Originally Posted by gringo

Search engine's don't 'understand' the text on a page. Rough analogy: assuming you don't speak Chinese, you could make an educated guess at whether a page with Chinese content was relevant to a search for "Chinese Phrase Here" by looking at things like the phrase occurrence in places like <title>, <h1>'s etc. But then imagine that you have another page with Chinese content on it with similar occurences of that phrase - how do you know which one to rank #1?

(In an ideal world) the links to a page can give valuable additional information. Anchor text can be a good descriptor of the linked page. Sheer volume of links can give an idea of the popularity/importance of a page - I said in an ideal world. This extra information can give a fuller picture of the page in question. But of course, links are abused and can give the impression that a page is a better match for a search than it should be. The solution isn't to just abandon the idea of gathering useful information about a page from links - it's to detect which links are there purely to manipulate rankings, and then ignore them.

Well think about this, Yahoo's (Inktomi) attempted what I said and I think they should proceed that way.

You heard of the engine called Baidu, its for the chinese people... I don't understand anything about chinese, but look at their stocks now

But take your stand for argument sake, if 10,000 chinese websites link to each other in a mathematical formula, Google can be easily played.

I still don't believe that a search engine which says its has 100 signal whining about a simple linking scheme hacks . Really... if page rank and linking is one of the signal, why don't they just lower the priority to this and get to work on other signals.

Think about a newest website which is created today and and it a nice business and you submit to google, do you think its going to be indexed with another website linking in back to that website. I will guarantee you Google has no clue.

So the what webmaster decides, ok how to get it up, he/she searches around and they understand the term link exchange is the only way to boost their website.

Ofcourse they start identifying paid and un-paid linking schemes and now if Google turns out and says, we ain't want those websites... Really its a crappy technology out there created this mess, they better clean their mess up.

To Adams Point... you are right there are no uniquness, that itself is a signal that you take the oldest dated document as leader of the content... thats one signal....

After SEO industry started marching, all sort of dumb sites showed up... but still I think those sites are not even worth the index and why does they even get to index if Google is so much smart.

Originally Posted by sri_gan

I will guarantee you Google has no clue.

If you think the world's largest database is empty, well, that says a lot.

Originally Posted by sri_gan

So the what webmaster decides, ok how to get it up, he/she searches around and they understand the term link exchange is the only way to boost their website.

What are you talking about!! Link exchanges aren't a way to help boost a web site at all, let alone the only way. Come on!

Originally Posted by sri_gan

I still don't believe that a search engine which says its has 100 signal whining about a simple linking scheme hacks. Really... if page rank and linking is one of the signal, why don't they just lower the priority to this and get to work on other signals.

Maybe they have. Can you say for sure they haven't?

As far as I know, it's not Google doing the whining on the old "report paid links" business - it's webmasters who (think they) stand to lose something. As I understand it, Google simply want more information so they can develop their algo so that it can detect paid links better. That way it will allow web pages to bubble their way to the top of the rankings based on merit - not votes they bought. That sounds fair to me.

But I'm not really sure what point you're making. Are you saying that Google should just reduce the weight they give to all inbound links instead of adjusting their algo to detect links bought for ranking purposes? I think the better solution is to detect and discount bought links than to devalue all links since some links are given based on merit, and they should count.

Gringo and Learning Newbie,

All I am saying is they should move away from this linking scheme prediction because at this point they can't control. There is a huge network of business on this area and these are not the regular automatic link exchanges.

Do you guys know where these paid links are popular: They are every city news papers (who are small), news will get the content related. Online edition of news papers make huge money with this. Google can't block them. Where will they go for their news?

Even if google does what they say now, the people who are going to get hurted are these small link exchange systems not the bigger ones.

You may have great thoughts on Google, personally I don't, may be i like it that way. I strongly believe their base of search algorithm is flawed.

And why do you think the social networks are getting popular? There should be a reason right!

First watch this video, then read the english translation:

http://www.valleywag.com/tech/baidu/...gle-151387.php

Purely for fun!

Originally Posted by sri_gan

You may have great thoughts on Google, personally I don't, may be i like it that way. I strongly believe their base of search algorithm is flawed.

That's your right. You can think anything you'd like about Google. They can also think anything they want about you. They can even not give you a free listing in their index if they don't want.

If you really want to protest against Google, the best thing to do is ban GoogleBot from being able to crawl your pages. Deny them the right to list your web site. Then you won't have to deal with the devil.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

That's your right. You can think anything you'd like about Google. They can also think anything they want about you. They can even not give you a free listing in their index if they don't want.

True and they don't. I'm doing just fine.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

If you really want to protest against Google, the best thing to do is ban GoogleBot from being able to crawl your pages. Deny them the right to list your web site. Then you won't have to deal with the devil.

I'm not protesting, If I was I would have started:

http://www.google-watch.org/

If I don't want google I will decide and I don't think they worth the devil word either .

I have 2 thoughts on this. I think the "buying and selling links" is going to far (My family and I need to eat too). But it is there search engine and they have the right to exclude whom they wish.

It's just unfortunate that we all rely on Google so much that they have this power over website owners heads.

I don't feel like Google has any power over me, or my site. I'd be doing everything in their quality guidelines if I'd never heard of Google.

How did you and your family eat before there were links to sell?

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

I don't feel like Google has any power over me, or my site. I'd be doing everything in their quality guidelines if I'd never heard of Google.

How did you and your family eat before there were links to sell?

I still have a "real" job. We just ate less.

My point is, it costs money and a ton of time to run my site, so why can't I have advertisers on it that pay me? I have the right to have sponsors as much as they have a right to advertise. As stated in my lates blog post Oline AdSales Rise to $10 Billion: "Among recent deals, Google Inc. agreed to pay $3.1 billion for ad serving and tracking company DoubleClick..."

How much of the $10 Billion dallars do you think Google makes when they just spent $3.1 billion on one company. So why can't I make a few hundred a month?

This guideline is not really about generally selling links, but about SELLING LINKS TO INCREASE SERPs. As Adam said way back on Page 1, it's people misinterpreting things - Google's stance has long been that people who sell links to manipulate their search engine are "punished", but that doing things for legitimate reasons such as for traffic, is fine.

Too many webmasters simply sell links to increase PR - how many times have I seen "selling links, PR5" or something similar?! If you are selling links basically as advertising, then Google is unlikely to be fussed. However, if you are selling links to manipulate their index, they are going to be frustrated - I know I would be.

I've already posted this at http://www.webmaster-talk.com/buy-an...ing-links.html

But I doubt anyone in that forum will actually read it

http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25754

Comments from Matt Cutts on the issue

I think the

Originally Posted by Matt Cutts

Given that you’ve written about nofollow before and posted on e.g. Digital Point about selling links

is a pretty fair indication of how Google may be finding which paid links to hit hardest!

Originally Posted by kline11

My point is, it costs money and a ton of time to run my site, so why can't I have advertisers on it that pay me

John, Google aren't trying to hit webmasters like yourself for selling adverts to get revenue. It is, as noted several times, the ones who are selling links to subvert the Google algo, ie; selling links on the basis of PRx or "SE Friendly links"

Right here at WMT there are text links for sale with no mention of PR or anything like that and it doesn't appear to be a problem.

Not sure how I missed this thread until today!


Whym where are you?

This might be a good place to post an anti-capitalistic message. Surely Google is capitalism run amok. Big business stifling small business.

Just yanking your chain.

Originally Posted by kline11

My point is, it costs money and a ton of time to run my site, so why can't I have advertisers on it that pay me? I have the right to have sponsors as much as they have a right to advertise.

You can. Google is asking you to nofollow those links. If they're for advertising, that shouldn't be a problem.

All the indications are that sites won't be delisted for selling links. They just won't be able to pass on page rank to any of their links. The idea is a pretty fair one: since there's so much advertising already available, people shouldn't be able to also buy their way to the top of the organic search results.

True and they don't. I'm doing just fine.

Really?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLF,GGLF:2006-19,GGLF:en&q=site%3avtrip%2einfo

You're right...you don't have a free listing. You have approx. 333.

And Google has a bit more of a clue than you might think. After all, they found this page. Who wants drugs? vtrip.info will act as your enabler!

That's the problem with your statement, Ganesh. You claim Google doesn't have a clue, and yet you're one of the people who are clearly trying to screw with Google by doing things exactly like this. Your problem is that they do have a clue, they didn't like the games you play, and now you're throwing the same hissy fit a lot of blackhats do (and a few whitehats with legit beef too, to be totally fair).

To Adams Point... you are right there are no uniquness, that itself is a signal that you take the oldest dated document as leader of the content... thats one signal....

If you mean the date Google first indexed the document, I'd agree. If you mean date of document creation, as determined by the host header, then no...that value can easily be manipulated by a tech-savvy loser.

This is Google's biggest issue, and any other search engine's largest issue, as far as relevancy is concerned...dealing with the idiots who will pull every trick in the book and 1000 that got lost on the editing room floor.

After SEO industry started marching, all sort of dumb sites showed up... but still I think those sites are not even worth the index and why does they even get to index if Google is so much smart.

1) That's what you think. You're not basing that on any real logic. Just emotion.

I think every get-rich-quick site and anything put out by Danny SullIvan and his band of ***-sucking cronies should never see the light of day, but what I think ultimately means nothing because I'm one human vs. a lot of 'em. You'll have to learn to accept that as well...if you're serious.

Think about a newest website which is created today and and it a nice business and you submit to google, do you think its going to be indexed with another website linking in back to that website. I will guarantee you Google has no clue.

So the what webmaster decides, ok how to get it up, he/she searches around and they understand the term link exchange is the only way to boost their website.

No it's not, and this is the webmaster's biggest problem; having to weed through the 999 answers of "improve ur pagerank wit directory submissions" and "i m seo xpert, i can fix ur site, plz pm me detail, i do good work cheap" to find the one answer of "the problem is your site, not Google" that will usually be the one that helps him/her.

By the way, that's the problem in your case, and the silly drug link exchange is only one example (/index.html links and poor site architecture are two others...but I doubt you're really interested.)

whoah at last im at the end!

Okay i have to say this.. and i have had this on my c&p board since page one.

Any guideline Google wants to establish is fair. They invented Google, it's theirs to do with as they please.

"Google" didnt invent Google. They Nicked it.

That said

As had been said, its a bit stupid and the "Top Secret" algo seems to have many flaws.

But bottom line is Google is the SERP King. It has become God for all webmasters who want people to find their sites. EVERY on the internet has or Uses Google in one way or another.

Personally i think a rating system would be the best thing google could implement. So on your search results page it is listed in what THEY think is most relelvent but also users can rate how good links is and how useful they are/were meaning as i often find if i search for something the first 2 pages are just about that topic and not what i actually want and its when i get to the 3rd page it has it (if i can be botherd to go that far..)

And if google implements this i know where they got the idea!

Dan

Personally i think a rating system would be the best thing google could implement.

They already have one as part of the Google Toolbar. (Toolbar Option -> More -> Voting.
However, it is not something that would be used for ranking generally, because it is too easy to manipulate.

It may well be used for personalised search results though.

yea thats the only problem, stupid spammers and SEO freaks...

Yeah, you gotta love spammers. They'll try to find ways to manipulate anything, given the chance.

This is why rating systems, PageRank, and ultimately anything else that requires mass human input doesn't work. As soon as humans figure out that it's in place, humans will do everything in their power to screw it up while getting their own stuff to the top. It happens every time.

Google is worse tho...