Banned From Google! Careful, This May Happen to You

[Ryan6]

If you were banned then your site would be completely deindexed. Maybe you should target more valuable backlinks and see how that works out.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Crew Chief

But puhle-e-e-z-e don't penalize, I mean devalue my humor...

Are you kidding me? I personally would never devalue your humor. Your post #79 was hilarious. I particulalrly like

"Between us, we track Google like the military and Homeland Security tracks threats and potential threats."

I could hear the music from the old show - "the A -team" ( equally funny if you ever watch it) playing in the background as I read that post.

If you ever put that sales copy to audio make sure to get Mr. T to end it with -

"I pity the fool that doesn't hire Crew Chef" Good stuff man.

[Marigold]

May be there is a simple explanation.Exactly same thing happened to one of my site.It simply vanished from google 48 hours back.Previous to that a lot of my keywords were not there any more in the SERP.But 2 days back it simply vanished.Not a single keword was in google search.I asked my brother to have a look.He fixed the problem and I am in the first page for my primary keyword as I was previously.Some other keywords are also gradually appearing in search results.
The problem was my older version of wordpress had a bug and a worm had infected my system.It all sounds very techie to me so dont ask me to explain the exact steps.May be some warrior will be able to help.My brother removed the worm or whatever and updated my wordpress to the latest version. I am back in first page no 2 for my keyword.It is worth a try along with other steps suggested by other warriors.
Please check this out.
wordpress.org/development/2009/09/keep-wordpress-secure/
Got to rush to my 12 hour office job.All the best.

[Crew Chief]

OK folks, I'm finally done with JD Jury Duty!!!

I was in Federal Court and these people somehow believe that $40 a day plus mileage is supposed to be an enticing friggin deal.

Anyhow, it's over and I couldn't be a more happy camper.

I've got to catch up with my paying clients and should be back to normal by tomorrow!

[bigcat1967]

Would 3 way linking be considered a link wheel as well?

[djbory]

Hey Guys,
Just an update: My sites are back in Google again. I transformed the sites completely; even the content was totally changed with fresh unique content. They’re not back on first page yet and they’re not ranking for the keywords they were originally ranking, but at least they reappeared.

I know that with an aggressive backlinking program they’ll be back on first page. What the problem was? I don’t clearly know that, since I did so many changes to them, but one thing I know; it WAS NOT THE 3 WAY LINK system because I still on it and they are back….

I would be really careful with duplicate content; not only the one you copy from other sites or from the product creator description as well, since it is considered by Google as duplicate, and they could filter you out because the product owner usually will have more authority than you. I did this the first time.

I also found somebody was literally copying content from me and ranking higher that me with my own content. I reported this to the owner of the site and they removed the content.

Thanks to Chief, Steve, Don and all the guys who helped me out through this…
I will let you know when they’re on Google first page again.

Djbory

[islander1]

Originally Posted by djbory

Hey Guys,
Just an update: My sites are back in Google again. I transformed the sites completely; even the content was totally changed with fresh unique content. They’re not back on first page yet and they’re not ranking for the keywords they were originally ranking, but at least they reappeared.

I know that with an aggressive backlinking program they’ll be back on first page. What the problem was? I don’t clearly know that, since I did so many changes to them, but one thing I know; it WAS NOT THE 3 WAY LINK system because I still on it and they are back….

I would be really careful with duplicate content; not only the one you copy from other sites or from the product creator description as well, since it is considered by Google as duplicate, and they could filter you out because the product owner usually will have more authority than you. I did this the first time.

I also found somebody was literally copying content from me and ranking higher that me with my own content. I reported this to the owner of the site and they removed the content.

Thanks to Chief, Steve, Don and all the guys who helped me out through this…
I will let you know when they’re on Google first page again.

Djbory

Thanks for the update. What you say makes a lot of sense. I'm just a newbie and know NOTHING about SEO, but it seems to me Google would only penalize you for things YOU have control of-meaning stuff you put on your own site.

[djbory]

Originally Posted by islander1

Thanks for the update. What you say makes a lot of sense. I'm just a newbie and know NOTHING about SEO, but it seems to me Google would only penalize you for things YOU have control of-meaning stuff you put on your own site.

That is correct.....

UPDATE ON MY SITES!

My sites are back on the first pages of Google and one of my best sites, from one of Clickbank most competing niches, over 9,000,000 results, is not just back on first page of Google, but #1 on Google for all my keywords... This is JUST GREAT! HAPPY ENDING STORY!

Thanks again to Crew Chief, Don, Steven and all the guys who offered sincere help...

(Crew Chief -- you got to go and see for yourself)

DJBory

[dburk]

Hi DJBory,

Congrats, that's great to hear.

Thanks for keeping us updated with your progress.

[islander1]

Originally Posted by djbory

That is correct.....

UPDATE ON MY SITES!

My sites are back on the first pages of Google and one of my best sites, from one of Clickbank most competing niches, over 9,000,000 results, is not just back on first page of Google, but #1 on Google for all my keywords... This is JUST GREAT! HAPPY ENDING STORY!

Thanks again to Crew Chief, Don, Steven and all the guys who offered sincere help...

(Crew Chief -- you got to go and see for yourself)

DJBory

Wow! Congrats on your success! You've given me hope.

[samjustin]

I think You target multiple keywords in a one row, That why Google may push you back on all.

[Smokey_Joe]

Originally Posted by samjustin

I think You target multiple keywords in a one row, That why Google may push you back on all.

Why would this be a problem?

[cagliostro]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Are you referring to this terribly headlined article?


Does Google Really Care about Content? | The Internet Marketing Blueprint

I will have to disagree.

I'm working for two years in a travel niche. The top 5 are, Wikipedia, the website of the official tourism bureau of the city, and 3rd there is a pure junk website.

That 3rd website has ONLY a huge number of backlinks and it is 15 years old. For me, it should be in page 100.

So, if Google does care about content, how do you explain the above ?

[dburk]

Originally Posted by cagliostro

I will have to disagree.

I'm working for two years in a travel niche. The top 5 are, Wikipedia, the website of the official tourism bureau of the city, and 3rd there is a pure junk website.

That 3rd website has ONLY a huge number of backlinks and it is 15 years old. For me, it should be in page 100.

So, if Google does care about content, how do you explain the above ?

Hi cagliostro,

I'm not sure which keyword you are referring to, the search term "travel" returns:

1. orbitz.com
2. expedia.com
3. tarvelocity.com
4. priceline.com
5. hotwire.com

This seems relevant to me. I assume you must be referring to a slightly more obscure keyword with less commercial value.

What you think of as a "pure junk website" might be considered as very useful by Google and their users. It sounds like you are describing what is known as a "Hub" website which users, and Google, find to be very useful websites that aggregate and organize a collection of resources on a particular topic.

You see it doesn't matter what you personally see as quality, only what Google, or Google's users deem to be valuable. You may want to reevaluate your methods and do research on why a website like that may prove to be useful to search engine users.

[Mike Anthony]

Exactly - seems like its a search term with a city name. Site might be junk to him but considered an authority site on the city by google. Far be it from me to be denying the power of backlinks since I sell a backlink package but content does also matter

[cagliostro]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi cagliostro,

I'm not sure which keyword you are referring to, the search term "travel" returns:

1. orbitz.com
2. expedia.com
3. tarvelocity.com
4. priceline.com
5. hotwire.com

This seems relevant to me. I assume you must be referring to a slightly more obscure keyword with less commercial value.

What you think of as a "pure junk website" might be considered as very useful by Google and their users. It sounds like you are describing what is known as a "Hub" website which users, and Google, find to be very useful websites that aggregate and organize a collection of resources on a particular topic.

You see it doesn't matter what you personally see as quality, only what Google, or Google's users deem to be valuable. You may want to reevaluate your methods and do research on why a website like that may prove to be useful to search engine users.

I don't speak for the "travel" keyword but for the general travel niche. So your example is meaningless.

And the website i'm talking about is pure junk and on #3 of first page at Google.

I think i know what a junk website is.

For me Google doesn't always care for content and quality. I see that in a huge ammount of "Work from Home" pyramide companies, Adsense publishes in one website i run about Jobs.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by cagliostro

I don't speak for the "travel" keyword but for the general travel niche. So your example is meaningless.

And the website i'm talking about is pure junk and on #3 of first page at Google.

I think i know what a junk website is.

For me Google doesn't always care for content and quality. I see that in a huge ammount of "Work from Home" pyramide companies, Adsense publishes in one website i run about Jobs.

Hi cagliostro,

You may find it helpful to think like a search engine, or a search engine user. Search engines retrieve results based on keywords, not "general" industry niches. They rank those results by relevance primarily and use signals from users and other webmasters to sub-sort these results by usefulness.

When you make a judgement on a web page's quality it is subjective, while the search engines are only capable of objective judgments. They use a set of rules to decide what is useful to users and that is their qualitative process.

My point is that it's more useful to learn and understand how search engines evaluate and rank web pages then to use our own subjective judgments of a page's quality. The keyword that you feel represents the "general travel niche" could be a keyword that is rather ambiguous and has little competition, therefore the SE has little choice about what to display.

By the way, the following websites are the top ranked for the keyword "jobs" on Google:

1. careerbuilder.com
2. monster.com
3. indeed.com
4. jobs.com
5. snapjobs.com

Again these results seem very relevant to me, looks like Google's ranking algorithm is working just fine. Google is primarily interested in relevance, and they leave the subjective judgments of quality to users, following the signals received by their users. One man's junk is another man's useful content.

[cagliostro]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Exactly - seems like its a search term with a city name. Site might be junk to him but considered an authority site on the city by google. Far be it from me to be denying the power of backlinks since I sell a backlink package but content does also matter

Right, it is a city name.

And, believe me, it is pure junk for everybody's criteria. BUT Google.

But has tones of backlinks and some really good ones from authority websites, i have no idea how they did that.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by dburk

My point is that it's more useful to learn and understand how search engines evaluate and rank web pages then to use our own subjective judgments of a page's quality. The keyword that you feel represents the "general travel niche" could be a keyword that is rather ambiguous and has little competition, therefore the SE has little choice about what to display.

By the way, the following websites are the top ranked for the keyword "jobs" on Google:

1. careerbuilder.com
2. monster.com
3. indeed.com
4. jobs.com
5. snapjobs.com

Again these results seem very relevant to me, looks like Google's ranking algorithm is working just fine. Google is primarily interested in relevance, and they leave the subjective judgments of quality to users, following the signals received by their users. One man's junk is another man's useful content.

Somehow Google know how to connect all relevant result together, that lead to a myth that relevant link help in ranking...

But is relevancy linking really a myth?

Can you share more about your experience?

[cagliostro]

Originally Posted by dburk

When you make a judgement on a web page's quality it is subjective, while the search engines are only capable of objective judgments. They use a set of rules to decide what is useful to users and that is their qualitative process.

My point is that it's more useful to learn and understand how search engines evaluate and rank web pages then to use our own subjective judgments of a page's quality. The keyword that you feel represents the "general travel niche" could be a keyword that is rather ambiguous and has little competition, therefore the SE has little choice about what to display.

I don't think so. A website that is attractive and usefull, stands out easily. Subjective maybe a good looking shoe or a shirt, even a good looking woman. Not a website.

I'm working on that specific niche for 2 years now. I have studied all websites upto page 5, each and every.

This particular website has nothing BUT backlings. So for me, backlinks are the N1 important thing for Google.

Keep in mind that this website i'm talking about, is nowhere in yahoo or bing (at least not in the 1st 10 pages).

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by cagliostro

I don't think so. A website that is attractive and usefull, stands out easily. Subjective maybe a good looking shoe or a shirt, even a good looking woman. Not a website.

Hi again Cagliostro,

Google never sees whether a site is attactive unless there is a human reviewing it. the crawler that indexes your site coudl care less about attractive.

This particular website has nothing BUT backlings. So for me, backlinks are the N1 important thing for Google.

I'd agree with that andd I'd add that it might be much more important for your niche keywords

Certain highly niched keywords Google might not do a greatjob in assessing relevant keywords and content. However it doesn't translate to an across the board truth for all of google's search engine.

Are backlinks critical? ABSOLUTELY. You might also want to check the kind of backlinks they have. Alot of people (especially list packet sellers) like to talk about High PR sites but they don't talk about how the number of people using the links translate to a diluted Pagerank flowing from those links. Google has made it absolutely clear that PR juice degrades and divides according to the number of backlinks coming from a site.

Your competitor might be using or getting backlinks that are more exclusive and not ones that are diluted by thousands of users putting up multiple backlinks..

[DogScout]

Interesting thread, Just a note. In one video I saw, Matt Cutts as much as admitted that part of his job is to 'mis-direct' those attempting to identify Google's exact do's and don't other than content, content, content. Using anything he says as 'proof' of Google allowing or not penalizing, de-indexing or filtering one technique or another is not exactly what I would consider real proof. (Test, Test, Test).


Watching these sites disappear, and the steps taken to regain them pretty much help to explain some of what Google is and is not looking at TODAY. Their algorithms do change a lot, what they pass by today, they focus on tomorrow.

Great thread and right or wrong, Crew Chief spent a ton of time helping this guy for free and his recommendations did work. Kudos to him and everyone that chimed in with an attempt to help.

PS-if you have several sites on one host and a robots text in the root nofollow/noindex any of the other folders that contain other sites and the IP is the same for each site, either switch hosts to one that automatically assigns a different IP with each address (such as GoDaddy) or buy a dedicated IP for each site. (IMO)

[dburk]

Originally Posted by cagliostro

I don't think so. A website that is attractive and usefull, stands out easily. Subjective maybe a good looking shoe or a shirt, even a good looking woman. Not a website.

I'm working on that specific niche for 2 years now. I have studied all websites upto page 5, each and every.

This particular website has nothing BUT backlings. So for me, backlinks are the N1 important thing for Google.

Keep in mind that this website i'm talking about, is nowhere in yahoo or bing (at least not in the 1st 10 pages).

Hi cagliostro,

Again, it's not about what you think, it's about what Google thinks. Apparently Google thinks this page merits that ranking, so it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by "This particular website has nothing BUT backlings." Do you mean to say it has no visible content, or that the content is made up of nothing but outbound links? I'm not sure why you think this "junk" page has no usefulness. Could you elaborate on the contents of that page?

[tjcocker]

Thanks to all for this useful thread. If I learned one thing it's:

Don't be a spammer.

No offense to the OP man, but your site sounded like a pretty obvious affiliate site with little to no value. Hey, more power to you if it can make you some money. I also agree that it probably wasn't just one or two factors leading to your problems. The whole thing looked and smelled like spam, so they treated it as such.

At least you changed them and they're back. That's a pretty awesome improvement from the panic at the start of this thread. Working together helps us all learn, and in this instance the results were very positive.

Tim

...I'm sure I said something flameworthy, so go ahead and get it out.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi cagliostro,

Again, it's not about what you think, it's about what Google thinks. Apparently Google thinks this page merits that ranking, so it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by "This particular website has nothing BUT backlings." Do you mean to say it has no visible content, or that the content is made up of nothing but outbound links? I'm not sure why you think this "junk" page has no usefulness. Could you elaborate on the contents of that page?

Google think? Google just follow links...

Recently the new Google caffeine thing may add more focus for on page optimization too!

From previous experience, Google don't really care about the content, although they really want their SERP to be useful, but they still base their ranking decision on backlinks, relevant or not.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by DogScout

Interesting thread, Just a note. In one video I saw, Matt Cutts as much as admitted that part of his job is to 'mis-direct' those attempting to identify Google's exact do's and don't other than content, content, content. Using anything he says as 'proof' of Google allowing or not penalizing, de-indexing or filtering one technique or another is not exactly what I would consider real proof.

Yes misdirection is part of the game but I think thats mostly in regard to information that could be used to "spam". Like you said the content points he makes aren't part of the misdirection as Google has a vested interest in encouraging good content.

I get static for example when I mention that Anchor text should be varied some. I have seen evidence that the exact same keyword anchor text over and over actually results in losing ground not gaining. You'll probably never see Matt Cutt confirm or deny that.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Google think? Google just follow links...

Recently the new Google caffeine thing may add more focus for on page optimization too!

From previous experience, Google don't really care about the content, although they really want their SERP to be useful, but they still base their ranking decision on backlinks, relevant or not.

Hi kkchoon,

I have to disagree, Google does care about content. Their algorithms are tuned to read the content and apply a formula to determine relevance. Their SERP list pages based on relevance.

While inbound links are important, it's how they effect the relevance of the page that matters. Relevant inbound links will improve a page's relevancy score while irrelevant pages do not.

If a page has no relevant content for a particular keyword you can have all the irrelevant backlinks you want and never show up in the SERP. There has to be some signals that indicate the page is relevant to a particular keyword to show up in the SERP.

Some folks think that the aesthetics of your web page plays a role, I think it plays no direct role in SERP rankings. It could influence human behavior which might indirectly influence ranking but it is typically minimal at best.

There is no easy and reliable way that a search engine can evaluate quality of content, this they leave to human behavior. Google uses a number of signals from human behavior that they can easily measure to get indicators infer quality or usefulness.

Backlinks are among those human behavioral indicators. If webmasters of other important websites are linking to your page then that is considered a vote for the usefulness or quality of your content. However, if a page about snake charming, with absolutely no content about auto insurance, links to a page about auto insurance, it may contribute to the total PR of that page but not to the relevance nor towards ranking for auto insurance.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

From previous experience, Google don't really care about the content, although they really want their SERP to be useful, but they still base their ranking decision on backlinks, relevant or not.

Kkchoon thats a pretty bad overstatment. Although we both sell backlink packages we need to be balanced. Saying Google doesn't care about content is false. Terribly false. Anyone that has done much SEO research will tell you that High PR sites are often jumped over in the SERPS when the content is solid. Backlinks are important but not the only thing that matters.

[banker0679]

not true

look into 'google bombing'

you'll see that the anchor text doesnt even have to be about what's on the page for it to work

doing so with what the other poster recommended will be a minigoogle bomb...which still works

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi kkchoon,

I have to disagree, Google does care about content. Their algorithms are tuned to read the content and apply a formula to determine relevance. Their SERP list pages based on relevance.

While inbound links are important, it's how they effect the relevance of the page that matters. Relevant inbound links will improve a page's relevancy score while irrelevant pages do not.

If a page has no relevant content for a particular keyword you can have all the irrelevant backlinks you want and never show up in the SERP. There has to be some signals that indicate the page is relevant to a particular keyword to show up in the SERP.

Some folks think that the aesthetics of your web page plays a role, I think it plays no direct role in SERP rankings. It could influence human behavior which might indirectly influence ranking but it is typically minimal at best.

There is no easy and reliable way that a search engine can evaluate quality of content, this they leave to human behavior. Google uses a number of signals from human behavior that they can easily measure to get indicators infer quality or usefulness.

Backlinks are among those human behavioral indicators. If webmasters of other important websites are linking to your page then that is considered a vote for the usefulness or quality of your content. However, if a page about snake charming, with absolutely no content about auto insurance, links to a page about auto insurance, it may contribute to the total PR of that page but not to the relevance nor towards ranking for auto insurance.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Some folks think that the aesthetics of your web page plays a role, I think it plays no direct role in SERP rankings.

Too true Dburk. How could it? Google's crawling bot isn't a human being. Like any computer it recognizes just 1 s and 0s. Might as well expect a computer to pickout the best artist

There is no easy and reliable way that a search engine can evaluate quality of content, this they leave to human behavior

Mostly true but not entirely. There is a semantic relationships between words and phrases with other words and phrases when the content is relevant and of some quality. You are right its not reliable but it can come close in a number of niches. If you see an article about tooth brusshes and you see bristle, bristle count, various grades, peridontal diseases, Gingivitis and Dentist it IS more likely to be both relevant and of better quality than one that has brushes, sale, buy now and sparkling.

[kkchoon]

Wow, this is gonna be long...

Alright, first of all, Google doesn't care about content, they use links, this is in the pass and present!

However, newly update Google Caffeine may change this, let's wait and see.

Google this keyword "coolest guy on the planet", you see the top 2 guys - Jonathan Leger and Brad Fallon.

What interesting is, Johnathan page uses a lot of on page optimization:

1. The URL
2. The Title
3. H1 Tag
4. Bold Text

While Brad Fallon, non of the on page stuff found! That's Google Bomb!

Massive backlinks with that keyword and "FORCE" Google to reckon it for the targeted keyword!

Google found that many people is trying to use the Google Bomb, they are in the process of "refining" their algorithm...

When I said "Google doesn't care about the content" I mean the targeted page, I was referring to Don Burk "relevant link".

Unless you have proof or studies, I am not convinced that "relevant link" has anything to do with getting your keyword rank, because all it needs is High Domain PR Authority link to convince Google!

I must stress this:

Relevant link don't help, but Relevant on page content and proper inner linking do helps in ranking for the targeted keywords!

Not only that, if you do proper LSI theme keyword research, your site would also rank for many related terms that you never consider before!

I would love to see some evidence regarding relevant link help in keyword ranking, as oppose to non-relevant but high authority domain links. If you Google for Angela's backlinks, there are tons of testimonials from Warriors using irrelevant links to rank for their keywords, but I've yet seen any evidence on relevant link help to rank the keyword...

I will change my stand, just need some proof.

Kok Choon

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Wow, this is gonna be long...

Alright, first of all, Google doesn't care about content, they use links, this is in the pass and present!

Overstated again. Perhaps its a language thing. I just wish you would stop repeating that because its misleading even though I think I get what you are trying to say. Its better to say Google doesn't care about content when it comes to the site you backlink from

While Brad Fallon, non of the on page stuff found! That's Google Bomb!

Massive backlinks with that keyword and "FORCE" Google to reckon it for the targeted keyword!

Sorry thats wrong. Look at the results and the page. The content keywords ARE on the page. Its in the left column and Google highlights it to show that it has identified the content on the page = "2nd coolest guy on the planet"

I think you and Dburk MAY be misunderstanding each other. Heres what he wrote

While inbound links are important, it's how they effect the relevance of the page that matters. Relevant inbound links will improve a page's relevancy score while irrelevant pages do not.

If a page has no relevant content for a particular keyword you can have all the irrelevant backlinks you want and never show up in the SERP. There has to be some signals that indicate the page is relevant to a particular keyword to show up in the SERP.

I took it that he meant "anchor text relevance" in the links which I think everyone admits is useful if not absolutely required and then he went on to talk about content on the page linked to. I'll leave it to him to clarify.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Mostly true but not entirely. There is a semantic relationships between words and phrases with other words and phrases when the content is relevant and of some quality. You are right its not reliable but it can come close in a number of niches. If you see an article about tooth brusshes and you see bristle, bristle count, various grades, peridontal diseases, Gingivitis and Dentist it IS more likely to be both relevant and of better quality than one that has brushes, sale, buy now and sparkling.

This relates to relevance, not quality, which was the exact point that I was trying to make.

[dburk]

Hi Kok Choon,

You seem to be making my point. First you point out how relevant backlinks influence page relevance i.e. Google Bombing and then follow this up with why it doesn't matter. You seem to be arguring against your own point.

When you say:

"Unless you have proof or studies, I am not convinced that "relevant link" has anything to do with getting your keyword rank"

I'd like to refer you to your own evidence used in the very same post:

Google this keyword "coolest guy on the planet", you see the top 2 guys - Jonathan Leger and Brad Fallon. While Brad Fallon, non of the on page stuff found! That's Google Bomb!

Massive backlinks with that keyword and "FORCE" Google to reckon it for the targeted keyword!

So which is it? Relevant backlinks get you ranked for a targeted keyword or they don't? You just pointed out that Brad Fallon was ranked solely on the influence of backlinks that were relevant to a targeted keyword. It couldn't be on-page factors so it had to be relevant backlinks. Am I missing something?

I must stress this:

Relevant link don't help, but Relevant on page content and proper inner linking do helps in ranking for the targeted keywords!

Here you seem to counter your previous point that Google doesn't care about content, only backlinks.

I would love to see some evidence regarding relevant link help in keyword ranking, as oppose to non-relevant but high authority domain links. If you Google for Angela's backlinks, there are tons of testimonials from Warriors using irrelevant links to rank for their keywords, but I've yet seen any evidence on relevant link help to rank the keyword...

Now here you are asking me to prove a negative. I challenge you to find a single example of a page ranking for a keyword where that page has no mention of that keyword nor does any of the inbound links. That would be evidence of irrelevant backlinks causing you to rank for a keyword. In the absence of such evidence I find as ample proof that irrelevant backlinks have no direct influence on ranking for a targeted keyword.

I'm sure you will find folks that will say all kinds of unfounded claims, but where's the evidence? It's just empty words if there is no evidence. I challenge you to find a single example of irrelevant backlinks getting somebody ranked. I've never seen it and doubt you can find any evidence that it ever occurs.

Angela herself has counseled folks on this forum about following her explicit instructions to ensure that the backlinks they create with her packets are made relevant to the keyword they are targeting. If you follow her instructions you will be creating relevant backlinks, if you don't make your backlinks relevant they don't help much. Relevance is paramount when it comes to backlinks.

[ruxi]

Google have been penalized you. Google dont like 3 way links so always try to get 2 way or 1 way

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

This relates to relevance, not quality, which was the exact point that I was trying to make.

actually both. If what I am looking for is information about tooth brushes and not just wanting to buy one then an article that covers those important topics is going to be seen as quality as well.

I think kkchoon thinks you are saying that the site that gives you a backlinks has to have content on its page that is relevant to your own page content regardless of link text. If thats not it then I am not understanding him either and if you are implying that a link without relevant link text has no benefit I would agree with him.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Kok Choon,

You seem to be making my point. First you point out how relevant backlinks influence page relevance i.e. Google Bombing and then follow this up with why it doesn't matter. You seem to be arguring against your own point.

When you say:

I'd like to refer you to your own evidence used in the very same post:

So which is it? Relevant backlinks get you ranked for a targeted keyword or they don't? You just pointed out that Brad Fallon was ranked solely on the influence of backlinks that were relevant to a targeted keyword. It couldn't be on-page factors so it had to be relevant backlinks. Am I missing something?

You call it relevant backlink, you should be more specific, that is call targeted keyword link.

Just to clarify here:

When you said relevant backlink, does it come from relevant content? I can always use unrelated content, and link it with "relevant" backlink to my site and still rank for that keyword.

I am arguing the point - relevancy doesn't help!

Many "expert" tell people to only get links from related niche, related blog, related sites, that is not true.

Angela's backlinks are from all kind of sites, and it still works great! If

relevant link = targeted keyword link

I think we are just arguing the name, and there is no point arguing the name here.

I must apologize for my misunderstanding!

Originally Posted by dburk

Here you seem to counter your previous point that Google doesn't care about content, only backlinks.

I think I must stress everything!

There are 2 part, link from and link to. When I say Google doesn't care about content, I should stress this - Google doesn't care about the content link from!

Can you agree on this? Google only care about the link keyword, they don't care about the link content.

Originally Posted by dburk

Now here you are asking me to prove a negative. I challenge you to find a single example of a page ranking for a keyword where that page has no mention of that keyword nor does any of the inbound links. That would be evidence of irrelevant backlinks causing you to rank for a keyword. In the absence of such evidence I find as ample proof that irrelevant backlinks have no direct influence on ranking for a targeted keyword.

I would love to accept your challenge, but we are not arguing the same thing, and in fact you agree to my point ! Alright, to be fair we both agree that link from relevant content and niche don't help, but link from "relevant link" or "targeted keyword" is a must!

Can we agree on that or you want to "correct" me?

Originally Posted by dburk

I'm sure you will find folks that will say all kinds of unfounded claims, but where's the evidence? It's just empty words if there is no evidence. I challenge you to find a single example of irrelevant backlinks getting somebody ranked. I've never seen it and doubt you can find any evidence that it ever occurs.

Yes, I agree, that's why I must clarify everything here! Now we all agree that profile type link does work, and work very well!

Just get links from any High Domain PR authority site will greatly help your site ranking, and the link doesn't really need to be from the same niche.

Agree?

Originally Posted by dburk

Angela herself has counseled folks on this forum about following her explicit instructions to ensure that the backlinks they create with her packets are made relevant to the keyword they are targeting. If you follow her instructions you will be creating relevant backlinks, if you don't make your backlinks relevant they don't help much. Relevance is paramount when it comes to backlinks.

If you think I meant "you don't have to put the targeted keyword in the link", I must clarify here...

I do see people using direct linking, that is not effective but it still works! When you gain tons of links from various places, quantity does matter! I see website with direct linking and still rank for their targeted keyword with old school on page optimization - putting keywords at the bottom of the site!

This is still working but very inefficient! It might take 10 times or more links to achieve the wanted result as oppose to putting a "targeted keyword" in the link!

Lastly, please accept my apology for misunderstanding Don Burk, and arguing something that doesn't exists!

Kok Choon

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Overstated again. Perhaps its a language thing. I just wish you would stop repeating that because its misleading even though I think I get what you are trying to say. Its better to say Google doesn't care about content when it comes to the site you backlink from

Hi Mike! I just love you saying that "Overstated again."!

Thanks for pointing out, but what I really meant is source content, where the link comes from!

Any also, if you have enough backlinks that say otherwise, you can convince Google that your site is about that keyword!

If you look at Brad site, he is truly the SEO Guy! I can't found any on page keyword optimization and still rank 2nd!

The point here is not ranking #1 or #2, because the result is fluctuating! He needs a lot more links, may be 10 times more link to rank for that keyword without on page optimization!

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I think you and Dburk MAY be misunderstanding each other. Heres what he wrote

I took it that he meant "anchor text relevance" in the links which I think everyone admits is useful if not absolutely required and then he went on to talk about content on the page linked to. I'll leave it to him to clarify.

You are right, I apologize to Don, but if he don't meant "anchor text relevance", I would love to continue the debate !

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

actually both. If what I am looking for is information about tooth brushes and not just wanting to buy one then an article that covers those important topics is going to be seen as quality as well.

I think kkchoon thinks you are saying that the site that gives you a backlinks has to have content on its page that is relevant to your own page content regardless of link text. If thats not it then I am not understanding him either and if you are implying that a link without relevant link text has no benefit I would agree with him.

Yes, that is what I think, and thanks for clarifying...

Now we all agree that High Domain PR links work even without the need to find relevant niche, relevant content on the link source, that's what I need to know!

Thanks Mike! For helping me clarifying everything, appreciate your help!

Kok Choon

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Just get links from any High Domain PR authority site will greatly help your site ranking, and the link doesn't really need to be from the same niche.

Agree?

Well I agree here. I thought that might have been what you meant.

I do see people using direct linking, that is not effective but it still works! When you gain tons of links from various places, quantity does matter!

I agree with this as well. If I find a PR9 site I am not going to pass it up just because it doesn't allow me to post anchor text. I haven't found any evidence that a link without anchor text is treated by Google as no follow therefore it has some usefulness. Of course anchor text as you say is always better.

I know that there are some pretty popular people on Warriors that will disagree with me but I have seen ample evidence that Google has the ability to spot keyword anchor text spamming and that even in the abscence of that ability varying your linking strategy (not always using the same anchort text) if even a little bit has long term benefits.

[MusicisMagic]

Hi,

I would check and see how Google cross-references. I have heard that Google sometimes will decide not to like your site, will remove it and then look for other sites you may have. This may not fit your situation entirely but it's worth checking into. Hope that helps.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Well I agree here. I thought that might have been what you meant.

I agree with this as well. If I find a PR9 site I am not going to pass it up just because it doesn't allow me to post anchor text. I haven't found any evidence that a link without anchor text is treated by Google as no follow therefore it has some usefulness. Of course anchor text as you say is always better.

I know that there are some pretty popular people on Warriors that will disagree with me but I have seen ample evidence that Google has the ability to spot keyword anchor text spamming and that even in the abscence of that ability varying your linking strategy (not always using the same anchort text) if even a little bit has long term benefits.

That's what I keep telling people, you just can't ask everyone to agree with us, right... ?

[dburk]

Hi kkchoon,

It sounds like you are starting to come around, let me clarify my point just a bit.

By relevant backlinks I do mean the content of the page where the link is "from". I think that you may be overlooking the fact that you must insert at least one HTML element on the page linked "from" to make that page (the page linked from) relevant.

After you have created your backlink, a process that requires you to insert HTML elements onto the linked "from" page, you will find that page has relevance simply by the act of using relevant anchor text. If you fail to make that page relevant, by inserting relevant anchor text, the backlink will still help you if other elements of that page are relevant. It is the relevance of the linking page, the page linked "from", that gives your backlink it's power to influence your target page's relevancy score.

Anchor text in outbound links is a well known factor in influencing a web page's relevance. This is why hub pages have so much ranking power. Relevance of the linked "from" page is the reason why you can rank very high for a competitive keyword with only a handful of well chosen backlinks.

So when you say relevance doesn't matter, I have to completely disagree, it is absolutely essential if that backlink is to give any direct benefit. While I hear some folks argue that the they really mean the website topic doesn't need to be relevant. I agree, search engines don't rank websites they rank web pages, the topic of your website almost never plays a direct role in SERP rankings. I have never argued that website topics are important for the ranking of a page.

A website's topic can influence the relevance of a page via inbound links, and it certainly may impact the relevance the page has to the human visitors if they navigate to that page from somewhere else on that website. A web page is part of a web of links to and from that page. That web doesn't necessarily need to be part of the main website, though it typically is, search engines examine that web for relevance and they are not much concerned with which site the page is part of.

When you create outbound links your are creating a web, and the pages you link to becomes part of that web, and pages they link to extend that web. Search engines like Google look at the relevance of that web as a way of scoring your page's relevance. Those factors, combined with your on-page relevance, result in a total relevancy score which a page is ranked by.

If you truly understand this concept, which is the basis for search engine ranking results, you would never say that relevance of a page where you place a backlink is not important. The more relevance that page has, the more power and influence it has to help you rank for your targeted keyword.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi kkchoon,

It sounds like you are starting to come around, let me clarify my point just a bit.

I wish I am, but I still don't buy relevancy on the source site.

The reason - I've many sites that rank for my own targeted keywords with many links from forum, blogs and websites, these are profile type links, from different type of content site, and they all share the same thing - High Domain PR, but with different topic.

Not sure if this means anything to you, only the link has the relevant keyword to my site.

If you are referring to my link and keyword - yes, they are relevant, but site - no, they are definitely not...

Originally Posted by dburk

By relevant backlinks I do mean the content of the page where the link is "from". I think that you may be overlooking the fact that you must insert at least one HTML element on the page linked "from" to make that page (the page linked from) relevant.

Are you referring to a link?

Originally Posted by dburk

After you have created your backlink, a process that requires you to insert HTML elements onto the linked "from" page, you will find that page has relevance simply by the act of using relevant anchor text. If you fail to make that page relevant, by inserting relevant anchor text, the backlink will still help you if other elements of that page are relevant. It is the relevance of the linking page, the page linked "from", that gives your backlink it's power to influence your target page's relevancy score.

You mean many directly links to a site, and Google will use onpage factor to rank your site? Yes, I've seen that!

Originally Posted by dburk

Anchor text in outbound links is a well known factor in influencing a web page's relevance. This is why hub pages have so much ranking power. Relevance of the linked "from" page is the reason why you can rank very high for a competitive keyword with only a handful of well chosen backlinks.

What else matters beside link, I though link was the most important and may be the only factor affecting your ranking...

Originally Posted by dburk

So when you say relevance doesn't matter, I have to completely disagree, it is absolutely essential if that backlink is to give any direct benefit. While I hear some folks argue that the they really mean the website topic doesn't need to be relevant. I agree, search engines don't rank websites they rank web pages, the topic of your website almost never plays a direct role in SERP rankings. I have never argued that website topics are important for the ranking of a page.

Do you mean the web page content must be relevant to give good ranking?

or

Even if the web page content is irrelevant, but the keyword is relevant is enough?

Originally Posted by dburk

A website's topic can influence the relevance of a page via inbound links, and it certainly may impact the relevance the page has to the human visitors if they navigate to that page from somewhere else on that website. A web page is part of a web of links to and from that page. That web doesn't necessarily need to be part of the main website, though it typically is, search engines examine that web for relevance and they are not much concerned with which site the page is part of.

I really doubt that the source site relevancy content has much influence to the ranking of a targeted keyword that I try to rank, I find it more effective with 1 way High domain PR links.

Having said that, I must agree with you if you meant relevancy will help you rank for many keywords that we might not have in the anchor text!

The problem is, you need to find a lot of relevant sites and links, which are not easy to find by the way!

I would build my site with proper on page LSI and theme keywords in my categories to rank for potential long tail keywords that related to my topic, but I will focus on getting links from High Domain PR sites, it work faster this way.

Originally Posted by dburk

When you create outbound links your are creating a web, and the pages you link to becomes part of that web, and pages they link to extend that web. Search engines like Google look at the relevance of that web as a way of scoring your page's relevance. Those factors, combined with your on-page relevance, result in a total relevancy score which a page is ranked by.

How do you find relevant sites? Through competitor analysis or some special tools? I found it relatively hard to get links from relevant sites.

While I see great result from non-relevant but high Domain PR links, I now do my SEO with it, and love the result!

Still rank high for many related long tail keywords

Originally Posted by dburk

If you truly understand this concept, which is the basis for search engine ranking results, you would never say that relevance of a page where you place a backlink is not important. The more relevance that page has, the more power and influence it has to help you rank for your targeted keyword.

I still think relevancy is overrated. I rank my site with targeted keyword but all links from different type of sites.

Anyway, thanks for this great relevancy lesson! Until I see more studies and proof on how to leverage it in mass scale, I will still use my High PR links for the job.

[dburk]

Hi kkchoon,

Why do you insist on bringing up sites! Search Engines do not rank websites, they rank web pages. That is central to the point that I'm am making and you keep trying to twist what I'm saying about pages to apply to websites. I see that as a fundamental misunderstanding of how SEO works. You seem to understand some aspects but aren't able to comprehend how they relate to each other.

Search engines see your page as part of a web of pages, not as part of a website. You web page is part of a web that is made up of links to and from your page. This web can exist without any links whatsoever to or from other pages on a domain.

The links to and from a page have a very strong influence on the relevance of that page. By simply adding an outbound link to a page your effect the relevance of that page. Therefore it is impossible to have a backlink with relevant anchor text from an irrelevant page, it is misleading to suggest that you can. That seems to be crux of your argument, which I find completely invalid.

When someone tries to make the argument you have chosen, after they think it through a little, they realize the invalidity of their position and typically try to shift the argument to be about "website" relevance which only a naive SEO person would buy into. Search engines don't rank websites nor do they consider the relevance of a website topic.

Search engines do factor the web a page is part of and this web need not be part of the domain the page resides on. When you create a web it can be made up of pages from many different domains and your page is part of this web. The relevance of your web has a major influence on your pages relevancy score.

I have challenged your arguments by pointing out the conflicts and invalidity of your exact words, while you have made your counter argument based upon redefining my words and arguing against your own reinterpreted version of what I said. I respectfully request that you address you counter argument to my precise words.

I believe there are two fundamental concepts you must understand to comprehend advanced SEO tactics. First, search engines rank web pages not websites. Second, relevance is not an absolute value, it is a relative value and the primary influence of SERP rankings.

You are arguing that "all it needs is High Domain PR Authority link" and "Relevant link don't help" I counter your point with my assertion that relevance is absolutely essential. Without it you get virtually no value towards ranking your targeted keyword.

To be clear, I am saying it needs to be a backlink from a page that is relevant to have ranking benefit. Adding a relevant "targeted keyword link" influences the relevance of the page where the backlink is placed, but SEO professionals have realized for many years that backlinks without "targeted keyword link" are also beneficial provided there are other factors on that page that are relevant.

So relevance is in fact the only essential property for a backlink to help your rank a targeted keyword. Relevant anchor text helps to make the page it is placed on to be relevant.

When considering the fundamental concept that relevance is a relative value, that means one page will tend to be more relevant than other relevant pages. The higher the relevance, the greater the power to influence the relevance of the pages it links to.

So a page that has relevant incoming links, relevant page titles, relevant page text and relevant anchor text on outbound links will be more influential than the same page with just relevant anchor text. And if you remove that last remaining signal of relevance it will no longer influence the ranking of your targeted keyword.

Relevance is not only important, it is absolutely essential. I am speaking of page relevance because that is the only kind of relevance that search engines recognize. Please don't try to inject non sequitur arguments like "website niche" or topic relevance into my argument.

[Mike Anthony]

dburk,
I'd like to believe that google looks at page content when determining the relevance of a link but what I'd like to believe isn't fact. If it's going to be a productive conversation you are going to have to offer up some proof. I personally lean in this direction as I believe it makes semantic and relevant sense.

We have to realize that hundreds of people come on warriors making claims. It's only productive if instead of making statements we offer proof. I think an argument can be made for it but I won't get fully behind that until I can see much better evidence than I have seen.

I'd like also to point out that PR and PR juice is not relevant centric. That is, a site or page doesn't have varied PR based on keywords or content. If you believe that PR is at least one of the factors that can affect serps then a link that conveys PR still has importance even if not relevant for a particular key word. anchor text yes is always to be preferred but like I said I don't see any reason to overlook a high PR site just because it doesn't allow time for anchor text.

Let's try to stick to substantive statements that we can prove rather than just statements back and forth without evidence. It's pointless to counter assertion with assertion.

[kkchoon]

WOW!

Hey Don & Mike, .. this is not going to show any conclusion here, let's just cold off a bit here...!

I will be doing an experiment soon, should see how this goes later. But now, Dan, can you share some tips on how to find relevant links?

I need to know more ways to find relevant links for the experiment.

BTW, Terry Kyle experiment is very interesting:

Terry Kyle’s Big 60-Day Backlink Experiment

He did mention:

"If we are to believe that PageRank is everything for backlinks (and without it, there isn't much to go on apart from relevant sites and in this experiment, that ain't going so well), what we have to try to reduce is what I call, the PR Escalator Effect."

Thanks for everything, the time and sharing knowledge !
Kok Choon

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

dburk,
I'd like to believe that google looks at page content when determining the relevance of a link but what I'd like to believe isn't fact. If it's going to be a productive conversation you are going to have to offer up some proof. I personally lean in this direction as I believe it makes semantic and relevant sense.

We have to realize that hundreds of people come on warriors making claims. It's only productive if instead of making statements we offer proof. I think an argument can be made for it but I won't get fully behind that until I can see much better evidence than I have seen.

I'd like also to point out that PR and PR juice is not relevant centric. That is, a site or page doesn't have varied PR based on keywords or content. If you believe that PR is at least one of the factors that can affect serps then a link that conveys PR still has importance even if not relevant for a particular key word. anchor text yes is always to be preferred but like I said I don't see any reason to overlook a high PR site just because it doesn't allow time for anchor text.

Let's try to stick to substantive statements that we can prove rather than just statements back and forth without evidence. It's pointless to counter assertion with assertion.

Hi Mike,

I'm sure by now you must have seen plenty of examples of pages ranking highly for a keyword when few if any of the backlinks contain the target keyword within the anchor text. This is quite common, I hope you not asking for proof of this.

The PR is a non sequitur and I don't disagree with any of your assertions regarding PR except the part about it being a factor in ranking. I have not seen evidence that a page's PR is a significant factor in SERP ranking. My evidence is the first page of SERP for virtually every keyword search you can imagine. Please show me where pages are ranked by PR! Clearly it's relevance that the search engines use to sort SERP listings. Again look at a handful of SERP to verify this.

The evidence is readily available for all to see and is so abundant I'm surprised that you imply it doesn't exist. I am only pointing out what is clearly visible to anyone who can type a keyword into the Google search box.

If you need something beyond what you can see for yourself in the SERP, name it. Do I need to do a screen shot for you and mark it up with a highliter? Are you confused about what to look for?

My primary assertion is that I have done a lot of research and have never found a single example of a page that ranked for a keyword based on backlinks from totally irrelevant pages. I believe the absence of evidence is the proof. If no one can produce a single example then it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. They only way to prove a negative absolutely is to study SERP of every keyword search ever performed and to study every website in existence. We can make a statistically valid analysis if we have a large enough dataset. Granted my dataset gives me approximately 95% probability with 5% margin of error and that is statistically valid in my eyes.

You need to examine the evidence for yourself if you want to be certain. Start with this bit of evidence:

how to rank with irrelevant backlinks - Google Search

[dburk]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

WOW!

Hey Don & Mike, .. this is not going to show any conclusion here, let's just cold off a bit here...!

I will be doing an experiment soon, should see how this goes later. But now, Dan, can you share some tips on how to find relevant links?

I need to know more ways to find relevant links for the experiment.

BTW, Terry Kyle experiment is very interesting:

Terry Kyle’s Big 60-Day Backlink Experiment

He did mention:

"If we are to believe that PageRank is everything for backlinks (and without it, there isn't much to go on apart from relevant sites and in this experiment, that ain't going so well), what we have to try to reduce is what I call, the PR Escalator Effect."

Thanks for everything, the time and sharing knowledge !
Kok Choon

Hi Kok Choon,

You can use any of you normal sources for relevant backlinks, as long as you can post content relevant to the targeted keyword. Keep in mind that anchor text of a page's outbound links is one of the most powerful factors in establishing a page's relevance.

In some cases you may only be able to post a URL. In those type of pages you must select a page that is already relevant, unless of course your domain and/or URL contain your keyword and that URL becomes the anchor text.

Naturally the easiest way to find the most relevant pages is to simply enter your keyword in Google's search box and they will return results in order of relevance. That is what Google is best known for.

After you have your list, examine each page for link opportunities. Granted they may be few and far between, but some times you find some real gems. All you need is about three links from pages listed in the top 10 to move your own page onto that list.

Two more excellent sources that often have comment opportunities can be found here:

Google Blog Search - Advanced Options

And here:

Google News

[kkchoon]

Thanks Don!

I will start the experiment properly early next month, will open a thread and show some live example.

1. What I will do is finding same PR sites, one with relevant content, one without, all targeting same keyword on same PR domain, and see which rank first.

2. I will find lower PR (1 rank lower) for relevant link, and another 1 rank higher with irrelevant link, do the same vise versa.

2 main objective in the test -

See if relevant content really helps in ranking, while using both same PR domain.

Check if lower PR site gives the same result vs higher PR site.

It should be clear after the experiment if relevancy do helps in rank... I will invite you to give some advice as well!

Will PM you in 2 weeks time, thanks for everything!

Kok Choon

[dburk]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Thanks Don!

I will start the experiment properly early next month, will open a thread and show some live example.

1. What I will do is finding same PR sites, one with relevant content, one without, all targeting same keyword on same PR domain, and see which rank first.

2. I will find lower PR (1 rank lower) for relevant link, and another 1 rank higher with irrelevant link, do the same vise versa.

2 main objective in the test -

See if relevant content really helps in ranking, while using both same PR domain.

Check if lower PR site gives the same result vs higher PR site.

It should be clear after the experiment if relevancy do helps in rank... I will invite you to give some advice as well!

Will PM you in 2 weeks time, thanks for everything!

Kok Choon

Hi Kok Choon,

That sounds interesting. Please keep in mind that sites do not have PR, pages do.