Yes there are links between the utheguru.com site and backless site, but last I heard it wasn't a crime to link between your sites - I'm absolutely certain I'm not the only person here that links between pages on their own sites without using a link condom.
Last I heard the worst a site could get for 'paid links' (and 'paid' is a word that seems to be open to interpretation / misinterpretation) was to have the ability of those links to pass pagerank discounted. Sure - that's fine - but a penalty? My businesses are run by the same entity - I'd like to pass pagerank between my sites to make the business as a whole stronger. Is that evil? I don't think so. Real world businesses use the benefit of traffic and reputation to spin off new real world businesses all the time.
How would it be any different if backless was a tiered site with one part for selling lingerie, one part for giving free IT advice, another part for a forum - would google then penalise the site for passing pagerank between 'unrelated' areas? I don't think so.
Unfortunately yahoo site explorer is down, but I'll say with some clarity that any link value carried via links between backless and utheguru are dwarfed by natural links gained from other sites.
> > Completely irrelevant to your actual question, but in the advert at > > the bottom right of the Homepage do you mean "More discrete than a > > brief" or "More discreet than a brief"?
> > Maybe it's just the peculiarities of my set up (MS Windows Vista) but > > the video would not run under either Firefox 2.0.0.5 or IE 7.
Discussion subject changed to "site: search doesn't return index page, search for product does - penalty sign - BLADAM a bad neighborhood?" by Phil Payne
> My businesses are run by the same > entity - I'd like to pass pagerank between my sites to make the > business as a whole stronger. Is that evil?
Yes.
A lot of people have been registering multiple domains and passing links between them to create the impression that their sites are a lot more popular than they really are. From posts here over the last week, I'm pretty sure that Google is now starting to take action against these sites.
I must go and look for the hint - it will be somewhere in the blogs. When Google's about to pull a stunt like this, it drops heavy hints. Rel="nofollow" has been available for over two years now.
There are several places in the Guidelines where this is sniffed at.
Well I think if that's the case it needs to be very heavily hinted - in fact, it should be clearly spelled out.
Google has talked alot about paid links, but never, as far as I can see, spelled out clearly that a paid link includes cross linking between your own sites. There has been loads of chatter even before the advent of nofollow that links between sites on the same IP address or c block might be deprecated for PR purposes, but never have I seen it written anywhere that it's against the rules to link between your own sites without nofollow - nofollow is to be used for sites that you can't or don't want to vouch for - well, I'm sorry, but I'm quite happy to vouch for my own sites.
As a matter of fact, I've seen advice given by Googlers that would tend to indicate that asking friends etc to link to you is fine - the difference between asking a friend to link to you to give your site a shot at ranking and using your own repertoire of sites to do the same thing is a distinction to me that is a little bit blurry. When does a link become a paid link?
If simply crosslinking your sites is a penalty worthy sin, I could run off a list of thousands of big companies that do it routinely - including google, yahoo, msn, microsoft, dell, ibm, volkswagon... you get the picture.
If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty for doing so, ie above and beyond just having the link value of those links removed, I'd think that was a quantum shift in policy and something that could do with some additional clarification.
> > My businesses are run by the same > > entity - I'd like to pass pagerank between my sites to make the > > business as a whole stronger. Is that evil?
> Yes.
> A lot of people have been registering multiple domains and passing > links between them to create the impression that their sites are a lot > more popular than they really are. From posts here over the last > week, I'm pretty sure that Google is now starting to take action > against these sites.
> I must go and look for the hint - it will be somewhere in the blogs. > When Google's about to pull a stunt like this, it drops heavy hints. > Rel="nofollow" has been available for over two years now.
> There are several places in the Guidelines where this is sniffed at.
Maybe the relevancy of the links, anchor text, context of the link if within text and the pages content come into play. There is also this "intent" factor kicked about.
> If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty
Besides the placement of your "home" page in the site:SERPs is there anything else? Position in normal searches, traffic, etc...?
> Well I think if that's the case it needs to be very heavily hinted - > in fact, it should be clearly spelled out.
> Google has talked alot about paid links, but never, as far as I can > see, spelled out clearly that a paid link includes cross linking > between your own sites. There has been loads of chatter even before > the advent of nofollow that links between sites on the same IP address > or c block might be deprecated for PR purposes, but never have I seen > it written anywhere that it's against the rules to link between your > own sites without nofollow - nofollow is to be used for sites that you > can't or don't want to vouch for - well, I'm sorry, but I'm quite > happy to vouch for my own sites.
> As a matter of fact, I've seen advice given by Googlers that would > tend to indicate that asking friends etc to link to you is fine - the > difference between asking a friend to link to you to give your site a > shot at ranking and using your own repertoire of sites to do the same > thing is a distinction to me that is a little bit blurry. When does a > link become a paid link?
> If simply crosslinking your sites is a penalty worthy sin, I could run > off a list of thousands of big companies that do it routinely - > including google, yahoo, msn, microsoft, dell, ibm, volkswagon... you > get the picture.
> If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty for > doing so, ie above and beyond just having the link value of those > links removed, I'd think that was a quantum shift in policy and > something that could do with some additional clarification.
> M
> On Aug 13, 6:46 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > My businesses are run by the same > > > entity - I'd like to pass pagerank between my sites to make the > > > business as a whole stronger. Is that evil?
> > Yes.
> > A lot of people have been registering multiple domains and passing > > links between them to create the impression that their sites are a lot > > more popular than they really are. From posts here over the last > > week, I'm pretty sure that Google is now starting to take action > > against these sites.
> > I must go and look for the hint - it will be somewhere in the blogs. > > When Google's about to pull a stunt like this, it drops heavy hints. > > Rel="nofollow" has been available for over two years now.
> > There are several places in the Guidelines where this is sniffed at.- Hide quoted text -
Could well be Tim - I've often thought that must be part of what they use to detect 'paid' links - but at the end of the day, so far they've only said that this will result in deprecation of PR, not a funky 'your index page is no longer first in a site: search' shot-over-the- bow warning :)
I dunno.. maybe it's something totally different and I've just exposed myself for the evil black-hat that I am... sheesh... :P
> Maybe the relevancy of the links, anchor text, > context of the link if within text and the pages content > come into play. There is also this "intent" factor kicked about.
> > If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty
> Besides the placement of your "home" page in the site:SERPs > is there anything else? Position in normal searches, traffic, etc...?
> Abracadabra (Tim)
> On Aug 13, 5:26 am, dockarl wrote:
> > Well I think if that's the case it needs to be very heavily hinted - > > in fact, it should be clearly spelled out.
> > Google has talked alot about paid links, but never, as far as I can > > see, spelled out clearly that a paid link includes cross linking > > between your own sites. There has been loads of chatter even before > > the advent of nofollow that links between sites on the same IP address > > or c block might be deprecated for PR purposes, but never have I seen > > it written anywhere that it's against the rules to link between your > > own sites without nofollow - nofollow is to be used for sites that you > > can't or don't want to vouch for - well, I'm sorry, but I'm quite > > happy to vouch for my own sites.
> > As a matter of fact, I've seen advice given by Googlers that would > > tend to indicate that asking friends etc to link to you is fine - the > > difference between asking a friend to link to you to give your site a > > shot at ranking and using your own repertoire of sites to do the same > > thing is a distinction to me that is a little bit blurry. When does a > > link become a paid link?
> > If simply crosslinking your sites is a penalty worthy sin, I could run > > off a list of thousands of big companies that do it routinely - > > including google, yahoo, msn, microsoft, dell, ibm, volkswagon... you > > get the picture.
> > If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty for > > doing so, ie above and beyond just having the link value of those > > links removed, I'd think that was a quantum shift in policy and > > something that could do with some additional clarification.
> > M
> > On Aug 13, 6:46 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > > My businesses are run by the same > > > > entity - I'd like to pass pagerank between my sites to make the > > > > business as a whole stronger. Is that evil?
> > > Yes.
> > > A lot of people have been registering multiple domains and passing > > > links between them to create the impression that their sites are a lot > > > more popular than they really are. From posts here over the last > > > week, I'm pretty sure that Google is now starting to take action > > > against these sites.
> > > I must go and look for the hint - it will be somewhere in the blogs. > > > When Google's about to pull a stunt like this, it drops heavy hints. > > > Rel="nofollow" has been available for over two years now.
> > > There are several places in the Guidelines where this is sniffed at.- Hide quoted text -
> only said that this will result in deprecation of PR
Well Matt, in the old days of the "Supps" pages with lower PR or below the boundry of main and supplementary indexes did in fact show up lower in the site:SERPs, Which is what you are seeing.
> 'your index page is no longer first in a site: search' shot-over-the- > bow warning :)
Maybe a cigar is just a cigar. Or possibly something else ;-) How's that for a definite maybe!
FWIW As a user I like it when I go to a page relating to a certain topic and if there is a link on that page and I click it, I ~expect it to be relevant.
Are these links "in the open" or contextualized? e.g. Within a relevant article.
> Could well be Tim - I've often thought that must be part of what they > use to detect 'paid' links - but at the end of the day, so far they've > only said that this will result in deprecation of PR, not a funky > 'your index page is no longer first in a site: search' shot-over-the- > bow warning :)
> I dunno.. maybe it's something totally different and I've just exposed > myself for the evil black-hat that I am... sheesh... :P
> M
> On Aug 13, 7:48 pm, abracadabra wrote:
> > Maybe the relevancy of the links, anchor text, > > context of the link if within text and the pages content > > come into play. There is also this "intent" factor kicked about.
> > > If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty
> > Besides the placement of your "home" page in the site:SERPs > > is there anything else? Position in normal searches, traffic, etc...?
> > Abracadabra (Tim)
> > On Aug 13, 5:26 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > Well I think if that's the case it needs to be very heavily hinted - > > > in fact, it should be clearly spelled out.
> > > Google has talked alot about paid links, but never, as far as I can > > > see, spelled out clearly that a paid link includes cross linking > > > between your own sites. There has been loads of chatter even before > > > the advent of nofollow that links between sites on the same IP address > > > or c block might be deprecated for PR purposes, but never have I seen > > > it written anywhere that it's against the rules to link between your > > > own sites without nofollow - nofollow is to be used for sites that you > > > can't or don't want to vouch for - well, I'm sorry, but I'm quite > > > happy to vouch for my own sites.
> > > As a matter of fact, I've seen advice given by Googlers that would > > > tend to indicate that asking friends etc to link to you is fine - the > > > difference between asking a friend to link to you to give your site a > > > shot at ranking and using your own repertoire of sites to do the same > > > thing is a distinction to me that is a little bit blurry. When does a > > > link become a paid link?
> > > If simply crosslinking your sites is a penalty worthy sin, I could run > > > off a list of thousands of big companies that do it routinely - > > > including google, yahoo, msn, microsoft, dell, ibm, volkswagon... you > > > get the picture.
> > > If this is actually an indication that I've received a penalty for > > > doing so, ie above and beyond just having the link value of those > > > links removed, I'd think that was a quantum shift in policy and > > > something that could do with some additional clarification.
> > > M
> > > On Aug 13, 6:46 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > > > My businesses are run by the same > > > > > entity - I'd like to pass pagerank between my sites to make the > > > > > business as a whole stronger. Is that evil?
> > > > Yes.
> > > > A lot of people have been registering multiple domains and passing > > > > links between them to create the impression that their sites are a lot > > > > more popular than they really are. From posts here over the last > > > > week, I'm pretty sure that Google is now starting to take action > > > > against these sites.
> > > > I must go and look for the hint - it will be somewhere in the blogs. > > > > When Google's about to pull a stunt like this, it drops heavy hints. > > > > Rel="nofollow" has been available for over two years now.
> > > > There are several places in the Guidelines where this is sniffed at.- Hide quoted text -
> If simply crosslinking your sites is a penalty worthy sin, I could run > off a list of thousands of big companies that do it routinely - > including google, yahoo, msn, microsoft, dell, ibm, volkswagon... you > get the picture.
I doubt they do - at least not specifically for the purpose of gaining pseudo-links to game the search engines.
Doc - YOUR SITE backlesslingerie.com IS NOT WORKING as of 15:00 GMT on 13/08/07 (I guess that's sleeptime down under!)
I think your backlesslingerie.com site has quite a few issues to sort out before you can really isolate what is going on regarding the position of the Homepage in the SERPS for a site: search.
In my opinion, links from one of your sites to another of your sites is quite a normal and natural thing to do; not anything underhand or deceptive per se. If google rates the relevance or quality of thos links low, their value will obviously be discounted partially or fully. Each of those sites has a geneuine independent existent; they were not created to draw people in on false pretences and then shift them over to another domain.
The site seems to be "down" at the moment; SQL error report for most indexed pages that I clicked on. So detailed analysis will have to wait.
Two pages from your domain that did load were from your forum (backless lingerie forum??) and had a link to "Home" that was to a different domain altogether (not backless anything!). Not sure if Jaisaben Enterprise Forum has anything to do with backless lingerie??) I think this is an oversight that would be worth correcting as linking to another site when the link text is "Home" is IMO not good.
