Newsday.com is the only site amongst the major Tribune newspaper sites
that has a Toolbar PageRank of a 5 versus an 8. I have asked a few
Google employees to help me out but they state the standard response
of 'ask your question in Google Webmaster Help Group'. So . . . here
I am.
1. Yes, I know TB PR doesn't matter. I've tried to explain this to
Newsday but . . . they still want an answer.
2. Yes, I tried #1 above several times. But they still want an
answer.
3. I did a site review and I don't see anything materially different
than what is on the other Tribune newspaper sites (certainly nothing
that would warrant this much of a delta).
4. There are no warnings in G'Webmaster Tools.
5. We are pearly white in regards to paid links (we don't need to buy
them and we don't sell them).
6. The registrar information is slightly different than the other
domains but I doubt that would have an impact.
What am I missing? I'd prefer a Google Employee response but will
take responses from any SEO that can figure this out.
Just from a cursory review I noticed that the links in the footer of
Newsday are not nofollowed and could be construed as paid links or
excessive interlinking between a network of sites. When I checked
Chicago Tribune all of their footer links are nofollowed. Without a
more in depth look I can't be 100% sure but that could be a reason for
low PR.
On Jul 8, 1:11 pm, Tribune Interactive SEO Team wrote:
> Newsday.com is the only site amongst the major Tribune newspaper sites
> that has a Toolbar PageRank of a 5 versus an 8. I have asked a few
> Google employees to help me out but they state the standard response
> of 'ask your question in Google Webmaster Help Group'. So . . . here
> I am.
> 1. Yes, I know TB PR doesn't matter. I've tried to explain this to
> Newsday but . . . they still want an answer.
> 2. Yes, I tried #1 above several times. But they still want an
> answer.
> 3. I did a site review and I don't see anything materially different
> than what is on the other Tribune newspaper sites (certainly nothing
> that would warrant this much of a delta).
> 4. There are no warnings in G'Webmaster Tools.
> 5. We are pearly white in regards to paid links (we don't need to buy
> them and we don't sell them).
> 6. The registrar information is slightly different than the other
> domains but I doubt that would have an impact.
> What am I missing? I'd prefer a Google Employee response but will
> take responses from any SEO that can figure this out.
pilo SEO . . . nice find, didn't realize the other market's templates
didn't have this updated. This is a recent change though (since I got
here in February) so I doubt that is it. I will get this updated
though.
> Just from a cursory review I noticed that the links in the footer of
> Newsday are not nofollowed and could be construed as paid links or
> excessive interlinking between a network of sites. When I checked
> Chicago Tribune all of their footer links are nofollowed. Without a
> more in depth look I can't be 100% sure but that could be a reason for
> low PR.
> On Jul 8, 1:11 pm, Tribune Interactive SEO Team wrote:
> > This one has me stumped.
> > Newsday.com is the only site amongst the major Tribune newspaper sites
> > that has a Toolbar PageRank of a 5 versus an 8. I have asked a few
> > Google employees to help me out but they state the standard response
> > of 'ask your question in Google Webmaster Help Group'. So . . . here
> > I am.
> > 1. Yes, I know TB PR doesn't matter. I've tried to explain this to
> > Newsday but . . . they still want an answer.
> > 2. Yes, I tried #1 above several times. But they still want an
> > answer.
> > 3. I did a site review and I don't see anything materially different
> > than what is on the other Tribune newspaper sites (certainly nothing
> > that would warrant this much of a delta).
> > 4. There are no warnings in G'Webmaster Tools.
> > 5. We are pearly white in regards to paid links (we don't need to buy
> > them and we don't sell them).
> > 6. The registrar information is slightly different than the other
> > domains but I doubt that would have an impact.
> > What am I missing? I'd prefer a Google Employee response but will
> > take responses from any SEO that can figure this out.
> > Brent D. Payne
> > SEO Manager
> > Tribune- Hide quoted text -
I always find it funny when people come here looking for PR/TR answers
from G. They have gotten MUCH better, but when it comes to PR/TR you
probably won't get much of a response.
I assume you have the Inbound ( un-nofollowed ) PR7-8 links to warrant
the expectation, because as I understand it this is really all that
counts when determining PR.
PR/TR discussions here are hardly ever responded to by the regulars
let alone G, except what you have probably already heard:
Toolbar rank is crap, don’t even look at it concentrate on content.
Toolbar rank is old data, don’t even look at it concentrate on
content.
No one knows what PR/TR G uses internally and G isn’t talking, don’t
even look at it concentrate on content.
SERP position is the only thing that counts, don’t even look at it
concentrate on content.
( this is actually true )
However it is nice to know that you get the same stupid answers as the
rest of us, kinda gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Google won’t answer in any meaningful way on the forum, I will bet
money on it.
-Bill
On Jul 8, 12:11 pm, Tribune Interactive SEO Team wrote:
> Newsday.com is the only site amongst the major Tribune newspaper sites
> that has a Toolbar PageRank of a 5 versus an 8. I have asked a few
> Google employees to help me out but they state the standard response
> of 'ask your question in Google Webmaster Help Group'. So . . . here
> I am.
> 1. Yes, I know TB PR doesn't matter. I've tried to explain this to
> Newsday but . . . they still want an answer.
> 2. Yes, I tried #1 above several times. But they still want an
> answer.
> 3. I did a site review and I don't see anything materially different
> than what is on the other Tribune newspaper sites (certainly nothing
> that would warrant this much of a delta).
> 4. There are no warnings in G'Webmaster Tools.
> 5. We are pearly white in regards to paid links (we don't need to buy
> them and we don't sell them).
> 6. The registrar information is slightly different than the other
> domains but I doubt that would have an impact.
> What am I missing? I'd prefer a Google Employee response but will
> take responses from any SEO that can figure this out.
Yep, already aware of all the points you made but you missed one.
High ranking executives don't give a crap about all of the above and
still want answers. ;-)
As for Google . . . believe me, by the time I am posting here
expecting Google to answer, I have exhausted all other options. It's
tough for Google to respond publicly because it becomes doctrine. I
understand that . . . but when all else fails--I try here too.
> I always find it funny when people come here looking for PR/TR answers
> from G. They have gotten MUCH better, but when it comes to PR/TR you
> probably won't get much of a response.
> I assume you have the Inbound ( un-nofollowed ) PR7-8 links to warrant
> the expectation, because as I understand it this is really all that
> counts when determining PR.
> PR/TR discussions here are hardly ever responded to by the regulars
> let alone G, except what you have probably already heard:
> Toolbar rank is crap, don’t even look at it concentrate on content.
> Toolbar rank is old data, don’t even look at it concentrate on
> content.
> No one knows what PR/TR G uses internally and G isn’t talking, don’t
> even look at it concentrate on content.
> SERP position is the only thing that counts, don’t even look at it
> concentrate on content.
> ( this is actually true )
> However it is nice to know that you get the same stupid answers as the
> rest of us, kinda gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
> Google won’t answer in any meaningful way on the forum, I will bet
> money on it.
> -Bill
> On Jul 8, 12:11 pm, Tribune Interactive SEO Team wrote:
> > This one has me stumped.
> > Newsday.com is the only site amongst the major Tribune newspaper sites
> > that has a Toolbar PageRank of a 5 versus an 8. I have asked a few
> > Google employees to help me out but they state the standard response
> > of 'ask your question in Google Webmaster Help Group'. So . . . here
> > I am.
> > 1. Yes, I know TB PR doesn't matter. I've tried to explain this to
> > Newsday but . . . they still want an answer.
> > 2. Yes, I tried #1 above several times. But they still want an
> > answer.
> > 3. I did a site review and I don't see anything materially different
> > than what is on the other Tribune newspaper sites (certainly nothing
> > that would warrant this much of a delta).
> > 4. There are no warnings in G'Webmaster Tools.
> > 5. We are pearly white in regards to paid links (we don't need to buy
> > them and we don't sell them).
> > 6. The registrar information is slightly different than the other
> > domains but I doubt that would have an impact.
> > What am I missing? I'd prefer a Google Employee response but will
> > take responses from any SEO that can figure this out.
> > Brent D. Payne
> > SEO Manager
> > Tribune- Hide quoted text -
Tell you what...
why not point us to an Email address.
You can get various opinions/advice/input, in email format, to show
that you not only asked, but got numerous responses, all saying
roughly the same thing.
Don'#t know, Don't care, Doesn't matter
:D
.
No, seriously, I'm sure one or two of us would willing send you
(polite, informative, professional) emails to backup your statements/
explanations.
I have those from Googlers, Rand Fishkin, Gab Goldenberg, Will
Critchlow, and others. Bottom line is they want to know why it is
lower EVEN IF it doesn't matter. They expect an answer.
If anyone wishes to send an email though you can send it to tribune
dot seo at googly-woogly's email service. ;-)
> Tell you what...
> why not point us to an Email address.
> You can get various opinions/advice/input, in email format, to show
> that you not only asked, but got numerous responses, all saying
> roughly the same thing.
> Don'#t know, Don't care, Doesn't matter
> :D
> .
> No, seriously, I'm sure one or two of us would willing send you
> (polite, informative, professional) emails to backup your statements/
> explanations.
Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
quality, good PR sites for new links.
Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
Archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
the following "Featured Links":
Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
Hamptons Travel
Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
may impact your site's standing in Google:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
your site by following the steps here:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> quality, good PR sites for new links.
> Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
> Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
> around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
> the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
> Archive.org:http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
> Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
> the following "Featured Links":
> Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
> Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
> Hamptons Travel
> Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
> that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
> may impact your site's standing in Google:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
> Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
> that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
> your site by following the steps here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> Best,
> Reid
> On Jul 8, 12:44 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > Is that a real email address?
> > :D
> > .
> > Seriously, I'd start ignoring them then.
> > Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> > but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> > Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> > the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> > those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> > bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> > link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> > and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> > quality, good PR sites for new links.
I mentioned this to Adam, John, and others several times and I did the
reinclusion request months ago. Glad to see it was fixed today and
happy to see a detailed response here in the Google Webmaster forums
on this issue.
You have restored my faith in the Google Webmaster Forums. ;-)
P.S. And yes they have been pearly white since I got here (as much as
I can manage across the multiple dozens of domains I am responsible
for anyway).
> Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
> Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
> around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
> the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
> Archive.org:http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
> Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
> the following "Featured Links":
> Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
> Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
> Hamptons Travel
> Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
> that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
> may impact your site's standing in Google:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
> Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
> that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
> your site by following the steps here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> Best,
> Reid
> On Jul 8, 12:44 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > Is that a real email address?
> > :D
> > .
> > Seriously, I'd start ignoring them then.
> > Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> > but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> > Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> > the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> > those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> > bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> > link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> > and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> > quality, good PR sites for new links.- Hide quoted text -
> Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
> Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
> around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
> the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
> Archive.org:http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
> Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
> the following "Featured Links":
> Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
> Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
> Hamptons Travel
> Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
> that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
> may impact your site's standing in Google:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
> Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
> that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
> your site by following the steps here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> Best,
> Reid
> On Jul 8, 12:44 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > Is that a real email address?
> > :D
> > .
> > Seriously, I'd start ignoring them then.
> > Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> > but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> > Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> > the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> > those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> > bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> > link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> > and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> > quality, good PR sites for new links.- Hide quoted text -
> > Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
> > Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
> > around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
> > the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
> > Archive.org:http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
> > Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
> > the following "Featured Links":
> > Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
> > Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
> > Hamptons Travel
> > Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> > manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
> > that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
> > may impact your site's standing in Google:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> > If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
> > Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
> > that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
> > your site by following the steps here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> > Best,
> > Reid
> > On Jul 8, 12:44 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > > Is that a real email address?
> > > :D
> > > .
> > > Seriously, I'd start ignoring them then.
> > > Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> > > but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> > > Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> > > the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> > > those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> > > bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> > > link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> > > and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> > > quality, good PR sites for new links.- Hide quoted text -
I'm really curious about this - given all the talk about link farms,
and your comment
> Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> manipulate search engine rankings
What's the take on all the links to their other sites? I personally
have no issue with sites linking out to other sites under their
corporate entity, but given the anchor text on some of those links is
quite obviously "intended to manipulate search engine rankings" how is
it that this penalty has been lifted?
Apologies to Brent - my intention here isn't to cause problems for his
site, but instead to clarify what exactly this particular guideline is
saying.
Right now it's about as clear as mud IMO.
> Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
> Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
> around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
> the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
> Archive.org:http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
> Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
> the following "Featured Links":
> Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
> Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
> Hamptons Travel
> Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
> that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
> may impact your site's standing in Google:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
> Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
> that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
> your site by following the steps here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> Best,
> Reid
> On Jul 8, 12:44 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > Is that a real email address?
> > :D
> > .
> > Seriously, I'd start ignoring them then.
> > Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> > but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> > Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> > the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> > those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> > bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> > link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> > and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> > quality, good PR sites for new links.
Just my opinion but this was a demonstration of how “broke” the
penalties are. One would have to consider the Daily News a highly
trusted domain ( TR ) and has many external links from trusted domains
to prove it ( high PR ). And given this it still fell through the re-
inclusion cracks.
It also demonstrates that TBPR is anything but useless, outdated and
should be ignored. If your TBPR falls, chances are G thinks something
is wrong and as a webmaster you should spare no effort in determining
why.
If this had been nearly anyone but a PR8 site the advice here would
most likely have been to ignore this because TBPR is useless. I
understand how and why this myth propagates, what I don’t understand
is why G encourages it.
And herein lay the biggest problem, how do you know what went wrong???
And when?
> Just my opinion but this was a demonstration of how “broke” the
> penalties are. One would have to consider the Daily News a highly
> trusted domain ( TR ) and has many external links from trusted domains
> to prove it ( high PR ). And given this it still fell through the re-
> inclusion cracks.
> It also demonstrates that TBPR is anything but useless, outdated and
> should be ignored. If your TBPR falls, chances are G thinks something
> is wrong and as a webmaster you should spare no effort in determining
> why.
> If this had been nearly anyone but a PR8 site the advice here would
> most likely have been to ignore this because TBPR is useless. I
> understand how and why this myth propagates, what I don’t understand
> is why G encourages it.
> And herein lay the biggest problem, how do you know what went wrong???
> And when?
> On Jul 12, 8:39 am, amaxon2000 wrote:
> > The site is a PR 8 NOW... any ideas what chaged in couple or hours.- Hide quoted text -
I've updated the footer to include a dozen or more additional
nofollows. This was simply a matter of me not having had time or
focus on getting the footer links resolved. I had higher priorities
to look after.
Frankly, I think footer links are highly over-rated especially when a
page has hundreds of links on it in more heavily considered areas of
the page. The links that remain are either left for spider
discoverability purposes (yes, we own the sites or have a vested
interest in them) or simply because I can't edit the correct template
to add the nofollow tag.
I see nothing wrong in linking to other domains you own. If I was
linking to another page on our domain nobody would be complaining.
It's not like we are doing it to manipulate anything. It's simply the
way we chose to go to market. Similiar in nature to why we still
maintain the brands of L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday (until the
sale is complete), Baltimore Sun, etc. versus having a single Tribune
site that doesn't have the household name recognition, trust, and
loyalty of the other brands.
The part that frustrates me is that I received no penalty warning in
Google Webmaster Tools about this. I continued to ask contacts within
Google and they told me nothing, etc. It wasn't until I posted here
(which I try not to do because of the publicity it creates either
internally by those that see it or externally such as what is
happening with this situation) that Google confirmed there even was a
penalty. To top it off, I told Google about the penalty both verbally
and via their form submissions and I requested a reconsideration both
verbally and via form submission MONTHS ago. While I am thankful that
this was addressed, very thankful actually, I really feel that there
is a vast improvement needed in this area for Google. Specifically an
improvement in communication with Webmasters via a tool they already
have in place which is the Messages inside of Google Webmaster Tools.
Personally, I think the policy is clear. You can't link to sites that
pay you to link to them (and pass the pagerank to them). Don't setup
tons of sites to manipulate the SERPs but I don't think that extends
to maintaining different sites for branding purposes that contain
materially different content. (Yes, AP plays a role in duplication
but Google is getting better at that--though I do feel an
'originalsource' tag would be useful.)
Alright . . . getting long winded but you get my overall perception on
this . . .
> I'm really curious about this - given all the talk about link farms,
> and your comment
> > Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> > manipulate search engine rankings
> What's the take on all the links to their other sites? I personally
> have no issue with sites linking out to other sites under their
> corporate entity, but given the anchor text on some of those links is
> quite obviously "intended to manipulate search engine rankings" how is
> it that this penalty has been lifted?
> Apologies to Brent - my intention here isn't to cause problems for his
> site, but instead to clarify what exactly this particular guideline is
> saying.
> Right now it's about as clear as mud IMO.
> Rgds
> Richard
> On Jul 9, 4:31 pm, Reid wrote:
> > Hi Brent,
> > Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're posting here in the Webmaster
> > Help Group, because the discussions here help educate webmasters
> > around the globe. I just checked over newsday.com and compared it to
> > the most recent version of newsday.com that was indexed by
> > Archive.org:http://web.archive.org/web/20070829225145/http://www.newsday.com/
> > Scrolling near the bottom of what your site used to look like, I see
> > the following "Featured Links":
> > Mesothelioma Lawyer Lung Cancer Personal Injury Law Firm
> > Buy Mets Tickets Buy Yankees Tickets Wicked Tickets
> > Hamptons Travel
> > Please remember that participating in link schemes intended to
> > manipulate search engine rankings, including buying or selling links
> > that pass PageRank, is a violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, and
> > may impact your site's standing in Google:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> > If you believe your site was at one point in violation of the
> > Webmaster Guidelines, and you have since made changes to your site so
> > that it fits within the guidelines, you can request reconsideration of
> > your site by following the steps here:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> > Best,
> > Reid
> > On Jul 8, 12:44 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > > Is that a real email address?
> > > :D
> > > .
> > > Seriously, I'd start ignoring them then.
> > > Either that, or call a meeting and state thet you may have a solution,
> > > but it's going to cost around the region of 14,000.
> > > Thats to cover the expenses, time and resources required to pull apart
> > > the external link infrastructure of the other sites, then contact all
> > > those sites/companies/people that link to the other site, and then
> > > bribe them to ensure they are linking to this site (thats not buying a
> > > link... bribing is competely different ;)), and using good link text,
> > > and possibly locate (after spending days scouring the net) high
> > > quality, good PR sites for new links.- Hide quoted text -
I was told numerous times that I should indeed ignore this TBPR issue
because it doesn't matter. I heard this from very well known SEO
experts. I heard this from several people within Google (I don't
release names). My primary reason for getting this changed was not
because I felt it would impact the traffic to the site from Google or
the rankings in Google but because it was a political issue for me
internally. When the General Manager of one of your top 3 sites is
conscerned about something that is squarely your responsibility to
fix . . . hey, it becomes important to you. Especially after you have
made an attempt to tell her several times that as long as traffic is
increasing you are fine and she still wants the problem fixed. ;-)
There are some very marked periods of decline for Newsday.com (before
I got here--don't know why and wouldn't tell if I did) but the penalty
was put in place somewhere in 2007 (it may be public so feel free to
research and let me know). Continuing to watch how things go for the
next few months will be very telling as to whether TBPR really does
matter.
No matter how this goes . . . it'll be a really good case study on
TBPR, huh? ;-) Need to be careful though regarding noise in the test
as just because traffic may be doing something overall the SEO traffic
may be doing something else entirely. Guess I'll be the only one that
knows the true, true story but . . . you should be able to get a
decent idea from watching G'Trends.
Fun stuff! Another reason why I love my job and love the Search
Industry. ;-)
> Just my opinion but this was a demonstration of how “broke” the
> penalties are. One would have to consider the Daily News a highly
> trusted domain ( TR ) and has many external links from trusted domains
> to prove it ( high PR ). And given this it still fell through the re-
> inclusion cracks.
> It also demonstrates that TBPR is anything but useless, outdated and
> should be ignored. If your TBPR falls, chances are G thinks something
> is wrong and as a webmaster you should spare no effort in determining
> why.
> If this had been nearly anyone but a PR8 site the advice here would
> most likely have been to ignore this because TBPR is useless. I
> understand how and why this myth propagates, what I don’t understand
> is why G encourages it.
> And herein lay the biggest problem, how do you know what went wrong???
> And when?
> On Jul 12, 8:39 am, amaxon2000 wrote:
> > The site is a PR 8 NOW... any ideas what chaged in couple or hours.- Hide quoted text -
> I was told numerous times that I should indeed ignore this TBPR issue
> because it doesn't matter. I heard this from very well known SEO
> experts. I heard this from several people within Google (I don't
> release names). My primary reason for getting this changed was not
> because I felt it would impact the traffic to the site from Google or
> the rankings in Google but because it was a political issue for me
> internally. When the General Manager of one of your top 3 sites is
> conscerned about something that is squarely your responsibility to
> fix . . . hey, it becomes important to you. Especially after you have
> made an attempt to tell her several times that as long as traffic is
> increasing you are fine and she still wants the problem fixed. ;-)
> There are some very marked periods of decline for Newsday.com (before
> I got here--don't know why and wouldn't tell if I did) but the penalty
> was put in place somewhere in 2007 (it may be public so feel free to
> research and let me know). Continuing to watch how things go for the
> next few months will be very telling as to whether TBPR really does
> matter.
> No matter how this goes . . . it'll be a really good case study on
> TBPR, huh? ;-) Need to be careful though regarding noise in the test
> as just because traffic may be doing something overall the SEO traffic
> may be doing something else entirely. Guess I'll be the only one that
> knows the true, true story but . . . you should be able to get a
> decent idea from watching G'Trends.
> Fun stuff! Another reason why I love my job and love the Search
> Industry. ;-)
> Brent D. Payne
> SEO Manager
> Tribune
> On Jul 13, 2:22 am, wreilly wrote:
> > Just my opinion but this was a demonstration of how “broke” the
> > penalties are. One would have to consider the Daily News a highly
> > trusted domain ( TR ) and has many external links from trusted domains
> > to prove it ( high PR ). And given this it still fell through the re-
> > inclusion cracks.
> > It also demonstrates that TBPR is anything but useless, outdated and
> > should be ignored. If your TBPR falls, chances are G thinks something
> > is wrong and as a webmaster you should spare no effort in determining
> > why.
> > If this had been nearly anyone but a PR8 site the advice here would
> > most likely have been to ignore this because TBPR is useless. I
> > understand how and why this myth propagates, what I don’t understand
> > is why G encourages it.
> > And herein lay the biggest problem, how do you know what went wrong???
> > And when?
> > On Jul 12, 8:39 am, amaxon2000 wrote:
> > > The site is a PR 8 NOW... any ideas what chaged in couple or hours.- Hide quoted text -
It will be interesting to see how this affects your traffic. Many use
the TBPR as a seal of approval from G, not saying this is what G wants
or this is how it should be viewed, just sayin.
However for webmasters it has a different use. It makes little or no
difference that G only updates this a few times a year. It can be an
indication that there is a problem. If your PR drops from 4 to 3
chances are someone decided to remove your link or perhaps bought into
the rampant cybermyth that the links leak PR and the link was
nofollowed. If however as in your case PR drops from 8 to 5, this is
almost always going to indicate G has a problem with “something” you
did, maybe 3 months ago, maybe a year…it makes no difference.
If the TBPR is in fact as useless as stated/implied in the FAQ
everyone is directed to then why would G keep the bloody thing!
Point being we need a way to diagnose problems ( preferably proactive
rather than crisis management ) and TBPR along with SREP position
changes is all G has given us. BUT they seem to be in the process of
removing the SERP position as an indicator by “randomly” shuffling the
4 through 10 positions.
The solution, at least in part is to make the GWMT more useful. Like
assigning a red flag to links ( internal and external ) that are
harming your site. Sort the blasted link lists in descending order of
importance; provide a check box in the error lists to indicate you
have addressed the issue and G needs to reindex the items checked.
None of this, at least in my view is particularly difficult to
implement nor would it give away any secret sauce information.
>climbs off soapbox – returns to trying to figure out how to get to #3…<
Best of luck Brent.
Bill
On Jul 13, 7:02 pm, Tribune Interactive SEO Team wrote:
> I was told numerous times that I should indeed ignore this TBPR issue
> because it doesn't matter. I heard this from very well known SEO
> experts. I heard this from several people within Google (I don't
> release names). My primary reason for getting this changed was not
> because I felt it would impact the traffic to the site from Google or
> the rankings in Google but because it was a political issue for me
> internally. When the General Manager of one of your top 3 sites is
> conscerned about something that is squarely your responsibility to
> fix . . . hey, it becomes important to you. Especially after you have
> made an attempt to tell her several times that as long as traffic is
> increasing you are fine and she still wants the problem fixed. ;-)
> There are some very marked periods of decline for Newsday.com (before
> I got here--don't know why and wouldn't tell if I did) but the penalty
> was put in place somewhere in 2007 (it may be public so feel free to
> research and let me know). Continuing to watch how things go for the
> next few months will be very telling as to whether TBPR really does
> matter.
> No matter how this goes . . . it'll be a really good case study on
> TBPR, huh? ;-) Need to be careful though regarding noise in the test
> as just because traffic may be doing something overall the SEO traffic
> may be doing something else entirely. Guess I'll be the only one that
> knows the true, true story but . . . you should be able to get a
> decent idea from watching G'Trends.
> Fun stuff! Another reason why I love my job and love the Search
> Industry. ;-)
> Brent D. Payne
> SEO Manager
> Tribune
> On Jul 13, 2:22 am, wreilly wrote:
> > Just my opinion but this was a demonstration of how “broke” the
> > penalties are. One would have to consider the Daily News a highly
> > trusted domain ( TR ) and has many external links from trusted domains
> > to prove it ( high PR ). And given this it still fell through the re-
> > inclusion cracks.
> > It also demonstrates that TBPR is anything but useless, outdated and
> > should be ignored. If your TBPR falls, chances are G thinks something
> > is wrong and as a webmaster you should spare no effort in determining
> > why.
> > If this had been nearly anyone but a PR8 site the advice here would
> > most likely have been to ignore this because TBPR is useless. I
> > understand how and why this myth propagates, what I don’t understand
> > is why G encourages it.
> > And herein lay the biggest problem, how do you know what went wrong???
> > And when?
> > On Jul 12, 8:39 am, amaxon2000 wrote:
> > > The site is a PR 8 NOW... any ideas what chaged in couple or hours.- Hide quoted text -
I agree with just about all of that.
I've never understood the whole Green Bar.
It's virtually useless in most cases as it's so often out of date...
makes the GWMT look upto date ;)
If it is kind of redundant, then G should simply pull/drop it.
But then, how would you tell if a site is 'quality' or not?
PR seems to be one of the indicators of Trust/Value...
The fact that the 'seal of approval' is out of date and possibly bears
little/no real relevancy to anything else...
(is it me, or does this end up in a big old circle?)
