|
2007-02-01, 01:44 PM | #1 |
You can now put whatever you want in this space :)
|
Trading with penalized sites??
Ok, this has been bugging me for a few days, so lets see what everyone thinks. I think linking to a lot of penalized sites is bad for my page (Google wise). Do you agree?
Now, the hard thing is deciding who I think is penalized by Google. Here are the 2 scenarios that are currently bugging me. Please keep in mind that I do not care about PR for PR sake when trading. I only mention PR in the following examples as ways to possibly determine a penalty. If a site/page has been online for over a year, shouldn't it have some PR? I am coming across 2 things in checking over my link trades that bother me. 1) Site/page online for over a year (some online for 3 or 4 years)...no PR, but site is cached. Do you think this is indicative of a penalty? Would you trade with a site like this? Would you delete a trade with a site like this? 2) Site/page online for over a year....no PR, and NO CACHE of the page. Do you think this is indicative of a penalty? Would you trade with a site like this? Would you delete a trade with a site like this? Thoughts please.... |
2007-02-01, 02:37 PM | #2 |
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
|
Seems difficult to rate this way. Some people have domains for years before they put up a site on it, and some pages can have the 'no-cache' meta directive to prevent it being cached.
You're doing the right thing by thinking about this though. I tend to trade hardlinks with sites that have some PR ranking and a relatively normal domain and site like mine, not 'sexybutt.a4ulinks890.cz'. |
2007-02-01, 03:37 PM | #3 |
a.k.a. Sparky
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 2,396
|
A wise man once said:
It is as important to consider who you link to, as it is to consider who is linking to you.
__________________
SnapReplay.com a different way to share photos - iPhone & Android |
2007-02-01, 03:52 PM | #4 |
Certified Nice Person
|
I'd be more concerned about trading links with a link list that's on a stolen domain, like FetshCrawler.com for example, which I see you link to.
I remember some of this being discussed months ago, about linking to domains that may or may not be in Google's god-like graces, but it's damn difficult to know the history of a domain and whether or not it is amongst the beloved.
__________________
Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling. |
2007-02-01, 04:34 PM | #5 | |
You can now put whatever you want in this space :)
|
Quote:
These particular link trades have been up for quite a long time. They are not from the last few weeks, or even months. That is why I get concerned with the issues I mention above. |
|
2007-02-01, 04:37 PM | #6 |
You can now put whatever you want in this space :)
|
|
2007-02-02, 02:02 AM | #7 |
Rock stars ... is there anything they don't know?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11
|
I think linking to penalized sites, can affect you, yes.
http://www.google.com/support/webmas...y?answer=35769 "In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links." I also don't think that if any penalized or banned site links to you, this can affect you, as you have no control on it, so nothing that doesn't go from your url can affect you, otherwise it would be easy for anyone with a banned domain to put you down by linking to you ... |
2007-02-02, 08:47 AM | #8 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
The biggest problem you face is that there is no tool out there that really reflects accurately the Google PR - the toolbar is known to be faked and has been for two years, any smart webmaster knows how to get fake PR for a domain using 302s and so far no one else has been able to hack Google well enough to get into their real PR database
Im glad you decided that PR is not a good indicator of trade worthiness - something Ive been preaching for years as has at least one other LL owner here. One indicator you can usually trust is Googles Directory (if the site is listed there) as they tend to update that quarterly with a good indicator of the pages ranking and it also means that the page is listed in DMOZ(for what thats worth) Overall - looking at a site and its history using domaintools (the new whois.sc) and what type of linking they do - as well as the most important part - does the site add any value to your surfers? - is the best approach Take a look also at whether the site has any history of being listed consistently in Googles SERPs over time - dont use a one day snapshot as its really too easy to play for a few weeks and then drop completely. |
2007-02-02, 09:31 AM | #9 |
Kids are great, Appu. You can teach them to hate the things you hate and they practically raise themselves now-a-days, you know, with the internet and all
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 190
|
F*ck PR it's pure bullshit PERIOD !
Anyways, as soon as you think you got something goin' about SE it changes
__________________
Make 700$ per sale Deluxe Jap sex dolls |
2007-02-02, 02:13 PM | #10 |
I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!
|
One problem is that a surprisingly large number of sponsor FHG domains are on Google's bad list - pretty much all of BrainCash's galleries, for only one prominent example. So you have to balance what converts for you on your TGP vs. taking an SE traffic hit because of links to legitimate but "banned" galleries.
|
2007-02-02, 03:21 PM | #11 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
And you know that certain sponsors galleries are on Googles "bad list" how? I would love to see proof of that (and not a post on a board - actual physical proof)
|
2007-02-02, 03:23 PM | #12 |
a.k.a. Sparky
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 2,396
|
I think he's talking about the badware interstitial that pops up on some sites.
__________________
SnapReplay.com a different way to share photos - iPhone & Android |
2007-02-02, 03:33 PM | #13 |
Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
|
It really is difficult to say. Personally I would rather error on the side of caution
__________________
InsomniacCash |
2007-02-02, 03:41 PM | #14 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
cd34 - he specifically named one program and I know when I go to their galleries I dont get the interstitial - and pages with the interstitial arent considered bad neighborhoods - they are just some poor Wm that doesnt know he got hacked
|
2007-02-02, 03:43 PM | #15 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
In which way would you error on the side of caution - any examples - or even better any real life experiences?
|
2007-02-02, 03:46 PM | #16 | |
I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!
|
Quote:
My intent was not to pick on BrainCash (I think they're a fine program) - but that was one very prominent example I remembered from when I did this a few months ago. There are several others. My criticism is more of Google, as none of the "redlined" sponsor FHGs appeared to have any real exploits anywhere in their code. Last edited by lassiter; 2007-02-02 at 03:51 PM.. |
|
2007-02-02, 04:02 PM | #17 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
Are you sure you were doing that from within Google tools - the only analysis program I know they have in the WM tools is the page analysis which doesnt do anything close to what you are talking about?
What it sounds like you are talking about is the SiteAdvisor pages: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/freepornofreeporn.com Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Googles banning of pages |
2007-02-02, 04:12 PM | #18 | |
I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!
|
Quote:
But still - if McAfee redlines certain domains for such reasons, can you be 100% sure Google isn't doing the same or similar? Linking to galleries that link to sponsor popups, etc? And again, sponsor popups seem to be the *only* thing I could find about any of those FHG domains that would create a red flag for Google, McAfee or whoever. |
|
2007-02-02, 04:31 PM | #19 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
lassiter I dont think they do any type of association as Google has always been pretty proud of their own spam detection
I know that my site has two red arrows coming out of it http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/linkforsex.com and I still rank #1 for linkforsex LOL And doing some quick checking of the #1 site for "porn" he has similar arrows coming out so I dont think that would be a detrimental factor on the surface anyway It is interesting that I noticed that one of my submitters site is red due to him linking to wegcash but I think we already discussed that in another thread here |
2007-02-02, 04:41 PM | #20 |
I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!
|
Thanks for that info Linkster - you are the SE God, after all.
And apologies for posting misleading info - it was based on my own personal "drain bamage" and not intended for malicious or badmouthing reasons. I'll go hide now... |
2007-02-02, 05:03 PM | #21 |
...and since we know an end will come it makes our living so much fun
|
Here is a url which can come handy, the ban checker:
http://whoblocksme.com/ |
2007-02-02, 06:17 PM | #22 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
You can do the same check yourself as that tool in Google - just seems to check if your domain is listed using a site: command which is really not a good way to see if youre banned since you could just not have been added to the index yet
|
2007-02-03, 06:46 AM | #23 |
Wheither you think you can or you think you can't, Your right.
|
Does the PR bar not show banned anymore? It use to be a grey bar, if memory serves me right, meant google banned the site. I remember people getting banned and having the grey PR bar.
|
2007-02-03, 10:15 AM | #24 |
You can now put whatever you want in this space :)
|
A grey bar can also mean the site has not been indexed yet. So, that alone is not indicative of a penalty. The problem I have with most of these sites, is that they have been around quite a while, and I am pretty sure they had PR before. I will probably be deleting those trades. |confused|
|
2007-02-03, 12:34 PM | #25 |
Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,914
|
There's been a pattern in the past year plus of interior pages, like cat pages, losing their apparent pr for periods of time. It hasn't seemed to affect their positions or traffic all that much, but it's disconcerting to see.
You might be seeing that. I saw it happening again, but unevenly, during this last pr "update". Linking should be based on keyword relevance and to a lesser degree to the numbers of links on the linking pages, not pr. And on the traffic coming directly from the link exchanges. But nobody seems to care about that much. I'd be willing to bet money the pages you are talking about could never be shown to have been penalized. |
|
|