Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- From: wd <n@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:57:17 -0400
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:49:16 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> I was using /exactly/ the same example when I composed an item for my blog
> (now among the drafts), which I intended to publish this afternoon.
>
> <snip>
>
> Think of a Web designer, Mr. X, who has built commercial sites for Mrs. Y and
> Mrs. Z. Since Mr. X knows his Web host rather well and wants to centralise
> his bills, he registered the sites for his clients (possibly ownership is
> also made his own). Once done, he does not neglect to add the new sites to
> his portfolio page. Moreover, he remembers to include a footer in his
> clients' sites, which link back to him and potentially attract some clients
> who liked his work.
>
> Will a search engine panelise X, Y and Z as a consequence? Will they all run
> out of business because they work together, acknowledging one another
> reciprocally? Some links are exchanged for the benefit of the visitor (as
> illustrated above). Cohesiveness and communities are the way our Internet is
> built and research in IBM has shown that.
>
> </snip>
I hope that Google will not penalize for all cases of interlinking by
c-block or IP match. It isn't right because it will hurt smaller
businesses. I can think of a few designers I know who do this -- all with
small business clients. If the designers have 20 web site clients, and are
hosting them on their hosting reseller package it's going to be the same
IP address and all the sites are going to be linked. They are all going to
have unrelated content. This is legitimate linking and there should NOT
be a penalty for this. In the end Google might end up making it so that
people are forced to use unnatural linking strategies just to be ranked.
>> In this case, contrary to what Google webmaster guidelines say, you would
>> have to be careful about your IBLs.
>
>
> See:
>
> http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20050407GooglesNewLinkFilter.html
>
> which discusses 'link filtering'.
Thanks for that link. I've read about that somewhere else also as
complete speculation, but it's good to see it from another source also.
>>> I know that Google recently patented something which gave clues as to
>>> their intention to make use of site's age and expiry date. This was
>>> intended to help discerning ham from spam. Getting ownership information
>>> can be done in tandem. If you want to get a burger, why not just go for
>>> the Happy Meal?
>>
>> I don't like that idea either. Some major registrars don't allow
>> registration of more than one year at a time.
>
>
> I know. It also penalises small companies whose future is not yet certain.
> Google used to be in that exact same position, so it's a two-face scenario.
The cost of registration can be a burden for people who are uncertain
about the future. Some people are registering through Network
Solutions or other companies that charge $35/year for hosting.
Google is a large company, and in the end, as long as visitors think
they are getting somewhat relevant results and Google is raking in AdWords
profits, it doesn't matter if a lot of legitimate sites get penalized.
"Do no evil" sounds good when you are starting out in a college dorm room,
but the reality of business is that you get high on success and eventually
the bottom line has to become money, not ethics.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- From: Stacey
- Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- References:
- c-block linking -- site ownership
- From: wd
- Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- From: wd
- Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- c-block linking -- site ownership
- Prev by Date: Re: Link Exchange Program
- Next by Date: Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- Previous by thread: Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- Next by thread: Re: c-block linking -- site ownership
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
