Killing them - maybe, maybe not. Hurting them bad, contributing to their deaths, yes, I'm saying that.

As to how, we've repeatedly described how in other threads, but to restate what should be obvious by now:

1. devalueing recip links
2. devalueing duplicate content
3. increasing dramatically the value of one way incoming links.
4. possibly phraseing analysis
5. possibly page structure analysis
6. possibly a new system of flagging bad networks

In effect devalueing the whole structure and concept of the small linklist.

Why do these "what if..." threads always end up reading like these kooky scenarios are right around the corner?

Ok, so I was correct in assuming that it had nothing to do with this thread. Halfdeck had me confused, though I do essentially agree with his position.

As stated by Tommy and Greenie, if eman's hypothesis ever came to fruition, the old sites, though effected, would survive happily on due to years of branding and bookmarking. We little schmucks would feel the heaviest blow, but we deserve it for being young and beautiful.

Someone should make a smiley that puts on a tin foil hat and tweaks out.

I can take a hint :D

Google isn't attacking porn. Google isn't attacking commerical sites, though sometimes I see Google pushing commercial sites off organic results and into PPC, depending on the search term (e.g. "who is Paris hilton" is probably biased against commercial sites (top results: wikipedia, imdb, askmen), while "cheapest paris hilton dvd" probably favors commercial sites (top results: hotfrog.com/products/, amazon.com, cduniverse/productinfo). In the former, a surfer is looking for information; in the latter, a surfer is looking to buy).

Google is attacking spammy tactics that promote useless products or thousands of similar pages promoting the same product. In the Webmaster Guidelines, Google makes it clear it doesn't like affiliate marketing sites (pages with ref codes) that don't provide a unique, compelling surfing experience.

If smaller LLs are dying, they're dying because they're affiliate marketing sites trying to be the 200th ebay or 200th youtube. When I think of Link Lists, I think of LOR, penisbot, tommy's bookmark, and a handful of other quality sites that have a strong brand. Do surfers really need hundreds of other LLs that offer less content based on a copycat business model?

If you want search traffic, it's time to think out of the box; the LL "seat" is already taken.

If I'm typical then it's about 37 cents

Certainly not. But that's the beauty of building any type of business when there is plenty of pre-existing competition. It's a long, rough road uphill, and one is more likely to fail than truly compete, but the possibility of success is possible - somewhat. (And I realize that I'm speaking from the position of never being successful.) I'm not sure if Google penalizes the newer, smaller link list, but I'm fairly confident that they favor Dave, Greenie, Tommy, and Emerald (SG). But is what I refer to as 'favor' merely due to the amount of content and inbound links or does Google have a secret list of trusted sites with a strong history of being what the surfer wants?

I very much agree with your thinking outside the box statement and I have some interesting ideas for my newest list. But I've been afraid of breaking too far from the pack of out fear that Google will suddenly drop me (though my ideas are nothing special) and that my fellow link listers will call me crazy. And then again, I think it could help improve the site from both a SE and surfer perspective. I'm conflicted. |crazy|

Ok, so I've given this statement 30 seconds of thought and I don't agree with myself. If the big G favored the well-branded sites in some way, then wouldn't they always appear as the top results?

Useless, I agree - if your goal is to build a better link list than DD or penisbot. I don't agree if your goal is to build a site just like penisbot or LOR in the hopes of making money by replicating something that's proven to work.

Google is like American Idol. The judges have little control over who ends up winning. Ultimately, voters decide the outcome. All you can do as a contestant is to please the crowd and hope you get the most votes.

Wikipedia never bothered with one link trade, reciprocal link, or content submission but millions of people feel compelled to link to it. And those votes help Wikipedia rank on the first page for everything under the sun. Even a deep page about Splinter Cell is TBPR 6, which reflects the overwhelming visibility and popularity of that site.

The big LLs have an edge (more trust, more organic IBLs, higher visibility), but they don't have a lock on their front page positions because Google doesn't trust them completely.

For example, linking out to free sites that have iffy linking profiles (e.g. reciprocal linking with 30+ sites on domain root) will hurt your SERP ranking and lower Google's trust in your site, but I'm guessing all free site reviewers accept submits without checking the outlinks of the domain a free site is on. Notice how all outbound links on sites like Technorati and del.icio.us are indiscriminately nofollowed? A high quality paid directory will not nofollow links but they check submitted links more thoroughly and they charge $100+ per submission.

Penisbot's low home page TBPR 5 is a reflection of Google's lack of trust in that site. I mean, c'mon, 316,000 IBLS (according to Site Explorer) and only TBPR 5 (medium PageRank)? A Googler's new blog (vanessafoxnude.com), only a few months old, is already TBPR 7. That tells me none of the IBLs to her site are being devalued (and why should they? They're all editorial and one-way, no ABA, ABC crap).

Bill, it's not obvious for several reasons. Most of what you stated above is unproven and just a theory. Another reason it's not obvious to me is because I don't believe Google is killing off the small LL's at all. Howcome we don't see any MSN or Yahoo killed my site threads? Google isn't the only search engine, and anyone who relies on just Google isn't going to last anyways. |thumb

Well, the primary reason is that the 'other' search engines have typically only accounted for 10-20% of the traffic.

And their spam control algos are several years behind googles.

There was a lot of bitching way back when, when yahoo blocked a bunch of linklists from it's pages, but yahoo traffic was pretty much considered "extra" over the more important google traffic at that time, so it eventually became accepted as the status quo.

I don't recall seeing any "google killed my small linklist" threads, tho.

It's possible I'm the only person explicitly saying that recent changes in google are hurting, maybe killing, small to medium sized linklists. Other people are saying it, but in the subtext of their posts.

I figured the writing was on the wall when GG took such a hit for a while. And I can count the number of hits coming to my freesites as well as anyone.

I figured the real question, behind eman's initial question, was "How the fuck do you guys figure we can adapt to the new google?".

That's what's interesting - How to Adapt?

You don't adapt, you continue building content rich sites that are good for the surfer. Period.

And you say..... "Well, the primary reason is that the 'other' search engines have typically only accounted for 10-20% of the traffic."

That's bullshit. Let me tell you why. Not everyone is going to rank high on google and especially for the same terms, therefore there is much more opporutunity for us besides google in the way of other se's and traffic sources. You guys that are expecting google to support your biz are asking to lose.... adapt, and develop other sources of traffic.

Jays has been banned on Yahoo for years.

I agree with this 100%. Nice post Bill.

I agree with most of your thinking on this Bill, but I disagree with your framing the recent changes at the Googleplex as a death-knell for the small LLs. Almost all LLs engage in artificial linking - that tactic is dragging them down. But as long as everyone goes down together, the SERP will not dramatically change (ranking is relative to your competition).

Advantage will go to websites that have the strongest, cleanest link profile.

All this fuckin' talk about domination on an adult webmaster board and not a whip, chain or pair of handcuffs to be found. I'm extremely disappointed.

(we now return you to your regularly schedule debate)

Well, I have tried to make it clear that I mean _hurting_ and maybe killing.

I look out on the landscape of linklists, and what I see is attrition.

I saw the closing of Free Porn Post as being the clearest sign of this trend, but wether we are talking about the apparent failure of marc's sexysites (the only new "big" linklist created by a big name in recent memory), or the fading away of places like premium sex links, to the steady reduction in traffic from almost all linklists, the picture is pretty consistent.

No linklist owner will mention it, because it's not in their business interest to do so, but the pattern seems pretty clear to me.

But FPP was a dramatic example. Carl was a hard worker, had a strong presence in the community, linked as cleanly as anyone here - but he had to close, and go to work cleaning viruses off of suburbanites computers.

I saw it as a strong lesson to us all.

The question is, how to acheive such a profile?

I think part of the answer will involve increasing the amount of unique content in the small LL domain.

The model of the freesite or gallery is close to being unique on the internet - LLs and TGPs don't create content, they link to hundreds of small (and to the search engines mostly garbage content) amounts of content created by their submitters with the now devalued recip links.

I have a hard time pointing to any other internet model that is equivalent.

The SE's used to love and reward that structure, which is what made the proliferation of small linklists possible. Now, not so much.

So, the really interesting question now is, how do you design something that makes money like the small linklist used to do, but which has a structure and content that the SEs value?