned because you had too many sitewide links? Let’s have responses for sites that pursue “white hat” optimization, which included site wide links on relevant web sites and received a Google ban. Anyone here have that happen?
Why did I have my site unindexed on yahoo? Its quite simple, after joinning cap it made me realize the good, honest people on this forum. Also It enlightened me to all the hard work that goes into a website. It would be unfair and unethical of me to exploit loopholes in the system. I am still trying now to have my site indexed on yahoo the morally correct way.
My first computer I bought was nothing more than a little blue box. Then I progresed from there. I have built many programs, but seo is entirely new to me.
I stand on high moral ground, but I do have limits. I cannot stand people who copy sites or harm other honest people on this forum. My loyalty lies here. I do not believe bad hackers should be treated with respect.
Google will never be able to fix loopholes or build the pefect bot, its impossible and they know it.
To label me as “havoc” puts a stain on me I think I do not deserve. My loyalty and respect lies here on this forum. Do you think if your site was copied or compromised the people doing it should be treated with respect. I bet you would be outraged! and would like swift action. No hard feelings intended I have a bad habit of saying to much. Greek39
I bet if someone would offer insurance against losing rank through competitior manipulation such as google bowling to the top ten in all categories, they would be quite rich.
Every one would buy it.
Indexing websites is 100% manupulative. The loopholes can never be fixed. The only way to fix the holes is to redesign the whole net.
Mr.Gates is the one I would put my money on, wait and see what msn does.
Morality before money, its that simple. greek39
value a website on its own meritus isn’t that bad…
back to the old days…..
dont value any out bound links at all:Partier:greek39 wrote:Indexing websites is 100% manupulative. The loopholes can never be fixed. The only way to fix the holes is to redesign the whole net.Mr.Gates is the one I would put my money on, wait and see what msn does.
Morality before money, its that simple. greek39
Agreed, Mr. Gates is the man. Google is lucky he didn’t care so much about search early on, they wouldn’t exist.
greek39 wrote:To label me as “havoc” puts a stain on me I think I do not deserve. My loyalty and respect lies here on this forum.Definitely agree with you greek39 and really good to hear. By saying “havoc”, I wasn’t meaning to slight you, rather it was a comment related to some of your other posts about your knowledge of how to technically mess with other people’s sites. I have no idea how to do that myself, and am glad to hear you are on the moral high ground. That’s exactly where I am at as well and CAP is definitely a great place to measure the overall temperature of our industry.
Hopefully Google Bowling isn’t for real as it would create a very dirty sub-industry that we would all feel first. If it is a hole in their algorithm, I’m sure Google engineers are on it and won’t let it happen.
If someone has experienced Google Bowling, please post your experience.
Thanks for the agreement. Mr. Gates will be the dominant force soon! greek39
Thank you! greek39
Google bowling positively DOES work. Not just at Google but unfortunately its even MORE effective at Yahoo and MSN.
I tested it on one of my sites intentionally and on two sites of mine unintentionally (:1Dopey: ) and it does cause a negative impact.
Begin optimizing for msn trust me. There is going to be a major shift soon! Google and Yahoolees are feeling the master come on board, Mr. Gates. Start researching these problems. I would start at the beginning and read the jargon files. Find out why bots do crazy things.
