This might be relevant to some of the linklist problems

[Bill]

This thread on groups.google google webmaster help might have some clues.

The question raised by this talk of Lasnik's is - how are they detecting and deciding that content isn't of value?



http://groups.google.com/group/Googl...61be809ce2ce5/

Starting with this post by Adam Lasnik:

========
Adam Lasnik
I think it's time for some tough love here, Alan.

Imagine this scenario. You walk into a store and some guy --
surprisingly the owner -- grabs you by the shoulder.


"How'd you like some beer? Oh, hey, we also sell coffee. Hmm... you
don't want something to drink? We specialize in air purifiers, too!
And you know what... after you drink some beer next to your new air
purifier, I bet you could use a date, right? No, no, not the eating
kind... I'm talking a really nice lady! And if she ends up stealing
your identity, well, no problem! I sell Identity Theft protection
services... and... wait! Wait...come back!!!"


How much would you trust that guy? Or his store? Sure, he may have
small leaflets on a zillion topics, but he's not an expert in any.


If you, as an independent observer, came across such a store online,
would you trust it anymore? If not, why should Google see this as an
important and relevant site?


The reductions in rankings you've experienced are not going to be
reversed by simple technical or structural changes. You may wish to
focus your efforts, add compelling, original, and substantive content
or tools, and *then* file a reconsideration request.

=============


============
Adam Lasnik
I'd like to thank you (and so many other folks here) for the
thoughtful and insightful discussion. I respect you for being open
with what you've done and what your goals are and so on and for taking
in constructive criticism in such a friendly manner


I do want to clarify one more thing:
I don't think it'd be worth your time to spin stuff off to different
domains... unless you have a substantive user-centric reason for doing
so (branding, easier navigation, etc.). In general, we encourage
webmasters to stick with fewer domains, and beef up quality content/
tools within that domain.


As has been pointed out, the issue of dissimilar topics within a
domain isn't itself a problem; lots of well-respected sites do that,
including some that have been named here and elsewhere.


It all comes down to unique and compelling content and tools; to the
extent that my teasing anecdote muddied the waters by suggesting that
thematic focus was the core issue here, mea culpa! :o
============

[Halfdeck]

how are they detecting and deciding that content isn't of value?

See, Bill, that's a pivotal question if you're creating low-value content and trying to make it look like its worth something.

It's less of a concern when you know you're building an original and valuable site.

Like I said before, one obvious problem with link lists is that 99% of links going in and going out are artificial. The bigger LLs have more one-ways due to higher precentage of rejections, higher submits/day, etc. Still those one-ways are losing their power too because they still leave an obvious pattern (identical anchor text, link in a table cell, instead of a paragraph block, etc), and also because even when one side drops a link, it doesn't mean Google forgets who *used* to link to what.

And I'm sure algorithms and heuristics Google uses to detect low-value content is way more involved than any of that. (e.g. looking at ratio between affiliate links vs outbounds to non-commercial sites, percentage of links from low quality site vs authority sites, visitor bounce rate, visitor behavior once they arrive at a site, how long they stay, etc).

Sidebar/footer Link trades for the sake of higher search ranking (instead of branding/traffic) and indiscriminate reciprocal linking tactics are things of the past. As long as small LL owners refuse to accept that fact, they will have a long road ahead of them.

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Like I said before, one obvious problem with link lists is that 99% of links going in and going out are artificial. The bigger LLs have more one-ways due to higher precentage of rejections, higher submits/day, etc. Still those one-ways are losing their power too because they still leave an obvious pattern (identical anchor text, link in a table cell, instead of a paragraph block, etc), and also because even when one side drops a link, it doesn't mean Google forgets who *used* to link to what.

Good post Halfdeck. IMO, you could also mention the fact that the freesite recips are not providing much link juice anyhow before it's degraded even further by the identical anchor text, table cell links, etc..

One way to solve the identical recips problem is to use rotating recips on your webmaster page as I do on tripleXworld.com. This gives me about 9 different link text variations (could be more) on my freesites that are submitted to me.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Like I said before, one obvious problem with link lists is that 99% of links going in and going out are artificial.

I'm really rather curious how you and Bill *think* Google would react to a recip-free link list. For example, if I were to accept only clean submissions at the list in my sig, would the lack of recips eventually screw me, or would Google see it otherwise and perhaps show a little love for dropping the whole reciprocal scheme? It sounds like the recips could be hurting me more than anything. By looking at my stats, they certainly the hell aren't helping me.

We'll assume that those who already link to me wouldn't drop their links, and that others would, over time, link to me from hubs, blogs, or where ever (because they love me). I have no intention of doing the standard traffic trade link exchanges with other lists, though I do sometimes link to a submitter's own list or page from within one of my new, beefy descriptions. (though I don't think any of them have ever noticed)

What are your thoughts? I am more than willing tinker with this list to see how Google would react.

[Bill]

Well, to start out, I want to say that I've decided that I may be wrong about my initial thinking about this case.

What I was interested in, when I was reading this, is the question of how they were detecting and deciding the domain in question was low-quality content, and thereby banning it.

Upon studying it more, I realized I had left out one critical consideration - it's a mainstream site running adsense. So, it's subject to manual review.

My initial thinking on this was based on the idea that they were combining a low linking "score" (that is, the algo had decided that it had low quality links, and had given it a low score for link quality), combined with some kind of manual review.

Because, while low quality links could be detected by an algo, low quality content can pretty much only be decided by a human.

But I didn't think about the human review part of adsense.

Occams razor says the most likely cause of the banning was the adsense review.

So, I was wrong, this case doesn't necessarily tell us anything about what's happening with some of the linklists.

[Bill]

I've got some thoughts on experiments the smaller linklists could try, UW, but since I've decided my initial speculations about this particular case were mistaken, we should probably do this in another thread, so as not to confuse the two issues.

[Useless]

Well, I think there is, at the very least, a marketing lesson in your opening post, and apparently some insight on the mindset of Google's human reviewers. We do tend to toss a dozen handfuls of different colored shit against the walls of every page on a link list. Tighter targeting could probably serve us all well.

[Halfdeck]

Occams razor says the most likely cause of the banning was the adsense review.

I doubt that. Google is shutting down adsense accounts so they don't need to go to the trouble of banning a site just because its an MFA.

Not to mention the site isn't banned.

low quality content can pretty much only be decided by a human.

I think you're underestimating Google a bit.

For example, a list of possible quality factors when ranking blogs in Google's Blogsearch:

• Popularity based on news aggregator subscriptions.

  A blog document having a high number of subscriptions implies a higher quality for the blog document. Also, subscriptions can be validated against “subscriptions spam” (where spammers subscribe to their own blog documents in an attempt to make them “more popular”) by validating unique users who subscribed, or by filtering unique Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of the subscribers.

• Inclusion of the blog in blogrolls:

  "A blogroll link to a blog document is an indication of popularity of that blog document, so aggregated blogroll links to a blog document can be counted and used to infer magnitude of popularity for the blog document."

• Existence of the blog in high quality blogrolls
• References to the blog document by other sources
• Pagerank of the blog

  A high pagerank (a signal usually calculated for regular web pages) is an indicator of high quality and, thus, can be applied to blog documents as a positive indication of the quality of the blog documents.

Negative indicators:

• Frequency of new posts

  Feeds typically include only the most recent posts from a blog document. Spammers often generate new posts in spurts (i.e., many new posts appear within a short time period) or at predictable intervals (one post every 10 minutes, or a post every 3 hours at 32 minutes past the hour). Both behaviors are correlated with malicious intent and can be used to identify possible spammers. Therefore, if the frequency at which new posts are added to the blog document matches a predictable pattern, this may be a negative indication of the quality of the blog document.

• The content of posts

  Spammers may put one version of content into a feed to improve their ranking in search results, while putting a different version on their blog document (e.g., links to irrelevant ads). This mismatch (between feed and blog document) can, therefore, be a negative indication of the quality of the blog document.

• Size of blog posts

  Many automated post generators create numerous posts of identical or very similar length. As a result, the distribution of post sizes can be used as a reliable measure of spamminess.

Just to drive the point home, here's a list of quality score factors for Google Ads:

The patent applications lists examples of 44 different factors that might be used in a quality score that doesn’t focus upon click through rates. These include such things as:
# How many times a user selects a given ad in a given session.
# A duration of time, from an ad result selection, until the user issues another search query. This may include time spent on other pages (reached via a search result click or ad click) subsequent to a given ad click.
# A ratio of the time, from a given ad result selection until the user issues another search query, as compared to all other times from ad result selections until the user issued another search query.
# Time spent, given an ad result selection, on viewing other results for the search query, but not on the given ad result.
# How many searches (i.e., a unique issued search query) that occur in a given session prior to a given search result or ad selection;
# How many searches that occur in a given session after a given search result or ad selection.
# Rather than searches, how many result page views that occur for a given search query before a given selection. This can be computed within the query (i.e., just for a unique query), or for the entire session;
# Rather than searches, how many search result page views that occur for a given search query after this selection. This can be computed within the query (i.e., just for the unique query), or for the entire session;

That's just the tip of the iceberg (yeah, just because there's a patent out on something doesn't mean Google is using it, but every patent reveals how the kids over at the Googleplex think)

Google can judge content quality without humans (though Google is far from perfect and of course they do have thousands of people looking over the SERPs).

[ronnie]

As mentioned, I have been thinking, if LL trades such as catagory page trades are being seen as a bad pattern (if true), then why couldn't free site submits be seen as a pattern? As Halfdeck mentions. Does'nt seem like there is a good solution if it's all true.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by ronnie

As mentioned, I have been thinking, if LL trades such as catagory page trades are being seen as a bad pattern (if true), then why couldn't free site submits be seen as a pattern? As Halfdeck mentions. Does'nt seem like there is a good solution if it's all true.

Well, those are the issues I sit here twiddling my thumbs about. Category trades are an obvious scheme - and what do they do anyway? Build PR? Whoop-dee-doo. Reciprocal links are even a more obvious scheme, since they are on low quality (often duplicated) sub-sub pages anyway. And let's face it, if your recip isn't sitting on the same page as the one submitted to the big players, that link is fucking useless as a source of traffic, and most likely, any SE benefit. I'm seriously considering listing only clean sites on my newest list - just for giggles.

[LowryBigwood]

I don't know if it's just me or what, but I am not in agreement with most of what is being said against recip links. My opinion on this matter is if the link offers something valuable to your visitors that they will be interested in, then it's not a bad thing.

Of course these are not the best type of links to have, but I think if done right, they can be effective in helping your rankings.

Useless, your idea sounds nice, but you might as well call it a hub.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

Useless, your idea sounds nice, but you might as well call it a hub.

Why? It's not as if it would be a listing of my clean free sites. (I don't have any.) It wouldn't be a listing of HFSs or HFGs. I can't see how it could be considered a hub in any manner. Perhaps you think traffic can't be built this way. I'd like to know why.

[ronnie]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Well, those are the issues I sit here twiddling my thumbs about. Category trades are an obvious scheme - and what do they do anyway? Build PR? Whoop-dee-doo. Reciprocal links are even a more obvious scheme, since they are on low quality (often duplicated) sub-sub pages anyway. And let's face it, if your recip isn't sitting on the same page as the one submitted to the big players, that link is fucking useless as a source of traffic, and most likely, any SE benefit. I'm seriously considering listing only clean sites on my newest list - just for giggles.

I have and do get traffic from cataory trades, so for me it's not just for linkbuilding, pr, what have you.

I like the idea of listing clean sites also, but then it's the same old question, how would you get link backs? I don't think any one can say you will rise in the serps without linkbacks and even more so in the saturated adult market.

I think a big part of the problem is the adult market, and many mainstream markets, it's all about the money. No one wants to give unless they get. Not always, but for the most part. I don't mind helping out people, friends, ect, but I am here to make money so I guess I am in that mode also, of give and get. Where in the adult market can you get a linkback without giving a recip, or something? Where can surfers post links to "good" porn sites?

Just thinking...

[ronnie]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

I don't know if it's just me or what, but I am not in agreement with most of what is being said against recip links. My opinion on this matter is if the link offers something valuable to your visitors that they will be interested in, then it's not a bad thing.

Of course these are not the best type of links to have, but I think if done right, they can be effective in helping your rankings.

Useless, your idea sounds nice, but you might as well call it a hub.

The SE's are looking to provide the best results to surfers, quality content. If people use methods such as link trading to boost their "popularity" , noticed by a pattern, is that a quality site(s)? If I was the SE, I'd think not. It's not natural (pattern). It could be a good site, but what are the chances? We know the SE's can not visit each site to see, so they have to do it mechanically.

LL owners do similar things. Banning certian hosts, blacklisting IP's, ect. Sponsors do it by not allowing certian countries. Are these not the same type "patterns". Though they might not all be bad, it's a pretty good chance they are.

Maybe I am off base or getting off topic.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by ronnie

I like the idea of listing clean sites also, but then it's the same old question, how would you get link backs? I don't think any one can say you will rise in the serps without linkbacks and even more so in the saturated adult market.

The hope would be to receive links back in a more natural manner, as I believe Halfdeck often suggests. I'd hope that people would write a bit about the place on their blogs or hubs or where ever and give me a simple link within that chunk of text. (Those fewer, more natural, links would - I think - be weighed as much more valuable than crappy free site reciprocal links.) And I do believe people would do that. I know I link to sites I like which don't link to me. Others do as well. Bloggers do it all the time. Hell, they even link to sites they don't like while they're discussing them. There would also be the possibility of increased bookmarkers due to the fact that clean sites are easier to navigate than recip-laden sites.

Of course, the list in question lists a variety of pages, so I'd have to decide if I'd also list recip-free AVS sites, galleries, etc.

Also, I've been working on extra features that push the site far beyond the definition of a standard link list, which I hope will make it even more sticky.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Not to mention the site isn't banned.

Both the link that I followed to that thread, and, as I recall, the thread itself, used the word banned, so I used it as well.

My memory of what the thread said may be flawed, it's been several days now since I read it.

I don't ordinarily check to see wether a site is actually banned, that's not the part that interests me, and as you know, people use the word banned when they may have merely dropped in the results.

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Why? It's not as if it would be a listing of my clean free sites. (I don't have any.) It wouldn't be a listing of HFSs or HFGs. I can't see how it could be considered a hub in any manner. Perhaps you think traffic can't be built this way. I'd like to know why.

I took it as you listing only your own sites without recips on initial read of your previous post. It does seem to me that you'd be going against the current biz model(which may be not be a bad thing) of linklists. I'm sure you can get links from blogs and such. Sure, freesite recips are not giving much link juice back, but I believe they do provide some benefit you shouldn't neglect.

It's not that I think traffic cannot be built in that manner, but I do believe there's more to it than that simple change. It is a very interesting idea though, and I'd like to see how it performs for you.

[Halfdeck]

I don't know if it's just me or what, but I am not in agreement with most of what is being said against recip links. My opinion on this matter is if the link offers something valuable to your visitors that they will be interested in, then it's not a bad thing.

Reciprocal links, if not excessive and not obviously manipulative, are fine. Many trusted sites link to each other organically every day. Also the blog patent kinda suggests having a link to your site in the sidebar of a high profile site is a sign of quality.

But many LLs not only have thousands of recips pointing at them but 99.99% of their backlinks are from reciprocal links. I believe a site with a more balanced link profile will perform better.

In this post, Matt Cutts says:

Reciprocal links by themselves aren't automatically bad, but we've communicated before that there is such a thing as excessive reciprocal linking.

A hypothetical:

Take link list A with 100 reciprocal links, TBPR 1 each. Due to them being reciprocal, Google devalues them by 2%, so those links are really worth TBPR 98 total (I know TBPR 1+1 doesn't add up to 2, but lets pretend they do for a sec. I'm also not saying TBPR = higher ranking; its a metric of inbound juice that hints at how much anchor text and other factors are coming through).

Now the site owner receives 1000 more submissions each link worth TBPR 1. Say Google devalues IBL now at 5%. So instead of 1100 TBPR you got 1045. Still, 1045 is better than 0.

Throw on 10,000 more submits. Say that triggers the "excessive reciprocal link" flag. Devaluation goes up to 60%.

Initially, you see higher and higher rankings, but as you pile on more and more recips, you hit a ceiling - more submits = more devaluation so even if your ranking improves the rate of movement becomes slower and slower.

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Reciprocal links, if not excessive and not obviously manipulative, are fine. Many trusted sites link to each other organically every day. Also the blog patent kinda suggests having a link to your site in the sidebar of a high profile site is a sign of quality.

But many LLs not only have thousands of recips pointing at them but 99.99% of their backlinks are from reciprocal links. I believe a site with a more balanced link profile will perform better.

In this post, Matt Cutts says:

This is more along the lines of my thinking on recips. It just does not ANY sense whatsoever to say all recip linking is bad. Combine lower quality recip links with higher quality (1 way organic links if possible) and that will out perform high quality 1 way organic links by themselves IMHO. And then combining other types of incoming links with those should boost your site even further. Right?

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

A hypothetical:

Take link list A with 100 reciprocal links, TBPR 1 each. Due to them being reciprocal, Google devalues them by 2%, so those links are really worth TBPR 98 total (I know TBPR 1+1 doesn't add up to 2, but lets pretend they do for a sec. I'm also not saying TBPR = higher ranking; its a metric of inbound juice that hints at how much anchor text and other factors are coming through).

Now the site owner receives 1000 more submissions each link worth TBPR 1. Say Google devalues IBL now at 5%. So instead of 1100 TBPR you got 1045. Still, 1045 is better than 0.

Throw on 10,000 more submits. Say that triggers the "excessive reciprocal link" flag. Devaluation goes up to 60%.

Initially, you see higher and higher rankings, but as you pile on more and more recips, you hit a ceiling - more submits = more devaluation so even if your ranking improves the rate of movement becomes slower and slower.

Interesting hypothetical and well thought out.

Question: What if you are able to cut down on the identical anchor text that is being placed on your submissions as well as change the recip url to a page that would not be linking back directly?

For example, I have a freesites page, a pics galleries page, and a vids gallery page per niche. If I was to change my recip url to point to pics or vids gallery pages instead of my freesites page, then my recip links would not be direct anymore. Would that be a better way of handling my recips in your opinion?

Also, what's the best way to fight the devaluation process? Simply gain more high quality incoming links?

[Halfdeck]

Would that be a better way of handling my recips in your opinion?

It's an improvement but you're still leaving a detectable pattern.

Also, what's the best way to fight the devaluation process?

You need Google to trust your backlinks and outlinks.