Impact of recent shake up in Google algo

[AussieWebmaster]

The main thing that was done with the recent algorythm is the lessening of recip linking. Sites that relied on that for their position found themselves falling away completely.
They will still be giving PR for relevant links but the weight now by looking for a recip link...

[DangerDave]

Umm thats a bit of an unsupported blanket statement isn't it?

I would love to see some "proof" of this theory... because if not, it is just that "a theory"

and this one aint much better
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...&threadid=2935

I for one totally disagree with both statements

DD

[Cleo]

Actually that is only if you do not light a candle on the forth full moon after the wolf howls. If you follow this while doing your link exchanges then you will be fine with the exception of sites that advertise sponsors that have more then three vowels in their name.

[AussieWebmaster]

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...showtopic=1964

try that for a start

[DangerDave]

Hahahaha now that's funny... Am I meant to read 79 pages of speculation and unsupported opinion to find the "proof".

Short answer... everything I link to on DangerDave has a recip to me, and I am UP for every keyword I am ranked for as far as I can see....
.....except maybe "men getting fucked in the ass by sexy women with fingers"..

To me that is 'evidence' that reciprocal linking has not been lessened.

I think some of those people found their sites have " falling away" because they were too busy reading 79 pages of speculation.

DD

[RawAlex]

DD: "men getting fucked in the ass by sexy women with fingers"..the one term I do well on! NOT!

Actually, i am seeing some very encouraging results for very natural and decent link layouts, nothing too fake, seems to have come up near the top of some stuff. Interesting to see how it all goes!

Alex

[Linkster]

DDave - got to go with ya on this one
I stayed rock solid on everything - and went up like you on newer stuff that I added recip natural linking to last month - looks like a normal update was had other than a few adjustments that were made - of course now they're screwing around with that geo-tracking shit and click counting today - hopefully that will work to our advantage like it did last time they did this

[xxxjay]

DDave - Until the chief engineer of Google shows up and sets a paper on a desk and says:

"Hey guys, this is how the whole thing works..."

It's ALL speculation, my friend.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally posted by DangerDave
Umm thats a bit of an unsupported blanket statement isn't it?

I would love to see some "proof" of this theory... because if not, it is just that "a theory"

and this one aint much better
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...&threadid=2935

I for one totally disagree with both statements

DD

According to Andrew Goodman, in WebProNews, apart from the theory of Google's shake-up being an attempt to force commercial listings to buy into AdWords, "there are other characteristics of the re-index that look more like past spam blitzes: sites which have aggressively pursued link swaps or keyword-rich domains, for example, have apparently been big losers in the latest blitz."

[AussieWebmaster]

The spider may have missed adult stuff.... the huge number of potential terms on a page and the recip links being harder to determine relevancy of the exchange may have left the adult industry alone this time through.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by xxxjay
DDave - Until the chief engineer of Google shows up and sets a paper on a desk and says:

"Hey guys, this is how the whole thing works..."

It's ALL speculation, my friend.

I would again like to quote myself.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I would again like to quote myself.

okay then here it is:

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~georgem/hilltop/

enjoy the equations

also try this for a solid overview
http://www.tsworldofdesign.com/blog/arty.asp?arty=6

[Linkster]

I dont have a clue why you are posting a link to a paper written 4 years ago, but if you look into the supporting documentation as well as read his other papers, you will find that he is basically documenting how Google, AV and a few others have worked for years - its all about authority and hubs - and the more recips you have to good authorities, the better you end up with your sites.
You might want to look into some of the discussions that took place back in 2001 when most people discovered his work - thats when we figured out that Google might be looking at Class C addresses and whois info.

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the current filters Google is trying out and people are speculating about - we've seen these things come and go so many times - and they resolve themselves - the sky is not falling - and Google is a business - get over it

[AussieWebmaster]

I gave the link to give you a base for the equations you were looking for... they are changing from this model which has been used extensively for the past 3-4 years, given the monthly variations that Google likes to mix in.

[Linkster]

Well - since we're going to stay in the realm of speculation and Ive had a few too many - here goes:

They are not straying from this model whatsoever - they are -if anything- going closer to this model where authority sites and recip linking are the strongest model out there - there used to be a name for what you are seeing with these rolling updates - which are just test filters they are trying to adjust (which was confirmed by a Google engineer) - the name was everflux - for some reason a lot of people that are newer to the SEO (if thats what they call themselves) game havent seen this effect as blatent as it used to be, until the recent updates - so they are surprised by them - that is the only fact I can find in all of these threads.

The fact that there are so many automated spam models performing extremely well just goes to show that the filters are not having the effect Google would like them to have, and they keep trying to increase the settings - without testing first - and it has an effect on what some here think are "clean" sites because of the non-tested results. Then everyone runs around like chickens with their heads cut off proclaiming that Google has done some dasterdly deed and that they sun wont come up tomorrow - when all along - they just got to see publicly what Google has done all along behind the scenes

[CaptainJSparrow]

Well-said Linkster, I agree with you 100%!

For what that's worth...

[urb]

Nothing is for sure. Not even reality.

|skull|

[Linkster]

CaptainJS - yep its normal

Urb How very true

BTW - for its worth to anyone - this last update algo change was just a small change compared to whats coming for the next few months ( a little birdie spilled the beans)

[urb]

Originally posted by Linkster
this last update algo change was just a small change compared to whats coming for the next few months

How can I give up smoking now?

[Kush]

Originally posted by Linkster
CaptainJS - yep its normal

Urb How very true

BTW - for its worth to anyone - this last update algo change was just a small change compared to whats coming for the next few months ( a little birdie spilled the beans)

Hey Linkster,

I'm not judging the validity of your statement, but can you expound on it a little bit more please? Google has always kept their algorithms extremely secret, and I'm curious if this little birdie is someone inside of google, or something that got passed through the grapevine a bit?

[RawAlex]

Linkster, do tell... or PM me... :-)

Kush, got your mail, and yes, probably I will do something like that, just looking for the right places and stuff.

:-)

Alex

[xxxjay]

linkster don't know anything - he just wants attention - i just shook him down - he's clean

[Linkster]

LOL Jay - yep - its clean as a whistle and drained too thanks

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Linkster
LOL Jay - yep - its clean as a whistle and drained too thanks

hehe - You know I'm just fucking with you. Right?

[Linkster]

Jay - of course I know you would never come on to a man with all of the macking you do on chicks LOL (yeah I read cj too )