Let's Talk About Expired Domains & Relevancy to Your Niche...

41 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that Google will go down the relevancy route deeper and deeper down the line and will look more closely at your tiers. This brings about a couple of things I would like your thoughts on.

1. Domain name clearly states what the niche is about, it's also clear from the backlinks what the niche is about. Yet you plan to re-purpose the domain about something completely different.

2. Domain name is somewhat ambiguous/generic and has primarily branded links, making it less clear what the site is about. However, while tier 1 (links to money site) is focused on your niche (obviously), tier 2 (backlinks to expired domain) are coming from sites about a niche that you're not planning on entering.

3. What is the importance of the above in relation to the competitiveness of the terms you are targeting?

Of course, you could also build links yourself to an expired domain to add more relevance, but anyway, thoughts, guys?


As is always the case in this game, one statement/question leads to another, so:

Irrelevant links still seem to be working now, but it would be hard to doubt the added power of relevant links throughout all your tiers now and in the future as Google gets smarter.

It's completely normal for non-internet marketers to not have the faintest idea about PBNs and expired domains, so will purchase a domain they like the sound of and start a website about a completely different niche. You could argue that this would stop Google from putting too much emphasis on relevancy. But then again, why would Google care?

Small business owners are the ones who get caught in the crossfire and tend to be hit the worst by updates anyway. In fact (conspiracy incoming), it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility to assume that Google love it when this happens. Internet marketers can and will usually adapt, the small business owner, however, will move to Adwords and line Google's pockets.

Please don't respond about what works now (thousands of blog comments used to work like a charm), but rather the direction you think SEO, and more specifically PBNs/expired domains, will go in.
#domains #expired #niche #relevancy #talk
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by dreamtoreality View Post

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that Google will go down the relevancy route deeper and deeper down the line and will look more closely at your tiers.
    This part I largely disagree with. I do not think they will look too closely at tiers.

    There was a study maybe 2 years ago where they looked at the tiers of high authority sites. Basically what they found was that even on sites like Amazon, once you went 3-5 tiers deep, it was about 85% irrelevant and spammy links.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9665445].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dreamtoreality
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      This part I largely disagree with. I do not think they will look too closely at tiers.

      There was a study maybe 2 years ago where they looked at the tiers of high authority sites. Basically what they found was that even on sites like Amazon, once you went 3-5 tiers deep, it was about 85% irrelevant and spammy links.
      Interesting, Mike, I wasn't aware of that study. However, what are your thoughts on tier 2? Google can likely find out a lot just by focusing on the first two tiers and going no deeper.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9665466].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by dreamtoreality View Post

        Interesting, Mike, I wasn't aware of that study. However, what are your thoughts on tier 2? Google can likely find out a lot just by focusing on the first two tiers and going no deeper.
        They can. It certainly is possible. It largely comes down to a matter of computing power. From what they have said, Penguin sucks up a lot of resources when they run it. It's why it is not a real-time part of the algorithm. Running it 2 levels deep instead of one level deep is going to eat up even more resources.

        I'm sure it is coming though at some point.

        In the meantime, the easiest way for them to deal with most tiered linking is to just discredit Web 2.0 sites. Knock down all the common Web 2.0 platforms that people use like Tumblr, Blogger, Wordpress, etc. Cut the amount of linkjuice and authority that those sites pass on through their links and 99% of tiered linking dies overnight.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667172].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          In the meantime, the easiest way for them to deal with most tiered linking is to just discredit Web 2.0 sites. Knock down all the common Web 2.0 platforms that people use like Tumblr, Blogger, Wordpress, etc. Cut the amount of linkjuice and authority that those sites pass on through their links and 99% of tiered linking dies overnight.
          I don't think that will ever happen, simply because those same 2.0 platforms also include legit niche authority sites with tons of organic built links.
          Signature
          Hi
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667464].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by yukon View Post

            I don't think that will ever happen, simply because those same 2.0 platforms also include legit niche authority sites with tons of organic built links.
            and unless I missed the sale Google owns one of them and would be opening themselves up to antitrust issues if they didn't slap their own sites ability to pass on authority.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667470].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by yukon View Post

            I don't think that will ever happen, simply because those same 2.0 platforms also include legit niche authority sites with tons of organic built links.
            It does, but do they care if those sites lose the ability to pass on significant linkjuice externally? I'm not sure they would care about that.

            I'm sure they could have some sort of filter that establishes the few good pages out there too if they wanted too.

            I'm just saying that if they really want to go after tiered linking, that is the easiest, most efficient way to do it without sucking up a ton of resources.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667483].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      This part I largely disagree with. I do not think they will look too closely at tiers.

      There was a study maybe 2 years ago where they looked at the tiers of high authority sites. Basically what they found was that even on sites like Amazon, once you went 3-5 tiers deep, it was about 85% irrelevant and spammy links.
      They don't have to go that deep, one level is enough to cripple tons of sites.

      Amazon is the worse example to chose from btw as they have so many links from affilaite marketeers,I wouldn't expect anything else 3-5 level deep if you see how most of these affiliates rank their sites with softwares.

      Compare that to something like Microsoft.com that doesn't run any affiliate program and I bet the tiers look a lot less spammy.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9665768].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nik0
        Banned
        Makes no sense to start these type of threads, all SEO's are hell scared this will happen some day so you can't expect any realistic responses from them.

        Instead they try to hide their selves behind all kind of theories how hard it will be to Google and what not.

        I am realistic and I do forsee something like this happening in the future.

        Google took a pretty good shot at public blog networks with this new Penguin update, soon this won't even exist anymore as it largely already stopped working in the way most set it up. I am the living proof of that with my totally redesigned service from the ground up, very neccessary and very expensive I can tell you, if it wasn't needed I wouldn't have done it.

        What's the result when people stop using public blog networks? They are going to build their own networks, many are already doing that. So over the next years there will be a huge influx of PBN builders that dedicate a domain solely to one money site.

        You can bet your ass that Google will find a new way to detect these private networks when it reaches crazy levels, probably they are already working on it and they only need to look at a few things:

        - when did it drop / expire
        - does the backlink profile match with the present content
        - what type of site does it link out to
        - how is the new site build up, EMD style or full fledged money site
        - fill in yourself

        Same like they tanked massive amounts of EMD sites they can also tank massive amounts of smallish PBN sites. They don't even need a new system for that, as they've proven to have that already, just need to add a few new filters to it that determine the likelyness of it being a real site or some crappy blog (whether they made it look real or not).

        There are really not that many domains that are rebought when they expire, you can test this yourself. Head over to expireddomains.net, take a list of 100k domains, and check how many are still available. I can tell you right now that 99.9 percent is still available to register. You think Google cares about these 0.1 percent of sites that might be innocently punished? Heck it's even less then 0,1 percent cause of the additional filtering they can do.

        But no, it's way too complicated according to some, really lmao.

        Anyway I hope it never happens of course but most probably it's unavoidable so I'd say let us all bank while we can.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9665782].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IMLab
    Few notes to mention here:

    1. The domain name by itself does not state what the site is about. Relevancy is primary determined from your content.

    2. Google is aiming to fight the hype of private blog networks by giving more attention to click through rate and bounce rate. In other words, if your websites in the PBN(s) are not getting any traffic or clicks, they won't give that much of link juice back to your money site. Google did not implement that in full scale quite yet but since the last update, more attention has been taken towards those factors.

    3. Relevancy will always be a main factor. The same goes for the quality and originality of your content.

    4. PBN(s) will survive for long time as long as you keep them natural, original and decent full of useful content. In the near future, building PBN(s) will require more work, care and attention but they won't stop working anytime soon.

    Hope that helps!
    Signature
    Our SEO Website: Labinator.com
    Complete Link Building Guide For 2016: Click Here
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9665611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by dreamtoreality View Post

    Please don't respond about what works now (thousands of blog comments used to work like a charm), but rather the direction you think SEO, and more specifically PBNs/expired domains, will go in.
    To keep in line with this request I think yes Google will go that way and already have begun. Previous disagreements I have had on this subject relates to what works now.

    It makes sense that WebMD should have more authority recommending other sites on medicine and that Harvard Law should convey more authority referring authority to a legal site.

    Pagerank was based on the idea of picking high authority sites and then flowing from those sites outward to the rest of the web. Google should and already likely has their sites set out for relevance rank (or whatever they call it). Majestic has kinda picked that up.

    Where I disagree with others is that every site on the net will be identified as being in a particular niche. That would be an enormous job and the programming for that would be filled with problems and for lack of a better word "bugs".

    I see it more as wide category based Relevance Rank. Pick major leaders in various large fields and flow the relevance authority. Say Microsoft to other software companies but not photo editing to other photo editors. History.com to other history sites but noy Egyptian 12th dynasty sites to other 12th dynasty sites.

    It sounds simple to say - yes they will identify what every site is about but whats simple to humans is not simple to computers.


    I however don't think they need to do a that for expired domains and PBNs though. The solution to wiping out PBNs is much simpler. Monitor the auctions, crawl the those domains for 30-180 days looking for link patterns and nuke em.

    The end - at least for 99% of the market now.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667441].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Google took a pretty good shot at public blog networks with this new Penguin update, soon this won't even exist anymore as it largely already stopped working in the way most set it up. I am the living proof of that with my totally redesigned service from the ground up, very neccessary and very expensive I can tell you, if it wasn't needed I wouldn't have done it.
      I could have sworn the OP asked this not to be about another thread about what is or isn't working now and certainly not for another plug for a service we all can't stop hearing about and has no real proof behind it besides self testimonials from the seller.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667466].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulch65
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      I however don't think they need to do a that for expired domains and PBNs though. The solution to wiping out PBNs is much simpler. Monitor the auctions, crawl the those domains for 30-180 days looking for link patterns and nuke em.

      The end - at least for 99% of the market now.
      I find a lot of sites ranking via PNBs and they've really been set up poorly.

      All I do is download the link data into Excel from AHREFs, run a formula that returns 'home page link' if the backlink ends in .com or .co.uk etc and 9 times out of 10 if it is a home page link, chances are it's a PNB.

      What's your take on people setting up PNBs and then pointing homepage links directly at their 'money sites'?

      If I can do this with a simple Excel formula, it boggles me what engineers with PhDs could do.

      Yet we still see PNBs working for competitor sites.

      Do you ever point home page links at your money sites in this fashion or is it considered sloppy implementation?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778740].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEO Power
    I hate all this 'relevance' talk. A good link can come from an irrelevant site. For example,

    These baby car seats are wonderful. I bought one yesterday while reading my favourite book (Think and Grow Rich)
    That's a link to a book about personal finance on a baby blog and on a page about baby car seats. People can link that way, and that kind of link is as natural as one on a books or finance blog and deserves the same credit too.

    Thus, irelevant links will continue to work as long as links remain a part of the algorithm.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667511].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by SEO Power View Post

      I hate all this 'relevance' talk. A good link can come from an irrelevant site. For example,



      That's a link to a book about personal finance on a baby blog and on a page about baby car seats. People can link that way, and that kind of link is as natural as one on a books or finance blog and deserves the same credit too.

      Thus, irelevant links will continue to work as long as links remain a part of the algorithm.
      I can't imagine an organic link like that, it doesn't even make sense. Looks out of place. The book wouldn't be the focus of the subject which wouldn't prompt organic traffic to waste 3 seconds of their life looking up a URL. Now If they dropped a link to a car seat that would make sense. Besides, how many people shop & read books at the same time, lol.

      Don't get me wrong, irrelevant links can defiantly rank pages but it's not something I would do for a long term site.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667612].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        I can't imagine an organic link like that, it doesn't even make sense. Looks out of place. The book wouldn't be the focus of the subject which wouldn't prompt organic traffic to waste 3 seconds of their life looking up a URL. Now If they dropped a link to a car seat that would make sense. Besides, how many people shop & read books at the same time, lol.
        Picking at an example does not negate the entire point.. You can take exception to the link and it can be changed to

        These baby car seats are wonderful. I bought one yesterday while reading my favourite book (Think and Grow Rich)
        The blog is still a mommy blog and according to some here would be a non relevant link about acquiring wealth. The Idea that Google is going to use a computer algo to determine what niche every single page on the internet falls into for humans is fairly out there if you know a little programming and where we are in relationship to artificial intelligence. Even the human librarians get it wrong with the Dewey system for books.

        Don't get me wrong, irrelevant links can defiantly rank pages but it's not something I would do for a long term site.
        Thats an incredible statement. You must think theres no such thing as organic links where "you" would have nothing to do with it since there is no way under the sun where "you" are going to stop "non-relevant" links. People link out in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of natural reasons.

        The problem with discussions like this is that non programmers tend to think in terms of their human intuition - "Google must be able to" , "I am sure google" and don't address themselves to how it would actually be done programmatically.

        Shucks Google has not even yet solved the issue of spun content completely which is more a matter of grammar but we expect google to be abe to determine whats natural to humans or what a page means to determine relevance

        Its a fairly ridiculous belief.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668341].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by SEO Power View Post

      I hate all this 'relevance' talk. A good link can come from an irrelevant site. For example,



      That's a link to a book about personal finance on a baby blog and on a page about baby car seats. People can link that way, and that kind of link is as natural as one on a books or finance blog and deserves the same credit too.

      Thus, irelevant links will continue to work as long as links remain a part of the algorithm.
      You really understand very little about SEO don't you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9667990].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SEO Power
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        You really understand very little about SEO don't you.
        You really understand a lot about SEO, don't you? Mr. know it all.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668302].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by SEO Power View Post

          You really understand a lot about SEO, don't you? Mr. know it all.
          Years of experience and making tons of mistakes teaches one a lot indeed, so yes I do know it all from testing and trying instead of guessing like most do.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668344].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            Years of experience and making tons of mistakes teaches one a lot indeed, so yes I do know it all from testing and trying instead of guessing like most do.
            Pure nonsense. making mistakes is not a qualification for knowing it all but thanks for the ridiculous statement of knowing it all in SEO. I think even newbs can smell that wowzer out.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668368].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by SEO Power View Post

          You really understand a lot about SEO, don't you? Mr. know it all.
          He doesn't know squat. For sales he is even trying to make ridiculous statements on this forum like relevance will save you even if you are on SEO hosting Google discovers. You are right of course. though - I do believe google can and will identify certain sites that are authoritative for wider categories like medicine for Webmd and flow out a subject based authority to sites they link to - but its dubious at best that they are going to niche categorize every blog page on the net and devalue the link if it doesn't meet that niche subject.

          This is the Google God syndrome at work. Google can do anything even things that require artificial intelligence.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668357].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tech84
      Originally Posted by SEO Power View Post

      I hate all this 'relevance' talk. A good link can come from an irrelevant site. For example,



      That's a link to a book about personal finance on a baby blog and on a page about baby car seats. People can link that way, and that kind of link is as natural as one on a books or finance blog and deserves the same credit too.

      Thus, irelevant links will continue to work as long as links remain a part of the algorithm.
      That looks natural.

      there's a huge difference (footprint wise) if the link was used this way:
      These baby car seats are wonderful. I bought one yesterday while reading my favorite book on how to get rich
      That sticks out suspiciously as a sold link.

      For me relevancy is not black and white, using keyword rich anchor text on a non relevant topic will always stick out.

      And bloggers/website owners very very rarely link out to other (especially non relevant) sites using keyword rich anchor texts.
      Signature

      Insert Sig here for ***** Moolahs ,,I,,

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668493].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by tech84 View Post


        And bloggers/website owners very very rarely link out to other (especially non relevant) sites using keyword rich anchor texts.
        Thats actually quite false as anyone who uses a good backlink checker regularly would tell you. Still most organic linked sites have a good amount of URL links which just completely destroys the claim that Google can determine relevance of the past use of an expired domain by the incoming links.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668498].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
    (In my opinion)

    Most would be speculators forget about the most obvious of programmatic issues that a relevance based SE algo would face.

    That being language and dialect.

    Their current capabilities of comprehension represents less then 1% (40 of 4500) of the worlds spoken languages. There's around another 3000 minority languages (less then 1000 speaker). And among all that, in excess of 40,000 spoken dialects. On a good day Google struggles with it's primary 40. We won't even go into the amount of new word's and dialects created year on year.

    If anyone could program that, they would have based their algo around that from the very beginning. But I'm pretty sure just like the rest of us they said, we don't and never will have, and no one else will ever have the ability to do that.

    So lets try out this links idea instead. Seems fairly straight forward hey Sergi? Let the users create the relevance for us, and we follow them.

    Some of us live in a little box called (The whole world speaks queens English). When even Google struggles with that sometimes.

    When it comes to expired irrelevant domains, it's a 2 edge sword for Google. Their EMD update proclaims to no longer factor the root url as any form of query relevance. So now they have to work solely on site content. Unless they want to turn EMD factors back on again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9668437].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire View Post

      (In my opinion)

      Most would be speculators forget about the most obvious of programmatic issues that a relevance based SE algo would face.

      That being language and dialect.

      Their current capabilities of comprehension represents less then 1% (40 of 4500) of the worlds spoken languages. There's around another 3000 minority languages (less then 1000 speaker). And among all that, in excess of 40,000 spoken dialects. On a good day Google struggles with it's primary 40. We won't even go into the amount of new word's and dialects created year on year.
      Google already deals with rolling out algorithm updates based on languages, so those 3000 minority languages don't seem to play a role for the English one.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671327].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    The other reason Google will not go after tiered linking anytime soon in an algorithmic way is that they need to make a fundamental change to Penguin first. They need to stop penalizing sites for bad links and just ignore bad links instead.

    I think they started this to some degree with the last Penguin update. It's one of the reasons people saw more 10-20 spot drops versus the old 100-500 spot drops.

    If they don't make this change and go after tiered linking, it will add a new weapon to negative SEO. Now I can go after your site and make it a bitch for you to figure out because I can use tiers. Plus, you cannot disavow links pointing to someone else's site, so how do you clean up that mess?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671309].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danparks
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      The other reason Google will not go after tiered linking anytime soon in an algorithmic way is that they need to make a fundamental change to Penguin first. They need to stop penalizing sites for bad links and just ignore bad links instead.
      So true. Just ignore bad links, and much of negative SEO goes away.

      To me, this also relates to relevancy of backlinks. I know a number of people don't think relevancy matters, or matters little. I get the arguments that this would be CPU intensive, and that relevancy can be a nebulous thing. However, if Google can work out the processing issue (and Google seems to get better and better at things they couldn't do just a short while ago - think LSI, which is a type of relevancy and is certainly complicated and intensive), relevancy becomes more important. And as far as relevancy, a lot of people keep using the word "penalize" for non-relevant backlinks, as in that would be ridiculous and unfair. Agreed - but, similar to not punishing a site for "bad" backlinks but just ignoring them, Google could give what it deems more relevant backlinks a "plus" of some sort, without penalizing or degrading other backlinks. Found a backlink on an "authoritative" page (high PR or some other metric)? The backlink is worth what it has always been worth. Found a backlink that is on a page determined to be relative to the target site? "Plus 1" for that backlink (whatever "plus 1" is deemed to be).

      I know, I know, I'm going to hear about how this is impossible and foolish to think (continue with my "ignorance is bliss" attitude as Mike A. told me ). I think Google will work this out in the near future, and it's not much extra work to create PBN pages and even sites that are relevant to a niche, so I've been doing it. No big deal when you have multiple clients in the same niche and can use the network sites for the multiple clients.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671357].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

        So true. Just ignore bad links, and much of negative SEO goes away.

        To me, this also relates to relevancy of backlinks. I know a number of people don't think relevancy matters, or matters little. I get the arguments that this would be CPU intensive, and that relevancy can be a nebulous thing. However, if Google can work out the processing issue (and Google seems to get better and better at things they couldn't do just a short while ago - think LSI, which is a type of relevancy and is certainly complicated and intensive), relevancy becomes more important. And as far as relevancy, a lot of people keep using the word "penalize" for non-relevant backlinks, as in that would be ridiculous and unfair. Agreed - but, similar to not punishing a site for "bad" backlinks but just ignoring them, Google could give what it deems more relevant backlinks a "plus" of some sort, without penalizing or degrading other backlinks. Found a backlink on an "authoritative" page (high PR or some other metric)? The backlink is worth what it has always been worth. Found a backlink that is on a page determined to be relative to the target site? "Plus 1" for that backlink (whatever "plus 1" is deemed to be).
        What the naysayers are missing is relevant links generate traffic while doing the same work as a random link. It's like getting paid twice for the same work. I've never had a penalty on any of my domains. I'll stick with relevancy & no headaches.






        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

        I know, I know, I'm going to hear about how this is impossible and foolish to think (continue with my "ignorance is bliss" attitude as Mike A. told me ).
        Go to your forum profile & use the ignore list, it works great.
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671434].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          Go to your forum profile & use the ignore list, it works great.
          I can confirm, all of a sudden it becomes a joy posting on this forum again
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9672112].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nik0
            Banned
            I'd like to add a little about relevancy and the new Penguin as most things it was just a refresh with maybe some extra signals, I think it was more.

            So question:

            - How does Google recognize a blog comment as spam?
            - How does Google recognize a low quality web directory as spam?
            - How does Google recognize a bookmark site as spam?

            You could say footprints, Pligg leaves a huge one at that, many web directories use the same script, blog comments have footprints like Disqus / Leave a Comment etc.

            But isn't that way too complicated with hundreds of different footprints?

            I sure think so so I think it's not based on individual platform footprints anymore but based on something more broad that looks at one common footprint which is:

            - dozens of irrelevant links all on the same page, surrounded by a snippet of 50-100 words of content

            That would explain why the old style public blog networks tank your site. half my clients tanked, CeasarSEO once a very popular seller, well check his sales thread and see for yourself, not effective anymore and so dozens of other services that refuse to admit it in fear of losing sales.

            So by automatically penalizing for too many links on irrelevant pages they don't even need to figure out whether a page is relevant, they only need to find out which pages are irrelevant. A user profile link with a few sentences of content at a complete irrelevant site would be more relevant then a blog post on the same page as a few dozen other irrelevant posts. This way Google catches two flies in one.

            Makes sense right?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9672127].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

              - How does Google recognize a blog comment as spam?
              - How does Google recognize a low quality web directory as spam?
              - How does Google recognize a bookmark site as spam?
              EZ Peazy. Is it that hard to detect anchor text in an HTML document without much text around it? VOILA! no need to recognize every foot print. That and any page with excessive links. Amusing that you think its too complicated to find some footprints but think that a computer analyzing a page and determining what it means to humans is easier. lol

              - dozens of irrelevant links all on the same page
              You mean like what takes place on resource pages, well known directories like Yahoo, link.php pages, links.html pages, every single list of sites even on non spammy sites that use the names of companies that often times are NOT words relevant (amazon -amazon.com, Apple apple.com, Target target.com, Best buy Bestbuy.com)

              Some people just don't think. they come up or start on a pet idea and they never analyze beyond their wanting something to be true. That why there are so many crappy WSOs.

              That would explain why the old style public blog networks tank your site. half my clients tanked, CeasarSEO once a very popular seller, well check his sales thread and see for yourself
              What would explain that as well is the crappy way those services were built. OF course when you put several different links on one page its a spam signal. I've said it before. A lot of you are confusing Google identifying relevance with spam filters. I guess I am not seeing these big changes you are because I have never been into that. I try to build reasonably reading sites written from the perspective of single entity (but that don't force one niche over and over again to get "relevance") .

              Furthermore what no link seller wants to admit is that his clients are often a MAJOR footprint because most of them in a certain price range on this forum are involved in the spammiest niches well know to Google

              So by automatically penalizing for too many links on irrelevant pages they don't even need to figure out whether a page is relevant, they only need to find out which pages are irrelevant..........Makes sense right?
              Nope...Makes more sense that they devalue links not within context./text and sites with a lot of links per content. EZ peazy without having to get into relevance at all.

              Its funny that people who give out links for steroids, Forex, review sites actually believe that google will not figure out that its spam just because they group the spam together into "niche relevant" sites.

              In fact when you really think about it

              Its ROFL HILARIOUS
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9672412].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            I can confirm, all of a sudden it becomes a joy posting on this forum again
            I don't know about joy but it cuts back on buying Tylenol.
            Signature
            Hi
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673346].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              I don't know about joy but it cuts back on buying Tylenol.
              Ain't causing me any headache, it's just a waste of time that could be spend much wiser.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673432].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author jinx1221
                Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                Ain't causing me any headache, it's just a waste of time that could be spend much wiser.
                Yeah, like reading your posts
                Signature

                The Ultimate Private Network Management,
                Visualization and Automation Tool




                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673569].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author nik0
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by jinx1221 View Post

                  Yeah, like reading your posts
                  Like you've posted anything worthy to read in your last 5 years on this forum

                  I suppose the ignore button will work for you as well.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674266].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by jinx1221 View Post

                  Yeah, like reading your posts
                  Never mind Nik0. Like he has said he doesn't post here to get business but just for the fun of it.

                  http://www.warriorforum.com/suggesti...w-members.html

                  ooops.....lol
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674377].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

        I know, I know, I'm going to hear about how this is impossible and foolish to think (continue with my "ignorance is bliss" attitude as Mike A. told me ). I think Google will work this out in the near future, and it's not much extra work to
        Sigh....As I presumed you can't get the difference between talking about what Google will do as compared to what they are doing. This discussion you can suggest fine, but thats an entirely different thing from other discussions where people start talking abut what Google does now.

        LSI however is entirely different that Google trying to determine what every site on the internet is about and putting it into a niche. So the comparison really doesn't work and is MUCH less sophisticated programming wise. LSI is matching the search term with related words on a page to determine the relevance for a particular search. It is NOT determining what a page or site is about. Its entirely possible to rank for two different phrases in two different niches on one page using LSI (particularly a page with a good bit of content).

        As for negative SEO ...sorry I don't think google is anywhere near as concerned with it as marketers are and nope I don't think google is going back to just make links not matter. I really don't even see how you guys even think thats something they are going to change when frankly Penguin is mostly about PUNISHING sites for link spam.

        I think it s pretty obvious they are quite pleased and tickled at markers crying their business is ruined and until you can use Negative SEO to shake up some mainline results and take down a high authority well known site they don't have any incentive to mess with that very much. tweak it? sure. Remove it entirely ? I don't see that happening. Only people I really see crying consistently about negative SEO are marketers. People don't seem to understand - anything that gets people crying at Warrior forums is occasion for Google to break out the Champagne
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671512].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          create PBN pages and even sites that are relevant to a niche, so I've been doing it. No big deal when you have multiple clients in the same niche and can use the network sites for the multiple clients.
          I've been advocating making sites in PBNs as natural and as real as possible for years but there are a lot of scenarios where that doesn't mean all the content on it has to be on one niche. Frankly for many niches it means NOT being consistently relevant to a niche.

          How can I say that? because 90% of the people on this board are into affiliate marketing and adsense and people going all "relevant" in these niches is a sure sign of a marketers site.

          Seriously who creates sites with 20-200 articles on inversion tables, or how to train your dog or coffee maker reviews "naturally"? Nobody. Only people who do that are doing so for the express purpose of marketing and its pretty obvious.

          I think a lot of people claiming make things hyper relevant are going to get a shock when Google turns around and uses that very same hyper relevance and PUNISHES sites built around popular marketing niches.

          Go to your forum profile & use the ignore list, it works great.
          I love it when certain people use it so I can rebut them without going into long back and forths. Win win. I am always amused when a forum poster announces they have put someone on ignore as if its punishment. Its more like guaranteeing the ignored person always has the last word. The ignored person should say thanks... lol
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671540].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danparks
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    Sigh....As I presumed you can't get the difference between talking about what Google will do as compared to what they are doing. This discussion you can suggest fine, but thats an entirely different thing from other discussions where people start talking abut what Google does now.
    In tech the future isn't 5 or 10 years away. The future is pretty much tomorrow. If page/site relevancy isn't already in some way worked into Google's algorithm now (I think it is, to some extent), I think for sure it will be in the future. And with Google, the future is any moment. Things they release have been in the works for years. If some new animal (in addition to Penguin, Panda, etc) is released in a day, a week or two months from now that includes much more weight on relevancy, I won't be the least bit surprised.

    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    I've been advocating making sites in PBNs as natural and as real as possible for years but there are a lot of scenarios where that doesn't mean all the content on it has to be on one niche. Frankly for many niches it means NOT being consistently relevant to a niche.

    How can I say that? because 90% of the people on this board are into affiliate marketing and adsense and people going all "relevant" in these niches is a sure sign of a marketers site.

    Seriously who creates sites with 20-200 articles on inversion tables, or how to train your dog or coffee maker reviews "naturally"? Nobody. Only people who do that are doing so for the express purpose of marketing and its pretty obvious.
    I didn't say anything about relevancy always being the best path. Of course there are niches like you point out where it isn't important. And I've never done SEO for clients that rely on IM, affiliate marketing, adsense. I do SEO for small businesses selling real products or services. True this forum is more fixated on IM-related sites. But the real world isn't. There are millions of "real" sites devoted to selling products or services in a particular niche. Getting very relevant backlinks is completely logical and appropriate for those businesses.

    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    I think a lot of people claiming make things hyper relevant are going to get a shock when Google turns around and uses that very same hyper relevance and PUNISHES sites built around popular marketing niches.
    Again, there's always talk about penalty and punishment. Not penalizing non-relevant links, but instead somehow "rewarding" relevant links, isn't that a possible scenario?

    First it was, blogroll/sidebar/footer backlinks aren't good any more - not relevant. Then it was backlinks within an unrelated article (think an article with backlinks to a plumber's site, a dog-catcher's site and a real estate site in one article, like many link-sellers did/do) aren't good any more - not relevant. Put a backlink in a post devoted to the target site's subject - keep it relevant! Then people said don't have a half dozen unrelated posts on one page (think a page with posts on hair loss, vacationing in Hawaii, and buying jewellry online, like many link-sellers did/do) - not relevant! Doesn't seem like a big stretch that Google could think a link on a site devoted *mainly* to one niche is better than a link on a site devoted to many niches.

    Of course there are many sites where it makes sense to cover multiple unrelated niches (most personal blogs, for one). But again, don't punish backlinks from such sites, just give a little more weight to a backlink on a site that's dedicated to the niche of the backlink target site.

    No, I don't fall into the "Google is God" category where I think Google can and is capable of doing everything and anything. I just think since in the end about the *only thing* that matters in good search results is relevancy, that a multi-billion dollar company devoted to nothing but search is working on some pretty impressive, scary (to SEO people) stuff.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671615].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by danparks View Post

      In tech the future isn't 5 or 10 years away. The future is pretty much tomorrow. If page/site relevancy isn't already in some way worked into Google's algorithm now (I think it is, to some extent), I think for sure it will be in the future. And with Google, the future is any moment. Things they release have been in the works for years. If some new animal (in addition to Penguin, Panda, etc) is released in a day, a week or two months from now that includes much more weight on relevancy, I won't be the least bit surprised.
      You are trying DESPERATELY to make this into a now thread but its all for naught. There will be no big change in relevance within days or weeks. For all the talk of " the future is pretty much tomorrow " google takes its time with introducing things. It always has.

      There are millions of "real" sites devoted to selling products or services in a particular niche. Getting very relevant backlinks is completely logical and appropriate for those businesses.
      and where did I say otherwise? Don't try the craptacular strategy of trying to put words in my mouth by rebuttals to strawmen. You are not the only one that does SEO for businesses and I will bet that I have been doing it longer than you have. I said nowhere, EVER, at any time, that businesses should not try to get links from relevant sites. I just don't believe in your fantasy land world that that relevance will ever be so finely tuned that google will not give strong consideration to links that are not immediately relevant but nevertheless authoritative. I will take and love and will derive a HIGH even the highest benefit from a link from whitehous.gov for my clients even if its not a site that is about their niche and yes like it , don't like it, I don't care, I think the idea that Google will fine tune each site/page according to its niche as silly and a waste of their resources that they at no time in the near present will stake their search results on - not while they already control most of the market.


      Again, there's always talk about penalty and punishment. Not penalizing non-relevant links, but instead somehow "rewarding" relevant links, isn't that a possible scenario?
      Certainly. I just finished posting this was a projecting the future thread so you are free to project that but like I said you are trying DESPERATELY to convert this into a near, now, eminent change thread and its just idle speculation.

      Doesn't seem like a big stretch that Google could think a link on a site devoted *mainly* to one niche is better than a link on a site devoted to many niches.
      When are you going to get it? These things must be programmed . its so easy for a nonpogrammer to sit down and talk about whats a big stretch and whats not. Sure you can go to a page and figure out what its about. But sorry Computers DO NOT DO that as well and those aspects of artificial intelligence will not change for your "tomorrow" scenario.

      The flat out SILLY thing about this talk of relevance is that NO ONE WILL EVEN KNOW How Google calculates relevance. You all can sit down there and put 20 articles on the same subject on your site and I will create fuller more natural looking sites that cover multiple niches within a wider category and get just as much relevance juice as you all do.

      Do you all realize you are just creating another spam scenario. We will soon be hearing about Tiered relevant link building. After all if all you need to do to create juice for a site is have the ink source relevant then as long as you spam relevance on web 2.0s voila they have juice. The WSO is on its way.

      Nah its much more likely that Google will flow relevance not by looking at pages and their content but by designating relevant authority as they did pagerank. WebMD, Heath.gov and sites like it would flow Medical related authority on outbound links. History.com will flow history relevant authority etc.

      What you all don't seem to realize and I am sure google already does is if you create ANYTHING in the algo where the spammer can just use the magic words and phrases to create ranking power spammers will KILL YOU with it if you are a search engine. All you are arguing for is a scenario that will bring back a more sophisticated version of keyword stuffing. All of you are claiming extra bounce power is created in the content and thats opens the door up for serious serp manipulation that google wouldn't want.

      Theres a reason that Google does not rank sites based primarily on LSI rather than the flow of authority and its because of that same issue.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671679].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danparks
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    its so easy for a nonpogrammer to sit down and talk about whats a big stretch and whats not. Sure you can go to a page and figure out what its about. But sorry Computers DO NOT DO that as well and those aspects of artificial intelligence will not change for your "tomorrow" scenario.
    Must be directed at someone other than me. My degree is software engineering, and I've been programming for almost 30 years (yeah, I'm that old).

    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    I just don't believe in your fantasy land world that that relevance will ever be so finely tuned that google will not give strong consideration to links that are not immediately relevant but nevertheless authoritative.
    Oh brother. Again and again people keep talking about penalties/punishment for non-relevant links. You're doing it again ("google will not give strong consideration to links that are not immediately relevant"). What do I have to say to get it through that my thought is that Google can consider any "good" link to still be considered a "good" link, relevant or not, but that they can add a relevancy factor to reward a link they consider relevant? It seems like the following from me in this thread alone makes that clear:

    Originally Posted by danparks View Post

    And as far as relevancy, a lot of people keep using the word "penalize" for non-relevant backlinks, as in that would be ridiculous and unfair. Agreed - but, similar to not punishing a site for "bad" backlinks but just ignoring them, Google could give what it deems more relevant backlinks a "plus" of some sort, without penalizing or degrading other backlinks.
    Originally Posted by danparks View Post

    Again, there's always talk about penalty and punishment. Not penalizing non-relevant links, but instead somehow "rewarding" relevant links, isn't that a possible scenario?
    Originally Posted by danparks View Post

    But again, don't punish backlinks from such sites, just give a little more weight to a backlink on a site that's dedicated to the niche of the backlink target site.
    No use beating a dead horse, so that's the end of it. I think Google can and will and may have begun giving a relevancy plus factor to backlinks, without also saying non-relevant backlinks are degraded. I'm just repeating myself over and over, so I'll end it here and of course feel free to have the last word.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671736].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by danparks View Post

      Must be directed at someone other than me.
      Nope You and only you. I don't really care what you claim for yourself. Its for the most part an anonymous forum so anyone can claim anything.. Your approach to thinking Google can just do it and tomorrow tells me you don't know what you are talking about. I m not talking just about penalties but the idea of turning up a links value based on relevance means its a superior link to a non relevant one. Penalty no penalty doesn't change my points and what you quoted had ZIP to so with penalties. The following just flew right over your head again

      I will take and love and will derive a HIGH even the highest benefit from a link from whitehous.gov for my clients even if its not a site that is
      Anyway this is a silly back and forth based on your crystal ball. Since you say it could be tomorrow I'll bump this thread January and you can tell us how I was all wrong because Google will have by then categorized what every page on the internet is actually about and reworked the strength of all links thereby rearranging its serps dramatically.

      Should be easy to see.... catch you then.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9671783].message }}

Trending Topics