PBN & Expired domains is hot topic this days in SEO world

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

Maybe one of this days they will reset all the juice of any domains that already expired, which have different content and niche from it's previous content.

What do you think?

I think that will eventually happen which is why I tell everyone to get going with their PBN buying now. it will not be an option to buy expired domains forever. Once Google pulls that switch every domain expiring after that will have no value for SEO. its the one thing that WILL work unlike all the theories people have been floating about.

In addition they can monitor domains that do not expire but go through auctions and do the same thing.

PBN auction domain buying......toast.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684129].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

I believe that restoring the old content of the expired domain is more safer than using expired domains in total different niche.

What do you think?

You might mean something different so this is not aimed at you but I wish people woud stop using the word "restoring" and call it what it is

STEALING other peoples content.

Whatever blow back you get from the previous owner will be well deserved

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684133].message }}

edpudol1973

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You might mean something different so this is not aimed at you but I wish people woud stop using the word "restoring" and call it what it is

STEALING other peoples content.

Whatever blow back you get from the previous owner will be well deserved

I agree with you that those old content is owned by the previous owner and it should not be used for personal or commercial used.

But on second thought

archive.org using them anyway without the permission of the site owner. And the previous owner abandoned already the site and its content, do you think still unethical?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Government Emergency Contact Numbers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684147].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

But on second thought

archive.org using them anyway without the permission of the site owner. And the previous owner abandoned already the site and its content, do you think still unethical?

Archive.org is not stealing content from the site but taking a snapshot like Google cache does. Marketers are not taking snapshots of the sites. they are stealing the content and then associating the content with their own money sites.

Theres no way to spin around it. its stealing content and using it for yourself. Done enough its bound to tick off a former owner (in some cases that doesn't realize their domains have expired until months later) . If thats ever done to my former sites i'd submit to Google and start Mr DMCA rolling

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684164].message }}

chris_87

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

Maybe one of this days they will reset all the juice of any domains that already expired, which have different content and niche from it's previous content.

It seems like they are taking more conservative steps, for example no longer updating PR according to John Mueller. Relevance seems like the route they are taking instead, if they start looking at the relevance of the links that would put an end to many networks. Although as it currently stands with relevance, they are doing a pretty poor job.

That and footprints that make it easy to identify junk sites (blocking bots, homepage only, posts etc).

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684135].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by chris_87

It seems like they are taking more conservative steps, for example no longer updating PR according to John Mueller. Relevance seems like the route they are taking instead, if they start looking at the relevance of the links that would put an end to many networks

Thats a theory that many people here are trying to float but don't be fooled by them . the normal organic expiring domain with juice gets a SUBSTANTIAL amount of links as naked URLs. Anchor text link relevance would not drastically affect the practice of PBNs.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684149].message }}

chris_87

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Thats a theory that many people here are trying to float but don't be fooled by them . the normal organic expiring domain with juice gets a SUBSTANTIAL amount of links as naked URLs. Anchor text link relevance would not drastically affect the practice of PBNs.

I am not specifically talking about anchor text. More so the back link pages themselves. Is the backlink page part of a niche relevant domain, or at least is the page relevant? Is there anything relevant within the <h1>, <title> or context of the page?

That is what I am talking about.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684159].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by chris_87

I am not specifically talking about anchor text. More so the back link pages themselves. Is the backlink page part of a niche relevant domain, or at least is the page relevant? Is there anything relevant within the <h1>, <title> or context of the page?

That is what I am talking about.

Yeah I know the argument but it can't work to shut off all juice. Non relevant sites link to other niches ALL THE TIME. People have argued this a lot recently but its impossible to work with due to how deep and wide people refer to thing s and link to sites. One example should make it clear - newspapers link all the time to pages that don't have relevance to anything in H1 tags or the page. Humans are just not that limited.

A link from CNN not good because its not relevant to the H1 tags? I'll believe that when I see it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684183].message }}

chris_87

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

One example should make it clear - newspapers link all the time to pages that don't have relevance to anything in H!1tags or the page. Humans are just not that limited.

Newspapers, Business directories both wide (best of the web, dmoz) and narrow (at local, state, city level) have some degree of relevance if they are linking to a business site. I am not saying the backlink page needs to have nich releated phrase or keyword in the <title> or <h1> or anything that specific. But if you buy a domain about dog grooming and repurpose it to be about forex trading, then it just becomes obvious what you are trying to do.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

A link from CNN not good because its not relevant to the H1 tags? I'll believe that when I see it.

Of course it has value, I never said anything to that extreme.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684202].message }}

Mike Anthony 9 years ago

Originally Posted by chris_87

Of course it has value, I never said anything to that extreme.

Well theres been enough discussion and argument on that recently so I am totally bored with it.

call me if it ever happens.

As long as there is sufficient juice which you concede anyway then PBNs would continue to work.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684241].message }}

MikeFriedman

9 years ago

Originally Posted by chris_87

It seems like they are taking more conservative steps, for example no longer updating PR according to John Mueller. Relevance seems like the route they are taking instead, if they start looking at the relevance of the links that would put an end to many networks. Although as it currently stands with relevance, they are doing a pretty poor job.

I don't think they could really take that approach effectively. Once you go out beyond the first tier of links for most websites, things quickly become irrelevant and what would be considered spammy.

Originally Posted by chris_87

That and footprints that make it easy to identify junk sites (blocking bots, homepage only, posts etc).

This is the easiest way for them to combat private networks.

Thanks

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684209].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

The best way would be to reset expired and auction domains and I think they even might have tried in the past. The problem they are probably having is stopping Gbot from picking back up the links as it crawls the web. Any change to a page would render it as potentially updated page and the link with it.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684261].message }}

deezn

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

The best way would be to reset expired and auction domains and I think they even might have tried in the past. The problem they are probably having is stopping Gbot from picking back up the links as it crawls the web. Any change to a page would render it as potentially updated page and the link with it.

That's the thing. They would have to store all disqualified links somewhere no?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685201].message }}

jinx1221

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

The best way would be to reset expired and auction domains and I think they even might have tried in the past. The problem they are probably having is stopping Gbot from picking back up the links as it crawls the web. Any change to a page would render it as potentially updated page and the link with it.

One other reason I can think of for why they don't reset them, (yet anyways), is for what you pointed out a few posts back, that a previous owner might not have realized that his site expired, then renewed it, now the site would be back to square one again. That might make some people a little mad if they worked their site up to page one. Or maybe they will have a set timeframe to reset them (a year?).. or who knows, maybe there just aren't enough people that forget to renew, enough to just ignore that possibility and reset them anyways (because of the greater purpose, doing away with pbn's)

Thanks

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685270].message }}

edpudol1973

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

The best way would be to reset expired and auction domains and I think they even might have tried in the past. The problem they are probably having is stopping Gbot from picking back up the links as it crawls the web. Any change to a page would render it as potentially updated page and the link with it.

If they reset everything to expired and auction domains, all they need to do is adjust their algorithm to consider all these domains as new. And all links that older than the latest whois update will not crawl by their bot and will not add as back link.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Government Emergency Contact Numbers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685470].message }}

Kevin Maguire

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

Actually it is not assume, a coder can create a system (programers mind) that will check the following to identify if the site was re-purpose or not.

1. Compare the current content and the previous year(s) content if different then put 1 point
2. Compare the current niche and the previous niche if not the same then put 1 point
3. Check if the domain was parked in registrar before the new content is created, if yes 1 point
4. Check if the domain was posted before in domain auction sites , if yes 1 point
5. Check if the domain was drop before, if yes 1 point
6. Does the content of the new site have link to external site that have no authority? If yes 1 point.

The action of the system will depends on how many points the site get. The safest scenario that will happened is to reset all the juice and disregards all old back links and pr of the site.
The worst scenario is penalized the target site.

That concept is just from me as a no voice coder. Google have the best coders and engineers, they can figure out the solution better than me.

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

If they reset everything to expired and auction domains, all they need to do is adjust their algorithm to consider all these domains as new. And all links that older than the latest whois update will not crawl by their bot and will not add as back link.

Inbound links don't come with a "Date of Creation Tag".
Dictionary words are finite, it's inevitable at some point in time all popular worded domains will have more then 1 owner. Which could easily have completely different subject matter.
Big corpa would choke Google as they buy legit websites all day long, paying huge amounts of money for them.

And users create relevance not Google.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685556].message }}

nik0

Banned 9 years ago

Call it restoring content or call it stealing, it doesn't matter the law is very clear about this.

If you don't damage the company by doing so they have to warn you first, and when you follow up by removing the content it's a done case.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685613].message }}

Kevin Maguire

9 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

Call it restoring content or call it stealing, it doesn't matter the law is very clear about this.

If you don't damage the company by doing so they have to warn you first, and when you follow up by removing the content it's a done case.

I pray you never get hit then, your ideas of "damages" might differ from a courts idea somewhat.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685670].message }}

nik0 Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

I pray you never get hit then, your ideas of "damages" might differ from a courts idea somewhat.

Personally I don't bother that much about it.

Does become a bit risky when using VA's to perform such tasks though.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685704].message }}

Mike Anthony 9 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

Call it restoring content or call it stealing, it doesn't matter the law is very clear about this.

Yep it is which is why people who steal content and get caught are never found by the courts to b e in the right

If you don't damage the company by doing so they have to warn you first, and when you follow up by removing the content it's a done case.

Bull. Spoken like a content crook. IN your case you actually SELL other peoples content you stole from their wayback machine entry. If you think you or your customers can't be sued for that you are delusional.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9686487].message }}

edpudol1973

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Inbound links don't come with a "Date of Creation Tag.

But the date that page where link came from was recorded.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Government Emergency Contact Numbers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9686246].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

But the date that page where link came from was crawled was recorded.

I have no doubts about that.

We already know Google saves the cache dates, it's in plain view.

I'm also sure Google has their own version of Wayback, saving all those old cached pages/URLs. If Wayback has the server capacity, you know Google does.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9686291].message }}

edpudol1973

9 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I have no doubts about that.

We already know Google saves the cache dates, it's in plain view.

I'm also sure Google has their own version of Wayback, saving all those old cached pages/URLs. If Wayback has the server capacity, you know Google does.

Totally agree, for sure they have their own database.

This is the reason why many old user of this strategy guarded it for so long, they are afraid to reveal to public because it may abuse. And now it's happening.

Thanks

Signature

Government Emergency Contact Numbers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9686421].message }}

Kevin Maguire

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

But the date that page where link came from was recorded.

That's absolutely no indicator of link creation. Post dates are as optional as anything. But more to the point, using my own site as an example.

I have a main very extensive group of resource pages, I frequently change and update the content of those pages, new content, info, resource links etc..

Even Google wants me to "keep my content updated". I guess as others have pointed out, if it where that easy, it would have been done years ago.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9687407].message }}

chris_87 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

That's absolutely no indicator of link creation. Post dates are as optional as anything. But more to the point, using my own site as an example.

If you use the daterange: command in julian format the results returned are when google first cached the page.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9687424].message }}
- Kevin Maguire 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by chris_87
  
  If you use the daterange: command in julian format the results returned are when google first cached the page.
  
  Yes thanks for confirming my point, date of page creation has no correlation to date of cache.
  
  This threads turning out funny though, as Google haven't figured out a way to do this yet. (Obviously) You guys are sure doing a hell of a job of figuring it all out for them publicly.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9687446].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

That's absolutely no indicator of link creation. Post dates are as optional as anything. But more to the point, using my own site as an example.

I have a main very extensive group of resource pages, I frequently change and update the content of those pages, new content, info, resource links etc...

Let me tell you something about post dates, I've been faking dates in the SERPs for years (thank you php). The reason I do that is my content is evergreen, some from 2005 on my old sites. With recent dates it looks like my old evergreen content is new to traffic.

When I do a site:domain search & switch the Google SERP date filter to show pages from the last month, Google says I have dozens of new pages (lol) when I haven't updated those old sites with new content pages probably in a year.

Obviously post date isn't in any way related to a cache date. Now I know Google is smarter than to think my old pages are new, just saying their SERP date is whatever you want it to be without manually updating any webpage.

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Even Google wants me to "keep my content updated".

Just lol

*************************************************

I'm still going with Google has their own Wayback (aka cache). At the very least a date first found & date last found on webpages.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9687527].message }}

Mike Anthony 9 years ago

You can go with whatever you want its still nothing more than day dreaming and Caches are small (not comprehensive storage of all previous versions of all sites)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_(computing)

Date first found and last found would not tell Google when the link was or was not placed anyway since writers revise content all the time.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688854].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

If they reset everything to expired and auction domains, all they need to do is adjust their algorithm to consider all these domains as new. And all links that older than the latest whois update will not crawl by their bot and will not add as back link.

pages change and update the entire page and sources even if you just add a letter or an image in the sidebar.

We already know Google saves the cache dates, it's in plain view.

I'm also sure Google has their own version of Wayback, saving all those old cached pages

I am sure they don't because corporations do not waste huge resources for little purpose. The wayback machine is no comparison. It does not cover ton loads of sites and even the sites that it does cover it crawled a fraction of the days the site was up.

For a company to save every page on the internet going back 15 years and then a program to sift through all that is just a ridiculous load on whatever they use. I bet even the NSA doesn't store that kind of data and their systems costs billions of dollars per year.

Proof is in the pudding. If Google had all the resources so easy to use then PBns would have been toast long ago. That tells the smart person all they need to know.

We are getting back into the Google God fallacy but you guys can run with it....its entirely speculation stated as fact.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9686474].message }}

hipeopo02

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

Maybe one of this days they will reset all the juice of any domains that already expired, which have different content and niche from it's previous content.

This is where Im a little confused.

I thought G already did this. When a domain gets re-registered doesn't it need to be recrawled any way? As long as the links are there what's the problem?

Maybe the links that stick are coming from webmasters that like the new site on the domain.

G can't assume a repurposed domain is repurposed to game their search engine until they get definitive proof.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684265].message }}

TotalWebsiteControl

9 years ago

Originally Posted by hipeopo02

This is where Im a little confused.

I thought G already did this. When a domain gets re-registered doesn't it need to be recrawled any way? As long as the links are there what's the problem?

Maybe the links that stick are coming from webmasters that like the new site on the domain.

G can't assume a repurposed domain is repurposed to game their search engine until they get definitive proof.

And how exactly would they know that a repurposed domain is being used to game their search engines? They wouldn't..

Thanks

Signature

Get Your Website Ranked on Google Page ONE in 2016

ALL-IN-ONE SEO SOLUTION FOR YOUR BUSINESS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685266].message }}

edpudol1973

9 years ago

Originally Posted by hipeopo02

G can't assume a repurposed domain is repurposed to game their search engine until they get definitive proof.

Actually it is not assume, a coder can create a system (programers mind) that will check the following to identify if the site was re-purpose or not.

1. Compare the current content and the previous year(s) content if different then put 1 point
2. Compare the current niche and the previous niche if not the same then put 1 point
3. Check if the domain was parked in registrar before the new content is created, if yes 1 point
4. Check if the domain was posted before in domain auction sites , if yes 1 point
5. Check if the domain was drop before, if yes 1 point
6. Does the content of the new site have link to external site that have no authority? If yes 1 point.

The action of the system will depends on how many points the site get. The safest scenario that will happened is to reset all the juice and disregards all old back links and pr of the site.
The worst scenario is penalized the target site.

That concept is just from me as a no voice coder. Google have the best coders and engineers, they can figure out the solution better than me.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Government Emergency Contact Numbers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685453].message }}

hipeopo02

9 years ago

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

Actually it is not assume, a coder can create a system (programers mind) that will check the following to identify if the site was re-purpose or not.

1. Compare the current content and the previous year(s) content if different then put 1 point
2. Compare the current niche and the previous niche if not the same then put 1 point
3. Check if the domain was parked in registrar before the new content is created, if yes 1 point
4. Check if the domain was posted before in domain auction sites , if yes 1 point
5. Check if the domain was drop before, if yes 1 point
6. Does the content of the new site have link to external site that have no authority? If yes 1 point.

I guess programming is a way to put certain domains on a "watch list" but that's it...

The problem is G is not a "judge" they react to things that they KNOW are there not that they THINK are there.

Look at the damage they do to legit webmasters when they roll out a new algo.

imagine if they started acting on a hunch that someone was up to no good....hahah

your "1 point" programming script can't give a definitive answer about a human's intent.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9686531].message }}

PBN & Expired domains is hot topic this days in SEO world

Trending Topics

Creative split testing question

Share examples of successful domain/website rebranding stories?

How to move a prospect through the sales funnel?

Where to start with dropshipping

Bard VS Chat GPT? What do you think?