Yes, I appreciate, and in many cases agree that some of the sites we
see here are kind of that way (if not blatantly so, then occassionally
accidentally so).
Yet there are other times when I can see a damned good reason for it,
and it
strikes me as being viable/feasible/sensible/understandable.
Yet still the words are shouted out by some.
Is there a hard set definition, or even a 'rough guide' from Google on
what a Link Farm really is?
Or could someone from the G team please comment and let webmasters
know if they can link in/out of their sites (credits) without possibly
damaging the client site or their own business site?
What about those with several interlinked/related businesses... are
they allowed to use normal links... or should they be no followed as
well?
Silly post #1 :)
<begin>
Years ago, when I was a total rookie, I fell into a trap of
"submitting" my daughter's site and another one I had, for a teen-age
non profit organization, to a "directory".
Did that and never gave it a second though for years more after that.
Forgot all about where I had submitted the sites.
I wasn't savvy to understand how one actually got into Google or some
other search engine, I thought it was kind of like an elite thing. I
didn't think my sites qualified all that well to be listed.
Anyway, after a few years I got a bit smarter. And also discovered
methods to track referrers, and see stats and all that jazz.
So I found backlinks I apparently had from various places and spotted
one of those "directories" I had submitted to, I was horrified to see
that had been turned into the most heinous of link farms, awash in
porn links and all manner of scam sites. Yikes! When you see it you
know it.
They did not respond at the time to my requests to remove my links. I
didn't then know those backlinks couldn't hurt while not helping
either, though the environment was most unsavoury. I didn't care about
ranking, SERPS and all that (didn't even know what they were). I
simply hated to proximity of all those porn and scam sites and having
my sites found by such foul terms as well.
As luck had it (phew!) the damn site got removed from the web
eventually and in time all was well. I also got a bit smarter since
then and less prone to panic LOL
Might still get angry though if I find such links. As I did only a few
months ago. I found a site with links to my daughter's site and
anchor text claiming "get your mp3's and videos of ... here". They had
none but the mere mention of any being available for download on
their site or my daughter's was annoying nevertheless. I contacted
them and demanded they remove the posts. The reply was "can't, it's
automated". Grrr.... Seems to have dropped from my list of backlinks
though so Google got rid of them it seems. The links are still there
but carry no weight. Which is fine as far as I care. Don't need any
visitors looking for such stuff.
<end>
> Yes, I appreciate, and in many cases agree that some of the sites we
> see here are kind of that way (if not blatantly so, then occassionally
> accidentally so).
> Yet there are other times when I can see a damned good reason for it,
> and it
> strikes me as being viable/feasible/sensible/understandable.
> Yet still the words are shouted out by some.
> Is there a hard set definition, or even a 'rough guide' from Google on
> what a Link Farm really is?
> Or could someone from the G team please comment and let webmasters
> know if they can link in/out of their sites (credits) without possibly
> damaging the client site or their own business site?
> What about those with several interlinked/related businesses... are
> they allowed to use normal links... or should they be no followed as
> well?
> And yes, I will ignore the onsuing silly posts :D
Thats a lovely story.
Not sure how it helps regarding my questing for a defintion of link
farms and whether people are allowed to link normally to their own/
other sites etc.
But, glad that the bad links disappeared.
And yes... there ought to be away for us to tell G to ignore certain
links.
(I'm still not 100% convinced they cannot affect your rankings).
> Thats a lovely story.
> Not sure how it helps regarding my questing for a defintion of link
> farms and whether people are allowed to link normally to their own/
> other sites etc.
> But, glad that the bad links disappeared.
> And yes... there ought to be away for us to tell G to ignore certain
> links.
> (I'm still not 100% convinced they cannot affect your rankings).
I'm asking for a definition of Link Farming...
Whether as a Designer/Design Company (I design and code and uplaod
etc.) websites, whether my putting a link on my site to the client
site... and a link on the client site to my site.... and if the client
has several/multiple sites that are related but unique....
whether it means this is link farming, whether there is a penalty that
may be appleid and whether it should be avoided.
Knowing what I know now I'm not concerned. Doesn't mean I don't get
angry at the indignity of geetting a backlinks with some nasty anchor,
or form a page with nasty content anyway LOL.
Sorry, I decided to share though it's not what you asked for.
I'm quite certain we don't have to tell Google to ignore links. It
will ignore whatever it finds that's irrelevant in any case. Seems
like a major cleanup is under way.
> They don't. I have a lot of them pointing to my site, nude pics is a
> favorite. Just don't link out to them.
> Bill
> On May 3, 10:09 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > Thats a lovely story.
> > Not sure how it helps regarding my questing for a defintion of link
> > farms and whether people are allowed to link normally to their own/
> > other sites etc.
> > But, glad that the bad links disappeared.
> > And yes... there ought to be away for us to tell G to ignore certain
> > links.
> > (I'm still not 100% convinced they cannot affect your rankings).- Hide quoted text -
> I'm asking for a definition of Link Farming...
> Whether as a Designer/Design Company (I design and code and uplaod
> etc.) websites, whether my putting a link on my site to the client
> site... and a link on the client site to my site.... and if the client
> has several/multiple sites that are related but unique....
> whether it means this is link farming, whether there is a penalty that
> may be appleid and whether it should be avoided.
> Knowing what I know now I'm not concerned. Doesn't mean I don't get
> angry at the indignity of geetting a backlinks with some nasty anchor,
> or form a page with nasty content anyway LOL.
> Sorry, I decided to share though it's not what you asked for.
> I'm quite certain we don't have to tell Google to ignore links. It
> will ignore whatever it finds that's irrelevant in any case. Seems
> like a major cleanup is under way.
> On May 3, 11:16 am, wreilly wrote:
> > They don't. I have a lot of them pointing to my site, nude pics is a
> > favorite. Just don't link out to them.
> > Bill
> > On May 3, 10:09 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > > Thats a lovely story.
> > > Not sure how it helps regarding my questing for a defintion of link
> > > farms and whether people are allowed to link normally to their own/
> > > other sites etc.
> > > But, glad that the bad links disappeared.
> > > And yes... there ought to be away for us to tell G to ignore certain
> > > links.
> > > (I'm still not 100% convinced they cannot affect your rankings).- Hide quoted text -
I think Wikipedia is right to be cautious about that entry.
I use two terms - link farms and domain farms. They're quite
distinct.
Link farms - now pretty much obsolete - were run simply to get income
from selling links. A page with 300 garden equipment links, another
with 300 camera links, etc. You just don't see these any more - even
when they've eupemistically been renamed "directories".
Domain farms are very much still with us - one core owner using
multiple domains and linking them together to create the impression of
popularity. This, I think is where we've been seeing changes since
around the end of October. And I lot of people caught out weren't
aware they were doing anything questionable.
I think it is also an area (much like the 'hidden content will get you
banned - no matter what it is') that is grossly maligned/
misunderstood.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for some sites interlinking.
Jsut because they are owned by the same company, or built by the same
company, does not automatically mean they are a domain farm.
Only 3 of my clients link to each other, and that is due to having
services and products tha compliment.
The majority of hte sites have links back to my site... and my site
has links to theirs.
Why is this viewed as being bad by some?
And sorry, but the whole arguement of 'if it's not for SERP/PR, then
simply nofollow.
Sorry, I started with websites before Google.
It was a standard practice then, and still is.
I really doubt G penalises you for it.
(Hint at someone from G to please come in and confirm/deny/side-
step ;))
Should I be going and ripping hte motif/emblem etc. of my car?
Remove the labels from my tin food?
To me, same difference.
It's Branding.
The link is there as a simple means for those visitors looking at my
works to come to me with ease.
I do not see why I should no follwo the link, as it is related.
(I now provide a page on all sites I build pointing back to my site -
rather than having the link on all pages).
Yet I'm not seeing anything from G saying whether this is an
acceptable practice or not.
This is also an occassional topic on here - and along with some of hte
Hidden/CSS/ACCESSibility stuff, I wouldn't mind getting it cleared up
a little.
If G penalise - then around 25%+ of the web is suffering.
If not, then a large number of people are calling out when they
shouldn't, and as with the CSS/Hidden stuff, causing fear/worry/stress
needlessly.
Well, a link farm according to some is a former ecommerce site that
grew.
Now as an owner of a former link farm that had customers I know it
might be wise not to tramble on the google bot and simply delete the
site. The "no follow" business is as much controversy as not having
the no follow tag.
Some of us used a prgram in the beginning made by "Microsoft" that
severly crushed server resources. The only way to stop the system from
crashing was to create sub-webs and spin off domains. <-"link farm"
Only my real concern was since the "link farm" site did have customers
with a satisfaction or an understanding that we want to maintain our
customer relations. We thought on our own to have kept the site active
and in this way we have told old customers, that we have moved and
incorporated our old static, and out-dated sites to become a single
robust database driven site.
Statisically those sites are dust. But, not in the eyes of bot. For
that we apparently have been penalized ever since rolling out the new
site. Same domain just uses aspx pages instead of HTML... But that too
was another major if not critical mass of elements to have caused
further damage.
Oh, what a nightmare that is. It's too simple to see it for anything
for what it is, but now of course it is deemed "spam, link farm" and
with backlinks.
We've been online since before Google. Only now to be told that we are
non-paying servants of Google and that we are essentially getting
something for nothing. Basically, a direct quote short of "thingy"
from previous post to this discussion group that it is difficult to
get anything more from discusion than to use the site: tool or that
not every URl is listed or more directly the cause of all ailments
that it is a "link farm." GUILTY!
I simply regress how or had I known that this was all merely a gesture
to begin with.
I'm so grateful to see my house on a map of earth and the ground below
it that Google has so gracefully provided.
> I think it is also an area (much like the 'hidden content will get you
> banned - no matter what it is') that is grossly maligned/
> misunderstood.
> There are perfectly legitimate reasons for some sites interlinking.
> Jsut because they are owned by the same company, or built by the same
> company, does not automatically mean they are a domain farm.
> Only 3 of my clients link to each other, and that is due to having
> services and products tha compliment.
> The majority of hte sites have links back to my site... and my site
> has links to theirs.
> Why is this viewed as being bad by some?
> And sorry, but the whole arguement of 'if it's not for SERP/PR, then
> simply nofollow.
> Sorry, I started with websites before Google.
> It was a standard practice then, and still is.
> I really doubt G penalises you for it.
> (Hint at someone from G to please come in and confirm/deny/side-
> step ;))
> Should I be going and ripping hte motif/emblem etc. of my car?
> Remove the labels from my tin food?
> To me, same difference.
> It's Branding.
> The link is there as a simple means for those visitors looking at my
> works to come to me with ease.
> I do not see why I should no follwo the link, as it is related.
> (I now provide a page on all sites I build pointing back to my site -
> rather than having the link on all pages).
> Yet I'm not seeing anything from G saying whether this is an
> acceptable practice or not.
> This is also an occassional topic on here - and along with some of hte
> Hidden/CSS/ACCESSibility stuff, I wouldn't mind getting it cleared up
> a little.
> If G penalise - then around 25%+ of the web is suffering.
> If not, then a large number of people are calling out when they
> shouldn't, and as with the CSS/Hidden stuff, causing fear/worry/stress
> needlessly.
Please revise the responses and go and fix your site accordingly.
Pay special attention to the need to 301 redirect any secondary sites
that are identical to your main site, or to portions (e.g. subdomains,
or subfolders) of your main site, to the corresponding urls on your
main site, so there will not be any duplication. This will clean up
the index of duplicates, focus your content into the urls that matter
and strengthen all of the remaining urls. Furthermore it will remove
the aura of domain farm (note this is not the same as link farm, but
it's damaging to all domains involved).
You cannot hope to get multiple domains indexed and ranking if they
contain duplicate content as another domain. Even if thyd did get
indexed once, Google is now in the process of eliminating all this
duplication and if you don't do the cleanup yoruself, Google will do
it in a way you won't like.
> Well, a link farm according to some is a former ecommerce site that
> grew.
> Now as an owner of a former link farm that had customers I know it
> might be wise not to tramble on the google bot and simply delete the
> site. The "no follow" business is as much controversy as not having
> the no follow tag.
> Some of us used a prgram in the beginning made by "Microsoft" that
> severly crushed server resources. The only way to stop the system from
> crashing was to create sub-webs and spin off domains. <-"link farm"
> Only my real concern was since the "link farm" site did have customers
> with a satisfaction or an understanding that we want to maintain our
> customer relations. We thought on our own to have kept the site active
> and in this way we have told old customers, that we have moved and
> incorporated our old static, and out-dated sites to become a single
> robust database driven site.
> Statisically those sites are dust. But, not in the eyes of bot. For
> that we apparently have been penalized ever since rolling out the new
> site. Same domain just uses aspx pages instead of HTML... But that too
> was another major if not critical mass of elements to have caused
> further damage.
> Oh, what a nightmare that is. It's too simple to see it for anything
> for what it is, but now of course it is deemed "spam, link farm" and
> with backlinks.
> We've been online since before Google. Only now to be told that we are
> non-paying servants of Google and that we are essentially getting
> something for nothing. Basically, a direct quote short of "thingy"
> from previous post to this discussion group that it is difficult to
> get anything more from discusion than to use the site: tool or that
> not every URl is listed or more directly the cause of all ailments
> that it is a "link farm." GUILTY!
> I simply regress how or had I known that this was all merely a gesture
> to begin with.
> I'm so grateful to see my house on a map of earth and the ground below
> it that Google has so gracefully provided.
> Thank you.
> On May 3, 1:06 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > You see, that is where I disagree.
> > It is where I think G really Fd up.
> > I think it is also an area (much like the 'hidden content will get you
> > banned - no matter what it is') that is grossly maligned/
> > misunderstood.
> > There are perfectly legitimate reasons for some sites interlinking.
> > Jsut because they are owned by the same company, or built by the same
> > company, does not automatically mean they are a domain farm.
> > Only 3 of my clients link to each other, and that is due to having
> > services and products tha compliment.
> > The majority of hte sites have links back to my site... and my site
> > has links to theirs.
> > Why is this viewed as being bad by some?
> > And sorry, but the whole arguement of 'if it's not for SERP/PR, then
> > simply nofollow.
> > Sorry, I started with websites before Google.
> > It was a standard practice then, and still is.
> > I really doubt G penalises you for it.
> > (Hint at someone from G to please come in and confirm/deny/side-
> > step ;))
> > Should I be going and ripping hte motif/emblem etc. of my car?
> > Remove the labels from my tin food?
> > To me, same difference.
> > It's Branding.
> > The link is there as a simple means for those visitors looking at my
> > works to come to me with ease.
> > I do not see why I should no follwo the link, as it is related.
> > (I now provide a page on all sites I build pointing back to my site -
> > rather than having the link on all pages).
> > Yet I'm not seeing anything from G saying whether this is an
> > acceptable practice or not.
> > This is also an occassional topic on here - and along with some of hte
> > Hidden/CSS/ACCESSibility stuff, I wouldn't mind getting it cleared up
> > a little.
> > If G penalise - then around 25%+ of the web is suffering.
> > If not, then a large number of people are calling out when they
> > shouldn't, and as with the CSS/Hidden stuff, causing fear/worry/stress
> > needlessly.- Hide quoted text -
Great, only there are logistics that I could not resolve. Namely that
the former site was on an Apache server and it was easy to do redirect
as that feature was built in to the host control panel. I had placed
redirects from the folders within the site to the new site and it
didn't work as planned. That was last year a year ago.
When I asked in this forum I was told and did as directed to use the
no follow tag.
Easy enough, I could find and replace the URLs to add the tag.
It was based on that advice that I acted and to again be propagated
like this is not what I want either.
Go do a redirect from a server that no longer exists is something we
have as yet to cover.
On the IIS server the sub domains are redirected to the main site.
If those sub domains even reside anywhere in a search engine I have
not seen any. Nor was I aware that had anything remotely to do with
which pages are indexed or not?
However, the problem of not knowing that back links to the old site
could somehow reference the new site is new to me. That such back
links are considered spam or link farming and penalize everything in
their path is putting the cart before the horse.
Other search engines show links in to the site and between any two
search engines there is not much in the way of common data. Same data,
different answers…
But again I could not redirect each and every web page to its new aspx
page. Hired someone to help and failed. Asked around some more and I
don’t know what I’ve gained here?
I would have thought if not reasonably assumed that a site map and a
verification code would suffice as well as Google Analytics and a
Google base file.
Plus, the Googleindex.aspx page generated in real time that as it
turns out causes a too many sitemaps error. The developers at ASPDNSF
say they want to resolve that. The GSitecrawler submits the same data
and yet does not generate any error code. Everything is read with less
than 10 errors indicated from URLs that appear not to exist that do
exist and pages that are not to be indexed.
I would heed to such advice as to delete the HTML table of contents on
the old ecommerce site, but that to some is valuable information. The
old site is effectively a knowledge base and any link to the new site
as mentioned has a "no follow" tag. The TOC references the HTML site.
It has nothing to do with linking to the other site at all.
Changing to a pure Microsoft server environment from an Apache
environment was part of the process and sure enough I continue to pay
a price for this every step of the way.
My only intention was to ask fair and intuitive questions. If I can
proceed I will. If not, I've not gained anything from advice or
criticism as such as I am not adept to such responses.
Lastly, I assume you work for Google and have the last say and for
that matter dictate the appropriateness of any response.
I hope I am free to ask in the community again for help. I’d very much
like to find someone that is compatible and able to assist me with
areas of web design that have not the knowledge to effectively handle.
> Please revise the responses and go and fix your site accordingly.
> Pay special attention to the need to 301 redirect any secondary sites
> that are identical to your main site, or to portions (e.g. subdomains,
> or subfolders) of your main site, to the corresponding urls on your
> main site, so there will not be any duplication. This will clean up
> the index of duplicates, focus your content into the urls that matter
> and strengthen all of the remaining urls. Furthermore it will remove
> the aura of domain farm (note this is not the same as link farm, but
> it's damaging to all domains involved).
> You cannot hope to get multiple domains indexed and ranking if they
> contain duplicate content as another domain. Even if thyd did get
> indexed once, Google is now in the process of eliminating all this
> duplication and if you don't do the cleanup yoruself, Google will do
> it in a way you won't like.
> On May 3, 4:39 pm, node 1 wrote:
> > Well, a link farm according to some is a former ecommerce site that
> > grew.
> > Now as an owner of a former link farm that had customers I know it
> > might be wise not to tramble on the google bot and simply delete the
> > site. The "no follow" business is as much controversy as not having
> > the no follow tag.
> > Some of us used a prgram in the beginning made by "Microsoft" that
> > severly crushed server resources. The only way to stop the system from
> > crashing was to create sub-webs and spin off domains. <-"link farm"
> > Only my real concern was since the "link farm" site did have customers
> > with a satisfaction or an understanding that we want to maintain our
> > customer relations. We thought on our own to have kept the site active
> > and in this way we have told old customers, that we have moved and
> > incorporated our old static, and out-dated sites to become a single
> > robust database driven site.
> > Statisically those sites are dust. But, not in the eyes of bot. For
> > that we apparently have been penalized ever since rolling out the new
> > site. Same domain just uses aspx pages instead of HTML... But that too
> > was another major if not critical mass of elements to have caused
> > further damage.
> > Oh, what a nightmare that is. It's too simple to see it for anything
> > for what it is, but now of course it is deemed "spam, link farm" and
> > with backlinks.
> > We've been online since before Google. Only now to be told that we are
> > non-paying servants of Google and that we are essentially getting
> > something for nothing. Basically, a direct quote short of "thingy"
> > from previous post to this discussion group that it is difficult to
> > get anything more from discusion than to use the site: tool or that
> > not every URl is listed or more directly the cause of all ailments
> > that it is a "link farm." GUILTY!
> > I simply regress how or had I known that this was all merely a gesture
> > to begin with.
> > I'm so grateful to see my house on a map of earth and the ground below
> > it that Google has so gracefully provided.
> > Thank you.
> > On May 3, 1:06 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > > You see, that is where I disagree.
> > > It is where I think G really Fd up.
> > > I think it is also an area (much like the 'hidden content will get you
> > > banned - no matter what it is') that is grossly maligned/
> > > misunderstood.
> > > There are perfectly legitimate reasons for some sites interlinking.
> > > Jsut because they are owned by the same company, or built by the same
> > > company, does not automatically mean they are a domain farm.
> > > Only 3 of my clients link to each other, and that is due to having
> > > services and products tha compliment.
> > > The majority of hte sites have links back to my site... and my site
> > > has links to theirs.
> > > Why is this viewed as being bad by some?
> > > And sorry, but the whole arguement of 'if it's not for SERP/PR, then
> > > simply nofollow.
> > > Sorry, I started with websites before Google.
> > > It was a standard practice then, and still is.
> > > I really doubt G penalises you for it.
> > > (Hint at someone from G to please come in and confirm/deny/side-
> > > step ;))
> > > Should I be going and ripping hte motif/emblem etc. of my car?
> > > Remove the labels from my tin food?
> > > To me, same difference.
> > > It's Branding.
> > > The link is there as a simple means for those visitors looking at my
> > > works to come to me with ease.
> > > I do not see why I should no follwo the link, as it is related.
> > > (I now provide a page on all sites I build pointing back to my site -
> > > rather than having the link on all pages).
> > > Yet I'm not seeing anything from G saying whether this is an
> > > acceptable practice or not.
> > > This is also an occassional topic on here - and along with some of hte
> > > Hidden/CSS/ACCESSibility stuff, I wouldn't mind getting it cleared up
> > > a little.
> > > If G penalise - then around 25%+ of the web is suffering.
> > > If not, then a large number of people are calling out when they
> > > shouldn't, and as with the CSS/Hidden stuff, causing fear/worry/stress
> > > needlessly.- Hide quoted text -
> I’d very much
> like to find someone that is compatible and able to assist me with
> areas of web design that have not the knowledge to effectively handle.
My advice to you is to stay away from the freelancer websites... it's
the equivalent to hanging around the un-employment lines... jmo...
Find someone local to your area... preferably a production house who
has a staff of people responsible for your project... craigslist can
be pretty good... but if you deal with someone that you can't meet
face to face... ask for a portfolio and references...
If you are unable to sort out your site, you will need to hire a
webmaster with enough knowledge to manage not just the current site
but clean up the vestiges of the old one. Whoever rebuilt your site on
the IIS platform should have taken this into account as well.
Especially ecommerce sites which are usually bad with url management
in the first place, need a lot of attention. There are no quick
comprehensive solutions for changing software for an ecommerce site. A
good developer should have known this and dedicated time to the
strategy of moving the site to the new platform.
I have no quick fix solution for you, not even a slow fix solution.
All you can do is use elbow grease and clean up the site.
Use these methods for coming up with 301 redirections from old urls to
new ones:
http://www.jlh-design.com/2006/08/301-redirects-in-asp-on-iis-server/
If this is too complex for you I'm afraid you will need to hire
somebody who knows what they are doing to do just this.
> Great, only there are logistics that I could not resolve. Namely that
> the former site was on an Apache server and it was easy to do redirect
> as that feature was built in to the host control panel. I had placed
> redirects from the folders within the site to the new site and it
> didn't work as planned. That was last year a year ago.
> When I asked in this forum I was told and did as directed to use the
> no follow tag.
> Easy enough, I could find and replace the URLs to add the tag.
> It was based on that advice that I acted and to again be propagated
> like this is not what I want either.
> Go do a redirect from a server that no longer exists is something we
> have as yet to cover.
> On the IIS server the sub domains are redirected to the main site.
> If those sub domains even reside anywhere in a search engine I have
> not seen any. Nor was I aware that had anything remotely to do with
> which pages are indexed or not?
> However, the problem of not knowing that back links to the old site
> could somehow reference the new site is new to me. That such back
> links are considered spam or link farming and penalize everything in
> their path is putting the cart before the horse.
> Other search engines show links in to the site and between any two
> search engines there is not much in the way of common data. Same data,
> different answers…
> But again I could not redirect each and every web page to its new aspx
> page. Hired someone to help and failed. Asked around some more and I
> don’t know what I’ve gained here?
> I would have thought if not reasonably assumed that a site map and a
> verification code would suffice as well as Google Analytics and a
> Google base file.
> Plus, the Googleindex.aspx page generated in real time that as it
> turns out causes a too many sitemaps error. The developers at ASPDNSF
> say they want to resolve that. The GSitecrawler submits the same data
> and yet does not generate any error code. Everything is read with less
> than 10 errors indicated from URLs that appear not to exist that do
> exist and pages that are not to be indexed.
> I would heed to such advice as to delete the HTML table of contents on
> the old ecommerce site, but that to some is valuable information. The
> old site is effectively a knowledge base and any link to the new site
> as mentioned has a "no follow" tag. The TOC references the HTML site.
> It has nothing to do with linking to the other site at all.
> Changing to a pure Microsoft server environment from an Apache
> environment was part of the process and sure enough I continue to pay
> a price for this every step of the way.
> My only intention was to ask fair and intuitive questions. If I can
> proceed I will. If not, I've not gained anything from advice or
> criticism as such as I am not adept to such responses.
> Lastly, I assume you work for Google and have the last say and for
> that matter dictate the appropriateness of any response.
> I hope I am free to ask in the community again for help. I’d very much
> like to find someone that is compatible and able to assist me with
> areas of web design that have not the knowledge to effectively handle.
> On May 3, 6:35 pm, webado wrote:
> > Node 1, please don't spread yourself into several threads with the
> > same problems.
> > Please revise the responses and go and fix your site accordingly.
> > Pay special attention to the need to 301 redirect any secondary sites
> > that are identical to your main site, or to portions (e.g. subdomains,
> > or subfolders) of your main site, to the corresponding urls on your
> > main site, so there will not be any duplication. This will clean up
> > the index of duplicates, focus your content into the urls that matter
> > and strengthen all of the remaining urls. Furthermore it will remove
> > the aura of domain farm (note this is not the same as link farm, but
> > it's damaging to all domains involved).
> > You cannot hope to get multiple domains indexed and ranking if they
> > contain duplicate content as another domain. Even if thyd did get
> > indexed once, Google is now in the process of eliminating all this
> > duplication and if you don't do the cleanup yoruself, Google will do
> > it in a way you won't like.
> > On May 3, 4:39 pm, node 1 wrote:
> > > Well, a link farm according to some is a former ecommerce site that
> > > grew.
> > > Now as an owner of a former link farm that had customers I know it
> > > might be wise not to tramble on the google bot and simply delete the
> > > site. The "no follow" business is as much controversy as not having
> > > the no follow tag.
> > > Some of us used a prgram in the beginning made by "Microsoft" that
> > > severly crushed server resources. The only way to stop the system from
> > > crashing was to create sub-webs and spin off domains. <-"link farm"
> > > Only my real concern was since the "link farm" site did have customers
> > > with a satisfaction or an understanding that we want to maintain our
> > > customer relations. We thought on our own to have kept the site active
> > > and in this way we have told old customers, that we have moved and
> > > incorporated our old static, and out-dated sites to become a single
> > > robust database driven site.
> > > Statisically those sites are dust. But, not in the eyes of bot. For
> > > that we apparently have been penalized ever since rolling out the new
> > > site. Same domain just uses aspx pages instead of HTML... But that too
> > > was another major if not critical mass of elements to have caused
> > > further damage.
> > > Oh, what a nightmare that is. It's too simple to see it for anything
> > > for what it is, but now of course it is deemed "spam, link farm" and
> > > with backlinks.
> > > We've been online since before Google. Only now to be told that we are
> > > non-paying servants of Google and that we are essentially getting
> > > something for nothing. Basically, a direct quote short of "thingy"
> > > from previous post to this discussion group that it is difficult to
> > > get anything more from discusion than to use the site: tool or that
> > > not every URl is listed or more directly the cause of all ailments
> > > that it is a "link farm." GUILTY!
> > > I simply regress how or had I known that this was all merely a gesture
> > > to begin with.
> > > I'm so grateful to see my house on a map of earth and the ground below
> > > it that Google has so gracefully provided.
> > > Thank you.
> > > On May 3, 1:06 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > > > You see, that is where I disagree.
> > > > It is where I think G really Fd up.
> > > > I think it is also an area (much like the 'hidden content will get you
> > > > banned - no matter what it is') that is grossly maligned/
> > > > misunderstood.
> > > > There are perfectly legitimate reasons for some sites interlinking.
> > > > Jsut because they are owned by the same company, or built by the same
> > > > company, does not automatically mean they are a domain farm.
> > > > Only 3 of my clients link to each other, and that is due to having
> > > > services and products tha compliment.
> > > > The majority of hte sites have links back to my site... and my site
> > > > has links to theirs.
> > > > Why is this viewed as being bad by some?
> > > > And sorry, but the whole arguement of 'if it's not for SERP/PR, then
> > > > simply nofollow.
> > > > Sorry, I started with websites before Google.
> > > > It was a standard practice then, and still is.
> > > > I really doubt G penalises you for it.
> > > > (Hint at someone from G to please come in and confirm/deny/side-
> > > > step ;))
> > > > Should I be going and ripping hte motif/emblem etc. of my car?
> > > > Remove the labels from my tin food?
> > > > To me, same difference.
> > > > It's Branding.
> > > > The link is there as a simple means for those visitors looking at my
> > > > works to come to me with ease.
> > > > I do not see why I should no follwo the link, as it is related.
> > > > (I now provide a page on all sites I build pointing back to my site -
> > > > rather than having the link on all pages).
> > > > Yet I'm not seeing anything from G saying whether this is an
> > > > acceptable practice or not.
...MrGamma...
Ermm...
"... My advice to you is to stay away from the freelancer websites...
it's the equivalent to hanging around the un-employment lines...
jmo... ..."
...I'm a freelancer :D
(And yes, I generally agree with your view ;))
One type of link farm is the reciprocal linking services. Stay away
and do it yourself. Got one of those darn registry cleaner trojans.
Running adware, spybot, bit defender and macaffe but still doing bs
popups every couple of minutes! URRGH
> ...Node1...
> PLEASE stop hijacking other topics.
> ...MrGamma...
> Ermm...
> "... My advice to you is to stay away from the freelancer websites...
> it's the equivalent to hanging around the un-employment lines...
> jmo... ..."
> ...I'm a freelancer :D
> (And yes, I generally agree with your view ;))
I keep getting 2 IE windows open on every link click :D
(I've manually blocked the sods from running, but I cannot see what is
causeing my IE issues!)
Still... back on topic.
Okay....
We generally now, straight up, what a full on Link Farm is.
It's the 'fringe' and 'border' areas I'm worried about (and plety of
other web designers/owners etc. too).
That said... Maybe if we all provide a list of what we see Link Farms
as being... maybe that will get a comment for Google as to whether it
is correct or not.
(I just hate the idea of damaging sites needlessly, or not doing
somehting that is safe out of fear!)
Maybe if we all provide a list of what we see Link Farms
> as being... maybe that will get a comment for Google as to whether it
> is correct or not.
Here are two "directories" that have been around for years and are
highly rated. They say "link to us and we will add your web site to
our directories."
Are these "Link Farms" and to be avoided linking to?
Now, I thought a Domain Farm was when a person/company owns numerous
domains and uses them for earning money (be it through having a site
made for adverts, through and/or through flogging it on at a
disgustinglyu high price).
I thought a Link Farm wwas meant to be
a) When a person/Company has many sites/domains, and attempts to link
between them in an effort to obtain better Rankings.
b) When a certain domain (or several such sites) acts as a central
point for a network of links.
Is this incorrect?
How to decide where the line is drawn... considering some sites have
lots of links in/out... but are quality sites, and appear to have
legitimate links?
> Now, I thought a Domain Farm was when a person/company owns numerous
> domains and uses them for earning money (be it through having a site
> made for adverts, through and/or through flogging it on at a
> disgustinglyu high price).
> I thought a Link Farm wwas meant to be
> a) When a person/Company has many sites/domains, and attempts to link
> between them in an effort to obtain better Rankings.
> b) When a certain domain (or several such sites) acts as a central
> point for a network of links.
> Is this incorrect?
> How to decide where the line is drawn... considering some sites have
> lots of links in/out... but are quality sites, and appear to have
> legitimate links?
> You can continue to skew the terms and definition for all that it is
> worth. But a one site limit per person per "farm" on the net is short
> sided.
There is no such limit. You can cheerfully have as many domains as
you want.
The problems start when you link between them. Even then, links
designed for users to navigate can "get out of jail free" with a
rel="nofollow" attribute.
You have one of the most "in your face" little domain farms on the
web. I pointed this out to you MONTHS ago. You've done nothing about
it (or any of the other problems pointed out to you) and you're still
whingeing. Frankly, you're almost an object worthy of study.
Check out a few multinationals - like IBM. http://ww.ibm.com for
instance. IBM does business in Germany - type http://www.ibm.de into
your browser and watch what happens. And IBM is active in perhaps
thousands of barely related businesses - all with _ONE_ domain name.
Get the picture?
As far as the way forward with your personal domain farm is concerned,
there are two options:
|
