Thread: Google link filter

It fits in with my own personal favorite rant. I believe there are so many different aspects of the filter that it is practically impossible to plan for them all.

My suggestion is that sites simply return to a more "natural" linking strategy, similar to what was part of the web before Google came along...and everyone planned their links around Google.

If a site does that, I don't believe the filters will effect them too much, except that newer sites will be at a disadvantage.

I agree absolutely! Progressive growth is what I am after, not a flash in the pan effect. Reading Google's patent made a ton of sense to me as well. Excerpts like "give more weight to sites with domain names registered for 10 years" may not necessarily mean those elements are taken into consideration yet (even though I believe they might be) but they definitely indicate that Google LOVES web sites which are in it for the long run.

Ten years. Wow. The oldest sites I can think of (that precede my own) are:

century21.com -- March 1995
coldwellbanker.com -- May 1995
ired.com -- August 1995
remax.com -- September 1995
homeseekers.com -- September 1995
realtor.com -- September 1995
inman.com -- March 1996
relibrary.com -- June, 1997
realestatejournal -- June 1997
reals.com -- July 1997
realtytimes.com -- December 1997
realestateabc.com - February 1998

From conception to getting a site on the web took me over a year and a half. I was pretty clueless.

Originally Posted by RealEstate ABC

It fits in with my own personal favorite rant. I believe there are so many different aspects of the filter that it is practically impossible to plan for them all.

My suggestion is that sites simply return to a more "natural" linking strategy, similar to what was part of the web before Google came along...and everyone planned their links around Google.

If a site does that, I don't believe the filters will effect them too much, except that newer sites will be at a disadvantage.

Thank you for the reference link. It is interesting that the author like many others are theorizing a "link dampner filter." It certainly looks like there is one, but the focus on, is there or isn't there a link dampner takes away from the direction of SEO. The more important aspect, "Instead of automatically assuming the more incoming links the better, other factors may have come into play. The constant evolution of search engine algorithms, they say, may have morphed past the value of incoming links." This is exactly what I have been saying in my posts for the last several months.

"The question arises as to what would motivate Google to introduce a fresh link filter." It is not as the author says "If a site adds many new links, in a very short period of time, it's thought that Google might consider those links to be artificial." This is the by-product and not their purpose. I would hypothesize that there is not only one dampner by many dampners all for the purpose of 'imitating' a "natural process" of linking. Focusing on one filter is a waste of time. Many SEO experts who believe that there is one filter will make an effort to circumvent it. Some may actually succeed in the short term, but lose out in the long term.

I am starting with the premise that Google, indeed, "morphed past the value of incoming links." Secondly they have done so in an effort to imitate the natural flux of the internet. How does this help? It tells me that a linking strategy must also imitate the nature process of the internet. I have not completely worked out all the mechanisms but here is the direction I am headed:

A mix of selective local, reciprocal and one way links, both incoming and outgoing. I think 50 to 100 links gathered over a period of months, 1, 2 or 3 a week is sufficient. No linking with pages that have over 5 links. Linking to relevant pages only. Google has said the importance of a link is inversely proportional to the number of links on the page. No "let's trade links."

Perhaps others would like to add to the above.

Excerpts like "give more weight to sites with domain names registered for 10 years" may not necessarily mean those elements are taken into consideration yet (even though I believe they might be) but they definitely indicate that Google LOVES web sites which are in it for the long run.

I also believe this to be in effect (although I'm not sure if ten years is some sort of a threshold), especially after the latest algo change earlier this year. A site in my market made a major leap to the first page of the serps. Now not to sound like I'm beating his site up, but it has only 5 pages and zero on page optimization (other than the title and metatags). As a matter of fact, if you didn't look at the title bar and just read the homepage, you'd have just about no idea of where he was doing business. In terms of off page optimization G shows 7 IBLs and Yahoo shows 23. Despite this seeming lack of relevance on and off page optimizaton, his site is ranked on page one among some of the giant industry sites like realtor.com, weichert.com, homegain.com, etc. for our main KWs (area real estate). The only reason I could see that his site jumped in the rankings so much is due to it's age, it was created in 1997 and I don't think it's been updated since.

In this instance, the reference that Google was not referring to how long the site had been active, but how long the domain name is registered for. Many spammers purchase a domain name for only one year and let it lapse once the site is dropped from the SERP's for spam.

The active life of a web site is another portion of G's patent.

Originally Posted by frobn

It is interesting that the author like many others are theorizing a "link dampner filter." It certainly looks like there is one, but the focus on, is there or isn't there a link dampner takes away from the direction of SEO.

There will always be a place for SEO. People can do what they can for their web sites, but there will always be experts with the ability to "tweak" what you have done, or steer you in the proper direction when you have gone completely astray.

And sure..."the" filter is "lots" of filters all built into one algorithm.

Who is this Google you are speaking of?

Originally Posted by SiteTutor

what do you guys think about this?
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderrep...inkFilter.html

Mike thnks for pointing out that article...Very interesting...I too think that a slow natural process is best!