Re: seo uk

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:46:02 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Carol W" <from_you@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:m6rin1pj4oeri2t1td11pkep286t26thr3@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On 15 Nov 2005 03:25:23 GMT, John Bokma <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>Again, I still doubt it. What's the current PR of phpbb.com? As always I
>>>think: does it harm the visitor? Like I said, I can imagine that 800 links
>>>from one site a to site b don't count as 800 links, but just as one link,
>
>Again I am not talking about PR. PR has nothing to do with what I am saying.
>
>
>> I don't know if they would count as "just one link" but I will go
>> along with the possible theory of not all 800 counting as 800 but as
>> 800 coming from one domain, so may be open to be "downgraded" based on
>> where they are all originating from. On Google that may be downgraded
>> through the amount of PR flow that is counted (at least that is one
>> way they could downgrade it) which could leave the question - will
>> they count the one with the higher PR value or the lower PR value - or
>> a middle value of the two?
>>
>> *looks at cup of coffee* All this supposition has made me hanker a
>> refill ...
>>
>>>maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But harming b? Doubt it. If anyone has
>>>a nice proof, or want to cooperate in a proof, I can provide 800 links (or
>>>there about).
>> <does a bad Arnold Horshach impression>Oh! Oh! Oh!</impression>
>
>Again not speaking about PR here. I think Google now looks at the amount of
>links accumulate at one time. This going to the part with people buying
>links and or exchanging back and forth.

Or not want to become listed in a blog site's "Favorite links" sidebar
listing?

In using your theory: I think if I got John to share to 800 links my
way from one domain will be noted to beign from one domain,

AFter all, isn't part of some of the Google Sandbox theory based on
the number of links accumluated in a period of time triggers the
sandbox effect? But I think there would be certain filters thoughts in
place to raise flags versus just "Carol's site just got 800 IBLs from
one site" It wouldn't be clear on if I bought those links (as if I did
buy the site wide links from John then I bought the links pointing
one-way (to me) or if John is a blog site (some of those list
"favorite links" sitewide in the side bar versus on a separate page)
or if John may be sharing site wide links my way in hopes of hurting
my rankings.


But the main part I am saying is
>that the related part of your site is changed more. Links have a thing in
>making your site relevant. The more non related links you have from what you
>do and the sites your site becomes related to and if it isn't related to
>what your site is about you will start dropping.

I can see how a leaning to :like linking to like: could be used to
favor a site's IBLs (&-or OBLs). But if the leaning is to "related to
or not related to" criteria - this won't have the # of accumulated
links workign against you but the contents of those individual pages
those links are on may not be helpful.

You said John's site is about everything and my humor site is about
everything. But this doesnt' mean that John sharing a link my way from
his pages about PERL would share "related to" thoughts behind those
links. In terms of "related to", I could share a site wide link to
yoru rug site ... but we can agree not every page on my site is
related to your site's contents. Maybe the "open letter" page and a
couple of others, but not the one about breasts.

"Related to" or theming is not ne in linking habits. I recall way back
when Sam was big into blog spamming. He and this other guy posted
comments on a site. They each took 2 to 3 turns posting their comment
anchor text rich spam. On AllTheWeb that one page "related to"
thoughts no longer were about a new father posting about his son's
birth (so parenting, father, birth, and such didnt' head the list of
suggested "related to" thoughts) but, in ATW's 'mind', it was related
to phone sex and fake IDs. Remember that Sam liked to pick pages to
comment spam that were PR5 or higher. Now ATW is owned by Yahoo ...

So theming has been around - just that it wasn't always "obvious" on
certain SEs. and this doesn't mean that some of the SEs may not start
leanign a bit more to bringing in some theme thoughts to help on
relevancy on SERPs. So non-related "theme"" links may not count for as
much - but I dont' think they will be ignored.

I don't know if one set of 800 iBLs from one domain name would be
enough to trigger a flag. Woudl it be the number of IBls that woudl
raise the flag? Then what about mirror sites (say like the ones that
mirror usenet groups), would Google treat those differently or not? I
mean if a competitor posted your URL to a group that is not related to
your site - then that post is mirrored to 600 pages on the web, the #
alone could work against you &-or the number of possible "unrelated"
sites/pages sharing that link.

I don't know, seems rather broad brush and I can't help but think
there would be other criteria in place to trigger "you know, Ithink
this person went on a link buying/reciprocal link spree ..." thought
to curb some potential abuse by someone ticked off at another person
or a competitor tryign to swng things in their favor.

>> You can link to my humor site. ;)
>>
>> If you do then I can list the rankings for two SERPs and the current
>> PR of the main page for later comparison. Which brings in the
>> question: do I reciprocate a link your way before or after the next PR
>> update?
>
>
>Your 2 sites will be kind of related as John talks about everything on his
>site as well as your humor sites talks about everything. So what I am saying
>can harm it won't do for that.

> Remember - Look through what I have said, I never mentioned PR.

I don't think I said you mentioned PR.

I did mention PR in terms of "averaging thoughts" - but due to Google
being mentioned and someone else mentioning PR thoughts and that they
didn't think/feel Google counted all the links from one site as
individual links (on equal footing). I mean Google shares META
descript from time to time in SERPs but not many beleive that Google
uses META in the algo or that, on Google's side, META descript "counts
for much, if at all". But PR is still theorized being part of the algo
and one of hte reasons people buy or heavily reciprocate links is
generally due to PR thoughts being part of the reason behing them
doing so.

yeah, I know - I am ramblish today. I haven't had any coffee yet. Let
me go brew a pot.
Carol


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Giving an application a window icon in a sensible way
    ... find the web browser in the clutter, ... It takes more time still to get to Google, ... I wasn't so much interested in the download URL to download it as I ... was interested in why people had conspicuously avoided mentioning the ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: John, formerly Winman, vandalizes Wikipedia
    ... Gee, did someone 'break into your house', John? ... Google shows that John was using that IP address on April 27, ... John made the innuendo on at least 3 occasions. ... "I do not KF people" - Snit ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: John, formerly Winman, vandalizes Wikipedia
    ... Jeez, get a life, man. ... Gee, did someone 'break into your house', John? ... Google shows that John was using that IP address on April 27, ... She started it by trolling me and Oxford yesterday. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: No fool like an old fool
    ... I tried to comment here, John, but I have to use Google right now ... Now, my real opinion about clubbing cute, little baby seals over ... the head is that I simply do not care. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: The Last Post At lotterypost
    ... Google has a valuable tool in researching the newsgroups. ... Griffin', the author of a post regarding 911 in rec.gamkbling lottery. ... 'John Griffin': ... Google will not confuse you, Psychosama, for a writer named John ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)