Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any advantage.
I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they make any real difference.
I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a ranking advantage.
I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really interested to read opinions.
Any benefits are highly questionable. Yes, links are what makes the web what it is, but internal links are also just as valid as links. There's nothing wrong with having a website without outbound links - no matter what anyone tells you.
To me, it seems like the only thing outbound links achieve is an increased likelihood for a penalty. The site you link to might become a "bad neighbourhood" at some point and drag you down with them. I'd stick with the JS links to play it safe. There's nothing wrong with them if they work for the users and you can verifiably claim that those links were placed there only for the benefit of users and not to "manipulate" search engines. Google can't argue with that.
> Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > advantage.
> I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > make any real difference.
> I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > ranking advantage.
> I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > interested to read opinions.
> To me, it seems like the only thing outbound links achieve is an > increased likelihood for a penalty.
Ouch! :-()
It sure does seem like that sometimes doesn't it. :-(
On the other hand, what I have seen here makes it hard to tell if outbound links actually were the cause of problems or not because we either often don't see the complete picture of what is going on, or we don't hear back after changes have been made or so many other things could have changed as well that knowing what lead to what is sometimes impossible. Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental as it is causal.
Also, with tools like bad-neighborhood that seems to think anything with specific words in the links are suspicious, it is sometimes easy to go overboard on trusting tools that make decisions based on factors that aren't publicly known. Probably a better indicator might be checking to see if a site linked to is actually in Google's index but even at that, there are a number of cases where a site may not be indexed for reasons other than being or linking to what Google considers a "bad neighborhood".
Besides all that, were it possible for chain reactions to occur where linking to a "bad neighborhood" site takes down the sites linking to it which in turn take down the sites liking to those which in turn, which in turn, which in turn, the entire Internet would be gone from Google's index already. The worst that likely happens is that links to or from a site that had been deindexed or in some other way "punished" would simply be devalued.
As for whether or not outbound links actually help or not, I don't know if there is anything official or even documented from empirical evidence but I have a feeling they do as it can be used to gauge what type of content a given site has and should be able to contribute to determining relevance.
> Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's > SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental > as it is causal.
Well, this is very true. But until Google comes out and tells webmasters why these drastic penalties occur, I feel we have little choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if you link to them? And even if they are OK today, what's saying they won't be penalized tomorrow.
If you ask me, outbound links are nothing more than a ticking time- bomb in Google.
> > To me, it seems like the only thing outbound links achieve is an > > increased likelihood for a penalty.
> Ouch! :-()
> It sure does seem like that sometimes doesn't it. :-(
> On the other hand, what I have seen here makes it hard to tell if > outbound links actually were the cause of problems or not because we > either often don't see the complete picture of what is going on, or we > don't hear back after changes have been made or so many other things > could have changed as well that knowing what lead to what is sometimes > impossible. Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's > SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental > as it is causal.
> Also, with tools like bad-neighborhood that seems to think anything > with specific words in the links are suspicious, it is sometimes easy > to go overboard on trusting tools that make decisions based on factors > that aren't publicly known. Probably a better indicator might be > checking to see if a site linked to is actually in Google's index but > even at that, there are a number of cases where a site may not be > indexed for reasons other than being or linking to what Google > considers a "bad neighborhood".
> Besides all that, were it possible for chain reactions to occur where > linking to a "bad neighborhood" site takes down the sites linking to > it which in turn take down the sites liking to those which in turn, > which in turn, which in turn, the entire Internet would be gone from > Google's index already. The worst that likely happens is that links > to or from a site that had been deindexed or in some other way > "punished" would simply be devalued.
> As for whether or not outbound links actually help or not, I don't > know if there is anything official or even documented from empirical > evidence but I have a feeling they do as it can be used to gauge what > type of content a given site has and should be able to contribute to > determining relevance.
> > Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's > > SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental > > as it is causal.
> Well, this is very true. But until Google comes out and tells > webmasters why these drastic penalties occur, I feel we have little > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > you link to them? And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > won't be penalized tomorrow.
> If you ask me, outbound links are nothing more than a ticking time- > bomb in Google.
> On Sep 6, 12:59 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > To me, it seems like the only thing outbound links achieve is an > > > increased likelihood for a penalty.
> > Ouch! :-()
> > It sure does seem like that sometimes doesn't it. :-(
> > On the other hand, what I have seen here makes it hard to tell if > > outbound links actually were the cause of problems or not because we > > either often don't see the complete picture of what is going on, or we > > don't hear back after changes have been made or so many other things > > could have changed as well that knowing what lead to what is sometimes > > impossible. Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's > > SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental > > as it is causal.
> > Also, with tools like bad-neighborhood that seems to think anything > > with specific words in the links are suspicious, it is sometimes easy > > to go overboard on trusting tools that make decisions based on factors > > that aren't publicly known. Probably a better indicator might be > > checking to see if a site linked to is actually in Google's index but > > even at that, there are a number of cases where a site may not be > > indexed for reasons other than being or linking to what Google > > considers a "bad neighborhood".
> > Besides all that, were it possible for chain reactions to occur where > > linking to a "bad neighborhood" site takes down the sites linking to > > it which in turn take down the sites liking to those which in turn, > > which in turn, which in turn, the entire Internet would be gone from > > Google's index already. The worst that likely happens is that links > > to or from a site that had been deindexed or in some other way > > "punished" would simply be devalued.
> > As for whether or not outbound links actually help or not, I don't > > know if there is anything official or even documented from empirical > > evidence but I have a feeling they do as it can be used to gauge what > > type of content a given site has and should be able to contribute to > > determining relevance.
> And if you don't link to anybody why should anybody link to you?
I didn't say I wouldn't link to anybody. Why would you consider no- followed, or javascript-hidden links to not be links?
Instead of linking to sites for the purpose of "manipulating the search engines", I am purely linking to sites as a way of sending them traffic and as a way of providing my users with a quality resource. What's so selfish about that? Seems pretty in tune with Google's guidelines if you ask me.
> And if you don't link to anybody why should anybody link to you?
> It's like dinner parties. How many do you think you can get invited to > until you have to start giving some yourself?
> On Sep 6, 12:44 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's > > > SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental > > > as it is causal.
> > Well, this is very true. But until Google comes out and tells > > webmasters why these drastic penalties occur, I feel we have little > > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> > Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > > you link to them? And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > > won't be penalized tomorrow.
> > If you ask me, outbound links are nothing more than a ticking time- > > bomb in Google.
> > On Sep 6, 12:59 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > To me, it seems like the only thing outbound links achieve is an > > > > increased likelihood for a penalty.
> > > Ouch! :-()
> > > It sure does seem like that sometimes doesn't it. :-(
> > > On the other hand, what I have seen here makes it hard to tell if > > > outbound links actually were the cause of problems or not because we > > > either often don't see the complete picture of what is going on, or we > > > don't hear back after changes have been made or so many other things > > > could have changed as well that knowing what lead to what is sometimes > > > impossible. Even if one does remove or nofollow many links and one's > > > SERPs improve, it is almost as likely as any change being coincidental > > > as it is causal.
> > > Also, with tools like bad-neighborhood that seems to think anything > > > with specific words in the links are suspicious, it is sometimes easy > > > to go overboard on trusting tools that make decisions based on factors > > > that aren't publicly known. Probably a better indicator might be > > > checking to see if a site linked to is actually in Google's index but > > > even at that, there are a number of cases where a site may not be > > > indexed for reasons other than being or linking to what Google > > > considers a "bad neighborhood".
> > > Besides all that, were it possible for chain reactions to occur where > > > linking to a "bad neighborhood" site takes down the sites linking to > > > it which in turn take down the sites liking to those which in turn, > > > which in turn, which in turn, the entire Internet would be gone from > > > Google's index already. The worst that likely happens is that links > > > to or from a site that had been deindexed or in some other way > > > "punished" would simply be devalued.
> > > As for whether or not outbound links actually help or not, I don't > > > know if there is anything official or even documented from empirical > > > evidence but I have a feeling they do as it can be used to gauge what > > > type of content a given site has and should be able to contribute to > > > determining relevance.
Seems to be a subject that Google may want to issue a little more clarification on, although they might think that clarification would be abused. To my way of thinking, the internet should be about sharing information and that should benefit a site. Let's say I write a page on well researched, free software and this ends up with thirty outgoing links. Surely that's good for my visitors and maybe for me, they'll come back to look again.
If these links are javascript, the visitors don't care and Google just ignore them but this is still false in a way. Yet if they are HTML, the resource is the same and the site return to the spider is more open. This is surely better but many people seem to feel this "honesty" can only be a disadvantage. If we are in a situation where providing a resource can cause you to attract a penalty, that's not good news.
> Em, if no one links to your site I can guarantee that you'll suffer a > fate worse than a penalty. > Clearly rankings are very highly correlated with inbound links, and > your inbound links by definition must be someone else's outbound links.
Of course that's true and I won't deny that. But Google has created a situation where linking out to sites without a no-follow is seeming risky. If they cared so much about their linking algorithm, they could come out and tell us that who you link to won't affect your site. But they're not going to do that are they? And if they don't bother communicating such fundamental details with us, why should we bother helping their algorithm along?
> Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > advantage.
> I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > make any real difference.
> I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > ranking advantage.
> I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > interested to read opinions.
I don't have any verifiable proof that outbound links can help but IMO if you are linking to high quality and highly relevant sites they can benefit your site. They may not give you a huge bump but IMO they can add to the authority and trust in the eyes of Google. I don't link out haphazardly but if I write an article that can be backed up or expounded upon by a highly authoritative site I will link to it (not sites like Wikipedia since I refuse to give them links at all). From the many discussions and online exchanges I have had and read with leaders in search and engine reps outbound links to quality and relevant sites make your site part of a community. This helps engines understand what your site is about, builds trust in your site, and can help establish your site as a hub for your community. All of these factors contribute to how the engines view your site and can help you rank better. Like I said I can't verify with unimpeachable proof but in my experience it helps as long as you are linking to quality sites that help users find good info and engines determine what your site is about.
> > Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> > How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > > advantage.
> > I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > > make any real difference.
> > I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> > Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > > ranking advantage.
> > I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > > interested to read opinions.
One way I've found outbound links do actually help (nofollowed or not), in particular to small sites, is that they can generate back links just by clicking on them. Webmasters tend to look at their stats religiously and if they see someone visiting their site from your site, they are likely to pay you a visit. And chances are they will feel inclined to link back to you, whether they understand the google implications or not. Even if they aren't providing clear links, it still could be a way to get some small amount of traffic :-)
> I don't have any verifiable proof that outbound links can help but IMO > if you are linking to high quality and highly relevant sites they can > benefit your site. They may not give you a huge bump but IMO they can > add to the authority and trust in the eyes of Google. I don't link out > haphazardly but if I write an article that can be backed up or > expounded upon by a highly authoritative site I will link to it (not > sites like Wikipedia since I refuse to give them links at all). From > the many discussions and online exchanges I have had and read with > leaders in search and engine reps outbound links to quality and > relevant sites make your site part of a community. This helps engines > understand what your site is about, builds trust in your site, and can > help establish your site as a hub for your community. All of these > factors contribute to how the engines view your site and can help you > rank better. > Like I said I can't verify with unimpeachable proof but in my > experience it helps as long as you are linking to quality sites that > help users find good info and engines determine what your site is > about.
> On Sep 6, 9:37 am, av8torfl wrote:> Until Google comes out and tells us why we are being penalized I have > > removed > > all outbound links.
> > > Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > > > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> > > How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > > > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > > > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > > > advantage.
> > > I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > > > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > > > make any real difference.
> > > I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > > > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > > > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > > > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> > > Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > > > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > > > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > > > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > > > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > > > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > > > ranking advantage.
> > > I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > > > interested to read opinions.
This is kind of going off topic, but one credible theory behind these penalties is "over-optimisation". A quick glance at your front page lends even more credibility to that theory. It wouldn't be beyond a bot to figure out that a string like this is overly optimised:
"As our name implies we have some of the best discount travel specials including Cheap Motels Cheap Hotels Cheap Airfares Cheap Rental Cars Cruises Travel and Vacations."
Not to mention that it is an utterly frightening page for a user to end up on!
> > Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> > How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > > advantage.
> > I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > > make any real difference.
> > I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> > Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > > ranking advantage.
> > I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > > interested to read opinions.
> This is kind of going off topic, but one credible theory behind these > penalties is "over-optimisation". A quick glance at your front page > lends even more credibility to that theory. It wouldn't be beyond a > bot to figure out that a string like this is overly optimised:
> "As our name implies we have some of the best discount travel specials > including Cheap Motels Cheap Hotels Cheap Airfares Cheap Rental Cars > Cruises Travel and Vacations."
> Not to mention that it is an utterly frightening page for a user to > end up on!
> > > Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > > > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> > > How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > > > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > > > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > > > advantage.
> > > I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > > > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > > > make any real difference.
> > > I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > > > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > > > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > > > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> > > Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > > > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > > > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > > > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > > > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > > > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > > > ranking advantage.
> > > I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > > > interested to read opinions.- Hide quoted text -
> > This is kind of going off topic, but one credible theory behind these > > penalties is "over-optimisation". A quick glance at your front page > > lends even more credibility to that theory. It wouldn't be beyond a > > bot to figure out that a string like this is overly optimised:
> > "As our name implies we have some of the best discount travel specials > > including Cheap Motels Cheap Hotels Cheap Airfares Cheap Rental Cars > > Cruises Travel and Vacations."
> > Not to mention that it is an utterly frightening page for a user to > > end up on!
> > > On Sep 5, 7:04 pm, Chibcha wrote: > > > > Hi
> > > > Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > > > > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> > > > How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > > > > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > > > > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > > > > advantage.
> > > > I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > > > > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > > > > make any real difference.
> > > > I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > > > > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > > > > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > > > > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> > > > Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > > > > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > > > > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > > > > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > > > > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > > > > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > > > > ranking advantage.
> > > > I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > > > > interested to read opinions.- Hide quoted text -
> > Hope someone can answer a question that I have found a few times > > before in the forum but with no clear opinion?
> > How do outgoing links affect ranking? Let's assume they are not too > > numerous, point to decent sites and are relevant to the page/site they > > are on. With obvious disadvantages out of the way, are they then any > > advantage.
> > I have read a few entries stating that it's normal to link to outside > > sites, that's what the web is about. Can't argue with this but do they > > make any real difference.
> > I ask this because I need an opinion more knowledgeable than mine. I > > have two sites, one fairly old, which searches OK but has virtually no > > outgoing links. Would adding thirty or forty relevant, unreciprocated > > links improve ranking/make it worse/make no difference.
> > Also. on the other, newer site, I created the outgoing links in > > javascript (mistake I think). Kind people on here have confirmed > > suspicions that Googlebot can read none of these. There are around 300 > > in total, so changing them all to HTML will be a fair job. They are > > relevant links and not to crap sites, is the work worth it. Visitors > > can use the existing ones, so the only point would be if there was a > > ranking advantage.
> > I can see logical argument for different answers, would be really > > interested to read opinions.
> I feel we have little > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
By the same token one should remove all content from a given page and insert it using Javascript if we have to start worrying about all the things that can potentially cause problems.
> Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > you link to them?
Penalized for what? Being a link farm, if that is the case, then linking to them would be bad in any case but just linking to someone who links to a link farm or someone who links to a site that is "penalized" hasn't been shown to cause any problems.
Again, if one is going to start worrying about all the possible things, more imagined than real, that could cause one's site to lose face in the eyes of Google, where does it stop?
> And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > won't be penalized tomorrow.
True, no *evidence* exists about this, but plenty of speculation that if you link to a penalized site, you may also fall into that penalty. Google seems to have no interest in stopping such speculation and it is just as valid a guess for the cause of these penalties as all the other ones are.
One thing's certain though; Google can NEVER claim you are linking in an attempt to *manipulate* search engines if you have all the links no- followed ;-)
This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
Sad, I know ... they've made me the paranoid person I am today.
I still maintain that clean outbound links to high quality sites have no benefit from a search engine point of view (well, they do for the site you're linking to of course!). Arguments to the contrary are pure speculation, as much as anything else is. There are plenty of good reasons that search engines wouldn't use that as a metric - the most compelling being that a link to a good site says absolutely nothing about the quality of your own site.
> > I feel we have little > > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> By the same token one should remove all content from a given page and > insert it using Javascript if we have to start worrying about all the > things that can potentially cause problems.
> > Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > > you link to them?
> Penalized for what? Being a link farm, if that is the case, then > linking to them would be bad in any case but just linking to someone > who links to a link farm or someone who links to a site that is > "penalized" hasn't been shown to cause any problems.
> Again, if one is going to start worrying about all the possible > things, more imagined than real, that could cause one's site to lose > face in the eyes of Google, where does it stop?
> > And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > > won't be penalized tomorrow.
> True, no *evidence* exists about this, but plenty of speculation that > if you link to a penalized site, you may also fall into that penalty. > Google seems to have no interest in stopping such speculation and it > is just as valid a guess for the cause of these penalties as all the > other ones are.
> One thing's certain though; Google can NEVER claim you are linking in > an attempt to *manipulate* search engines if you have all the links no- > followed ;-)
> This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> Sad, I know ... they've made me the paranoid person I am today.
> I still maintain that clean outbound links to high quality sites have > no benefit from a search engine point of view (well, they do for the > site you're linking to of course!). Arguments to the contrary are pure > speculation, as much as anything else is. There are plenty of good > reasons that search engines wouldn't use that as a metric - the most > compelling being that a link to a good site says absolutely nothing > about the quality of your own site.
> On Sep 7, 12:46 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > I feel we have little > > > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > > > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> > By the same token one should remove all content from a given page and > > insert it using Javascript if we have to start worrying about all the > > things that can potentially cause problems.
> > > Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > > > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > > > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > > > you link to them?
> > Penalized for what? Being a link farm, if that is the case, then > > linking to them would be bad in any case but just linking to someone > > who links to a link farm or someone who links to a site that is > > "penalized" hasn't been shown to cause any problems.
> > Again, if one is going to start worrying about all the possible > > things, more imagined than real, that could cause one's site to lose > > face in the eyes of Google, where does it stop?
> > > And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > > > won't be penalized tomorrow.
> True, no *evidence* exists about this, but plenty of speculation that > if you link to a penalized site, you may also fall into that penalty.
Without the speculation, SEO would be boring as hell! :-()
> Google seems to have no interest in stopping such speculation and it > is just as valid a guess for the cause of these penalties as all the > other ones are.
Sometimes I think the wilder and stranger the speculation is, the happier Google is. It definitely keeps people guessing.
Unfortunately though,some people virtually get to the point of wiping their pages clean trying to figure out what is going on and that is not such a good thing. :-(
Algo tweak, not doing enough, doing too much, not changing anything at all, it would be nice if one could at least get a hint or two.
> One thing's certain though; Google can NEVER claim you are linking in > an attempt to *manipulate* search engines if you have all the links no- > followed ;-)
:-()
You got me there! :-)
> This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
I sort of remember, I think, you posting about a problem you were having but I can't remember what it was or where, Abracadabra has a good idea, see if you can resurrect the thread and maybe we can all take a fresh look at it. No guarantees but then again, you already knew that.
> Sad, I know ... they've made me the paranoid person I am today.
I can understand how that can happen.
> I still maintain that clean outbound links to high quality sites have > no benefit from a search engine point of view (well, they do for the > site you're linking to of course!).
You may eery well be right, only Google knows for sure and just about any experiment one could think of would have to be done on such a huge scale to have any chance of coming anywhere close to any certainty.
But, I still maintain, and could very well be wrong, that outgoing links help determine the "neighborhood" one is in and so helps position a given site's relevancy.
> Arguments to the contrary are pure > speculation, as much as anything else is.
As are arguments to the contrary of the contrary. :-()
> There are plenty of good > reasons that search engines wouldn't use that as a metric - the most > compelling being that a link to a good site says absolutely nothing > about the quality of your own site.
It doesn't have to say anything about quality, it could instead speak towards relevancy.
But, that's just more speculation, without which, this is sort of boring. ;-)
Thanks abracadabra, I've posted in the past about our penalty in a couple of threads and my brother Sam I Am has posted about it exhaustively as well - no conclusions were ever reached. We are actually cleared from the penalty right now (since last night anyway - could drop back at any point, as it did last week), so I guess I shouldn't be complaining. But this thing has hurt so much, that I can't help but feel that any, however remote, risk we take is just asking for trouble.
Craig, all good points ;-) If this question had come up 4 months ago, I would be singing a different tune. Although I've never really believed the argument that outbound links boost your page's relevancy to a term. It just doesn't sit right with me.
> > This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> I tried, though not exhustively, to find where you posted > a request for assistance with your "penalty".
> Maybe resurrect the old post or start a new one so the issue can > be kicked around.
> Abracadabra > On Sep 6, 11:40 pm, daamsie wrote:
> > True, no *evidence* exists about this, but plenty of speculation that > > if you link to a penalized site, you may also fall into that penalty. > > Google seems to have no interest in stopping such speculation and it > > is just as valid a guess for the cause of these penalties as all the > > other ones are.
> > One thing's certain though; Google can NEVER claim you are linking in > > an attempt to *manipulate* search engines if you have all the links no- > > followed ;-)
> > This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> > Sad, I know ... they've made me the paranoid person I am today.
> > I still maintain that clean outbound links to high quality sites have > > no benefit from a search engine point of view (well, they do for the > > site you're linking to of course!). Arguments to the contrary are pure > > speculation, as much as anything else is. There are plenty of good > > reasons that search engines wouldn't use that as a metric - the most > > compelling being that a link to a good site says absolutely nothing > > about the quality of your own site.
> > On Sep 7, 12:46 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > I feel we have little > > > > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > > > > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> > > By the same token one should remove all content from a given page and > > > insert it using Javascript if we have to start worrying about all the > > > things that can potentially cause problems.
> > > > Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > > > > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > > > > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > > > > you link to them?
> > > Penalized for what? Being a link farm, if that is the case, then > > > linking to them would be bad in any case but just linking to someone > > > who links to a link farm or someone who links to a site that is > > > "penalized" hasn't been shown to cause any problems.
> > > Again, if one is going to start worrying about all the possible > > > things, more imagined than real, that could cause one's site to lose > > > face in the eyes of Google, where does it stop?
> > > > And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > > > > won't be penalized tomorrow.
Ok, I am well aware of Sam I am (green eggs and ham) :-) I didn't realize the correlation. Maybe it was mentioned before but I missed it. Sorry about that.
Hmmm, so we are being double teamed eh? Ces't la vie but cool.
One thing I like about your posts is that it may relate to how some others feel and bringing this to the discussion helps "thrash this out" to the benefit of all.
I am concerned about the "tone" of your posts and how that may impact new visitors posting questions.
That said,
Glad you have some seen some positive results recently and surely hope that continues.
All the best, Abracadabra On Sep 7, 2:18 am, daamsie wrote:
> Thanks abracadabra, I've posted in the past about our penalty in a > couple of threads and my brother Sam I Am has posted about it > exhaustively as well - no conclusions were ever reached. We are > actually cleared from the penalty right now (since last night anyway - > could drop back at any point, as it did last week), so I guess I > shouldn't be complaining. But this thing has hurt so much, that I > can't help but feel that any, however remote, risk we take is just > asking for trouble.
> Craig, all good points ;-) If this question had come up 4 months ago, > I would be singing a different tune. Although I've never really > believed the argument that outbound links boost your page's relevancy > to a term. It just doesn't sit right with me.
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, abracadabra wrote:
> > Sorry to go a little off topic but,
> > On Sep 6, 11:40 pm, daamsie wrote: > > ...
> > > This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > > > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> > I tried, though not exhustively, to find where you posted > > a request for assistance with your "penalty".
> > Maybe resurrect the old post or start a new one so the issue can > > be kicked around.
> > > True, no *evidence* exists about this, but plenty of speculation that > > > if you link to a penalized site, you may also fall into that penalty. > > > Google seems to have no interest in stopping such speculation and it > > > is just as valid a guess for the cause of these penalties as all the > > > other ones are.
> > > One thing's certain though; Google can NEVER claim you are linking in > > > an attempt to *manipulate* search engines if you have all the links no- > > > followed ;-)
> > > This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > > > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> > > Sad, I know ... they've made me the paranoid person I am today.
> > > I still maintain that clean outbound links to high quality sites have > > > no benefit from a search engine point of view (well, they do for the > > > site you're linking to of course!). Arguments to the contrary are pure > > > speculation, as much as anything else is. There are plenty of good > > > reasons that search engines wouldn't use that as a metric - the most > > > compelling being that a link to a good site says absolutely nothing > > > about the quality of your own site.
> > > On Sep 7, 12:46 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > > I feel we have little > > > > > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > > > > > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> > > > By the same token one should remove all content from a given page and > > > > insert it using Javascript if we have to start worrying about all the > > > > things that can potentially cause problems.
> > > > > Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > > > > > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > > > > > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > > > > > you link to them?
> > > > Penalized for what? Being a link farm, if that is the case, then > > > > linking to them would be bad in any case but just linking to someone > > > > who links to a link farm or someone who links to a site that is > > > > "penalized" hasn't been shown to cause any problems.
> > > > Again, if one is going to start worrying about all the possible > > > > things, more imagined than real, that could cause one's site to lose > > > > face in the eyes of Google, where does it stop?
> > > > > And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > > > > > won't be penalized tomorrow.
> Thanks abracadabra, I've posted in the past about our penalty in a > couple of threads and my brother Sam I Am has posted about it > exhaustively as well
D"Oh! "I see, said the blind man!"
NOW I remember. :-()
> - no conclusions were ever reached. We are > actually cleared from the penalty right now (since last night anyway - > could drop back at any point, as it did last week),
When Sam I Am posted about the site improving, I had a sneaking suspicion that it was going to drop again. I don't know why or where the suspicion came from though.
This time, I have no feeling either way so maybe that is a good sign? ;-)
The question now becomes one of what to do. Go back and undue the not so nice things that were done while trying to figure out what the problem is/was or just leave things the way they are, assuming you aren't just stuck back in the shithouse again.
I guess it won't take too much peering into a crystal ball to know what you are most likely to do at this point.
> so I guess I > shouldn't be complaining. But this thing has hurt so much, that I > can't help but feel that any, however remote, risk we take is just > asking for trouble.
I can see your point.
Actually, I was thinking of Sam I Am when I wrote above about practically wiping a page clean trying to figure out what is wrong.
I know a way you might be able to test the linking to the blogs issue though. Put up a page on a new domain, put enough unique content on it to make it good Visitor/Google food and then put links to all the blogs you originally had follow'd and see what happens.
> Craig, all good points ;-) If this question had come up 4 months ago, > I would be singing a different tune.
Probably true. On the other hand though, and something I think I mentioned to your brother when we were talking about nofollow'ing the links to the blogs was that if nofollow'ing them improved things, there would have to be something on one of those blogs that was serious enough to cause this.
Of course though, assuming your site continues doing well and doesn't crash and burn again, we still won't know what actually brought it back or if it was even anything that you or your brother actually did.
That's not really a good position to be in because based on your experience, which I can put into context now, your not knowing what happened is going to force you to operate the same way in the future, not knowing if what you are doing is necessary or maybe even hurting you in some way but having to do it regardless.
> Although I've never really > believed the argument that outbound links boost your page's relevancy > to a term. It just doesn't sit right with me.
I look at the issue similar to Google seemingly judging the relevancy of links themselves and it possibly being a two way street, on-page content helping determine the relevancy of links and vice versa.
About the only thing we can know for sure is that I'll continue linking out because it hasn't ever hurt me and you likely will link out less often, if at all, because you can't know whether or not it may have actually hurt you but in the end, neither of us is the wiser.
> Ok, I am well aware of Sam I am (green eggs and ham) :-) > I didn't realize the correlation. Maybe it was mentioned > before but I missed it. Sorry about that.
> Hmmm, so we are being double teamed eh? > Ces't la vie but cool.
> One thing I like about your posts is that it may relate > to how some others feel and bringing this to the > discussion helps "thrash this out" to the benefit of all.
> I am concerned about the "tone" of your posts and > how that may impact new visitors posting questions.
> That said,
> Glad you have some seen some positive results recently > and surely hope that continues.
> All the best, > Abracadabra > On Sep 7, 2:18 am, daamsie wrote:
> > Thanks abracadabra, I've posted in the past about our penalty in a > > couple of threads and my brother Sam I Am has posted about it > > exhaustively as well - no conclusions were ever reached. We are > > actually cleared from the penalty right now (since last night anyway - > > could drop back at any point, as it did last week), so I guess I > > shouldn't be complaining. But this thing has hurt so much, that I > > can't help but feel that any, however remote, risk we take is just > > asking for trouble.
> > Craig, all good points ;-) If this question had come up 4 months ago, > > I would be singing a different tune. Although I've never really > > believed the argument that outbound links boost your page's relevancy > > to a term. It just doesn't sit right with me.
> > > > This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > > > > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> > > I tried, though not exhustively, to find where you posted > > > a request for assistance with your "penalty".
> > > Maybe resurrect the old post or start a new one so the issue can > > > be kicked around.
> > > > True, no *evidence* exists about this, but plenty of speculation that > > > > if you link to a penalized site, you may also fall into that penalty. > > > > Google seems to have no interest in stopping such speculation and it > > > > is just as valid a guess for the cause of these penalties as all the > > > > other ones are.
> > > > One thing's certain though; Google can NEVER claim you are linking in > > > > an attempt to *manipulate* search engines if you have all the links no- > > > > followed ;-)
> > > > This is the kind of bitterly twisted logic that I've developed after 4 > > > > months of the Google penalty without any clarification from Google.
> > > > Sad, I know ... they've made me the paranoid person I am today.
> > > > I still maintain that clean outbound links to high quality sites have > > > > no benefit from a search engine point of view (well, they do for the > > > > site you're linking to of course!). Arguments to the contrary are pure > > > > speculation, as much as anything else is. There are plenty of good > > > > reasons that search engines wouldn't use that as a metric - the most > > > > compelling being that a link to a good site says absolutely nothing > > > > about the quality of your own site.
> > > > On Sep 7, 12:46 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > > > I feel we have little > > > > > > choice but to be overly cautious with things like outbound links. And > > > > > > overly cautious in my eyes is simply "don't link".
> > > > > By the same token one should remove all content from a given page and > > > > > insert it using Javascript if we have to start worrying about all the > > > > > things that can potentially cause problems.
> > > > > > Linking to long-established sites may be a relatively cautious option, > > > > > > but in the current Google there are many long-established, authority > > > > > > sites that are penalized, so what will Google think of your site if > > > > > > you link to them?
> > > > > Penalized for what? Being a link farm, if that is the case, then > > > > > linking to them would be bad in any case but just linking to someone > > > > > who links to a link farm or someone who links to a site that is > > > > > "penalized" hasn't been shown to cause any problems.
> > > > > Again, if one is going to start worrying about all the possible > > > > > things, more imagined than real, that could cause one's site to lose > > > > > face in the eyes of Google, where does it stop?
> > > > > > And even if they are OK today, what's saying they > > > > > > won't be penalized tomorrow.
Thanks Craig, your feedback is welcome - I've been following Sam's threads even if I haven't been participating in them. I preferred not to create confusion.
> The question now becomes one of what to do. Go back and undue the not > so nice things that were done while trying to figure out what the > problem is/was or just leave things the way they are, assuming you > aren't just stuck back in the shithouse again.
The thing is, I'm more inclined to believe we are in a border-line penalty situation at the moment and feel we could drop out at any point and then rise again the next day. It seems to me the only way of getting into a truly safe zone is to try EVEN more things. I think we'll just leave the blogs and outbound links no-followed for this reason. And we'll probably continue stripping out anything that is even remotely "grey-hat". C'est la vie.
Anyhow. Probably shouldn't be hijacking this thread with my own gripes :-)
> > Thanks abracadabra, I've posted in the past about our penalty in a > > couple of threads and my brother Sam I Am has posted about it > > exhaustively as well
> D"Oh! "I see, said the blind man!"
> NOW I remember. :-()
> > - no conclusions were ever reached. We are > > actually cleared from the penalty right now (since last night anyway - > > could drop back at any point, as it did last week),
> When Sam I Am posted about the site improving, I had a sneaking > suspicion that it was going to drop again. I don't know why or where > the suspicion came from though.
> This time, I have no feeling either way so maybe that is a good > sign? ;-)
> The question now becomes one of what to do. Go back and undue the not > so nice things that were done while trying to figure out what the > problem is/was or just leave things the way they are, assuming you > aren't just stuck back in the shithouse again.
> I guess it won't take too much peering into a crystal ball to know > what you are most likely to do at this point.
> > so I guess I > > shouldn't be complaining. But this thing has hurt so much, that I > > can't help but feel that any, however remote, risk we take is just > > asking for trouble.
> I can see your point.
> Actually, I was thinking of Sam I Am when I wrote above about > practically wiping a page clean trying to figure out what is wrong.
> I know a way you might be able to test the linking to the blogs issue > though. Put up a page on a new domain, put enough unique content on it > to make it good Visitor/Google food and then put links to all the > blogs you originally had follow'd and see what happens.
> > Craig, all good points ;-) If this question had come up 4 months ago, > > I would be singing a different tune.
> Probably true. On the other hand though, and something I think I > mentioned to your brother when we were talking about nofollow'ing the > links to the blogs was that if nofollow'ing them improved things, > there would have to be something on one of those blogs that was > serious enough to cause this.
> Of course though, assuming your site continues doing well and doesn't > crash and burn again, we still won't know what actually brought it > back or if it was even anything that you or your brother actually did.
> That's not really a good position to be in because based on your > experience, which I can put into context now, your not knowing what > happened is going to force you to operate the same way in the future, > not knowing if what you are doing is necessary or maybe even hurting > you in some way but having to do it regardless.
> > Although I've never really > > believed the argument that outbound links boost your page's relevancy > > to a term. It just doesn't sit right with me.
> I look at the issue similar to Google seemingly judging the relevancy > of links themselves and it possibly being a two way street, on-page > content helping determine the relevancy of links and vice versa.
> About the only thing we can know for sure is that I'll continue > linking out because it hasn't ever hurt me and you likely will link > out less often, if at all, because you can't know whether or not it > may have actually hurt you but in the end, neither of us is the wiser.
