search engine domination

[Jim]

I am just curious. Did "xxx trailers" bring in a lot of traffic? It just seems that not a large percentage of surfers would search for that.

[Bill]

Free Porn Post closes it's doors, the La group is trying radical experiments to recover google traffic, small link lists are dying right and left.

And you guys are claiming eman is bitching because of xxx trailers.

That's just fuckin bullshit.

eman may be just a small amount of alarmist by suggesting that google could dump all linklists (like yahoo did when it started it's database a few years back - oh wait, so it's happened before...), but the overall pattern is clear as day.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Bill

...like yahoo did when it started it's database a few years back - oh wait, so it's happened before...

LOR is still listed in the exact same place it's always been on Yahoo & the traffic dropped off as soon as the spammed up the index page. There's not a lot of people actually "searching" on Yahoo anymore - they click on this & that on the index, but few actually search.

At least Google asks you if you want to clutter up their index page

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Greenie

LOR is still listed in the exact same place it's always been on Yahoo

LOR is one of the well known exceptions. You may recall when Jay posted here congratulating you on that fact.

I'm not tracking LL positions on yahoo now, so I have no idea if they have discontinued the policy, but when it started, some yahoo wonk stated that yahoo preferred to link directly to content rather than linking to other directories that then linked to content.

The point of the yahoo example is that SE's have decided in the past to remove whole classes of websites, so, it's not impossible that it could happen again.

I think eman didn't formulate his initial presentation as well as he could have - as he presented it, there's only one logical answer - yeah, if linklists are removed from google, it would suck, and everyone would have to move to a different model, but there ain't squat we can do about it to stop it.

[plateman]

Originally Posted by Jim

I am just curious. Did "xxx trailers" bring in a lot of traffic? It just seems that not a large percentage of surfers would search for that.

and more important the quality of that traffic from that term|shocking|

you can't cash hits only checks.....

[Useless]

I don't recall seeing eman say anything about "xxx trailers".

Originally Posted by plateman

and more important the quality of that traffic from that term

Well, what's the quality of any search term? And how would that term be of any lower value than any other term these monkeys struggle for?

Though I don't necessarily agree with eman's theory (knock on wood), it was momentarily an interesting debate to read.

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I don't recall seeing eman say anything about "xxx trailers".

In the other thread in the se forum.

Bill, Google is not killing off the small linklists. If you think they are responsible for that, maybe you should explain how.

On the term "xxx trailers", I have never owned the #1 spot but from my experience so far I doubt the term has much juice. But, sometimes I am wrong.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

Bill, Google is not killing off the small linklists. If you think they are responsible for that, maybe you should explain how.

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.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Bill

...but there ain't squat we can do about it to stop it.

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

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Bill

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.

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.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

Howcome we don't see any MSN or Yahoo killed my site threads?

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?

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Bill

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.

I agree with this 100%. Nice post Bill.

[Halfdeck]

How to Adapt?

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.

[eman]

Originally Posted by Jim

I am just curious. Did "xxx trailers" bring in a lot of traffic? It just seems that not a large percentage of surfers would search for that.

It only accounted for about 5% of my SE traffic and I've no idea how well it converted.

UW - "xxx trailers" is the subject of another thread.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by eman

UW - "xxx trailers" is the subject of another thread.

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.