The New Google and Link Building Strategies

**HHI Golf Guy** · 06-06-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ralph

I think G sees a link as a link.

You're right - a link is a link. But links are not what has changed with the Big Daddy update. Changes in link strategy are a bi-product of G's recent changes.

Remember, Big Daddy was not an algorithm update. G's algorithm has stayed the same. What did change with Big Daddy was the infrastructure of the Google search platform.

So now, a link is a link, but a page is not a page. You can gather all of the links that you want, but if G considers the page that they are on a junk page they won't place that page in their index. When that happens to a site that has a link to you, your link is non-existent as far as the ranking algo is concerned.

Of course, you can build all of the content driven, link resources that you want on your own pages and sub domains and it won't do you any good in your own rankings. You need to convince other site owners to do the same.

**Ralph** · 06-06-2006, 02:12 PM

Hii Golf Guy,
I would agree with you 100% if things with G were normal, ie last summer. If the deindexing means the links on those pages have dissapeared as back links to the reciprocal link, their SERP should take a hit. This has been going on for weeks now and I do not see any SEO's looking for tall building to jump off of..., yet. The problem is also so widespread from low to high SERP sites, low to high PR's that it defiles logic. I am more and more leaning towards this being a G problem. Matt C made comments about what was happening with their changes a few weeks ago. Then he left for vacation and decided to become a book reviewer. We have been cache at least 3 times on all our sites since the heavy deindexing started. Everything works as normal except on one site, where our level 3 links pages were deindexed. Therefore, you can not search and find our level 3 pages of links. I would think that you normally would end up with higher SERP pages on a search. That makes sence, if I am looking for a vacation rental in Orlando, I really do not want to end up on someone's Florida vacation rental links page. As long as no other problems arrise from the change, I have no problem with them not indexing the links pages.

I run onnnnnn.

**Linsey** · 06-08-2006, 09:35 AM

Oh, I see -- I wasn't quite sure whether the mini-articles had the links /in/ them or just after them. I misread the example.

I think I'm going to keep an eye on Google for a while -- and what it does with my link pages. (None of them have more than five links on a page, mind, but they certainly aren't content heavy.)

**Ralph** · 06-08-2006, 01:17 PM

Linsey,

I agree, we just sit tight and let things go were they go.

HHI Golf Guy,

"Remember, Big Daddy was not an algorithm update. G's algorithm has stayed the same. What did change with Big Daddy was the infrastructure of the Google search platform."

You really know how to keep a person awake at night. If G has determined that my links pages are "Junk" (I prefer irrelevant, I have to much time invested in these sites), and the indexes were as they were, I think you agree, we should see major changes in SERPs of the HP. I spent some of yesterday looking at the SERPs of our competition and see no changes. Some have the same deindexing problem we do. I was under the impression that links help develope your PR which worked through in some way with many other objects to develope your SERP. So far the deindexing seams to be unto itself. It eliminates 100000's maybe 1000000's of pages that no longer have to be scanned. Let my bonus be based on the computer time saved. Eliminates the moral gambling and meds problem. Big advertising budgets. Let my next bonus be based on the new add sales.

Brings me to the question. Are not your mini-articles long link descriptions? Are we working towards another round of one upsmanship. Seems to me I remember a theory about time and things becoming more chaotic. Just so it keeps us employed. Have you tried to have a mini-article published?