Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    [ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: Icicle ]

  2. #2
    pph Expert! Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    5,781
    I have just counted the links on the index page of my site YouTrek.com, 76 of them lead to other pages within my own site yet I have a Google ranking of 6 for the index page.

    I personaly would not start changing any pages until you find out for sure why your pages have been dropped. I am sure it is not for linking to yourself.

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,447
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Google hates me personally and is Out to Get Me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No. They have over 2 billion pages, now that they included stuff archived from over twenty years ago. The only reason, that out of all the pages they have indexed, that they would zero in on anyone is, (1) Kiddie porn (which I understand they are not as proactive as they should be in fighting), or (2) Excessive complaints by web surfers. Excessive? I dont know what they would consider 'excessive", but I imagine if it's enough to get their attention, they would look into it. The conclusion is this, to this matter; Google f'ed up this time around. That's what everyone is saying. Well designed content sites are even getting the shaft. It's not just affiliate sites. Of course all the web elitist snobs are blaming us, and like Janet Berg, are probably searching for every "affiliate site" they can find and exposing it as spam. I imagine this kind of people have been busy bees reporting other sites to google as spam. The funny thing is that Google probably sends all their complaints to the trash bin - lol!

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Thats not quite what I meant, Gordon. Its not the number of links or where they lead - I think its the fact they are identical on each page.

    I have lots of pages like this:-


    BUY NICE $WHATEVERS HERE (title and heading)

    link1 link2 link3 link4 link5 link6 link7 link8


    Unique text and links... blah blah blah...


    copyright mysite.com (also link1)


    What I'm saying is its the links 1-8 being suddenly spam. They are on every dropped page. Big chuck has a similar thing going and so does (I think its) Mailiber.

    I have these links 1 - 8 identical down to the last pixel as they are part of the page template. The pages that do not use this template are still loved by Google.


    I

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Icicle ]

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    87
    Well, here look at my site dyamba.com. It has almost a hundred pages on it. Every single page is linked to every single other page. The layout of all but about 6 or 7 of them is identical, with only the content varying from page to page. I am in the middle of a minor redesign so the right 2/3 of each page might vary a bit, but the left column is identical. I have started to actually get traffic from google around the 26-27 of December (the domain is fairly new).

    Hope that helped a bit,
    Brian

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Hi Brian, I'll take a look in a moment.

    I'm beginning to think I'm not quite right about the links - yet I'm not entirely wrong either. When all my pages except my non-standard ones are disliked by Google, then its standardisation Google takes exception to.

    I notice Big Chuck uses absolute links like me, not relative ones. Perhaps there is only so many times Google wants to see your own URL with link repetition, on a page.

    Assuming Gordons pages are still Googlefriendly in a month, my new theory would suggest that six identical links on each page with your URL inside is fine, and 10 is not.

    Brian, do you know your pagerank?


    I

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Icicle ]

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    87
    Icicle,

    The index is PR4, while the other pages I checked are PR3 (leading me to believe that all pages that are not the index will be PR3 as well)

    Brian

    edited: to say that currently there are only 2 sites showed linking to my site according to google. So hopefully when the other related sites that now link to my site get updated my PR will go up a bit.

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: madmanbc ]

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Brian, I think you just helped enormously.
    Nice site BTW!

    I took a look at your source code. First thing I notice is the shtml extension. I Forgot what shtml is exactly but when I use that extension Google takes a little longer to decided about the pages. But I don't think thats relevant because I see your links look like this

    href="../novels.shtml">Novels</a>

    No domain.

    :/


    I

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    87
    Icicle,

    Thanks for the compliment.

    .shtml is used to allow the server to do server side includes.

    My tracking software needs to use server side includes. That was the reason I named all my pages .shtml to begin with.

    Sorry, about the relative links, that's just how I do it. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img].

    Brian

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: madmanbc ]

  10. #10
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Oh I remember now!

    I wonder if Gordon is about, and big Chuck et al? I wanna know if my 'spamming within internal links' theory holds up.

    Theres that page Malibber posted (currently down). It wasn't domain spamming there in repeated links because the files were called content_1.htm content2.htm content_3.htm, but the word 'content' was repeated a lot.

    So Icicle's New Improved Theory now says:-

    "Beware the names of files (and domains)
    And do not Spam Therein.
    The Googlebot - he likes it not
    For 'tis the gravest Sin."

    [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    If ever I give up affiliate marketing, I think I'll be a poet. Or maybe not.


    I

  11. #11
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    The site Cazzie posted some time ago - www.free-interior-decorating-ideas.com/crystal.html

    has the url in the source code around 30 times on each page.


    I

  12. #12
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Icicle & madmanbc,

    Welcome! <IMG src=http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/welcome.gif> <IMG src=http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/welcome.gif>

    Haiko

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    163
    Icicle,
    Welcome and a very good theory. I think it ties into the circular link theory. I have always used absolute links rather than relative links in my sites. When I first started I just did it that way and I haven’t changed since. I certainly didn’t do it that way to gain some advantage in the search engines because when I first started I was darn ignorant about this stuff and didn’t know what search engines liked and what they didn’t.

    Of my de-ranked sites


    *The biggest one and the one you probably found is around 16 pages plus a forum. All of the non-forum pages use absolute links to back to the index and each other

    I have two other sites that were de-ranked that were about 4-5 pages each with absolute links back to the index and each other.

    Then I also had one crappy one-page site that was de-ranked but that might be because it lost its cross-links to my other sites above and since they were the only sites that linked into it a 0 seems appropriate.

    Two sites that were not de-ranked and indeed picked up rank were only one page in length so there was no opportunity for absolute links to crop up, but they weren’t heavily cross-linked to my other sites either.

    I guess the best approach would be to become very conservative in everything you do.

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,082
    Icicle are you saying that the nav bar I have at the top of my pages will cause me to not get into google, get dropoped or get a bad page rank or whatever? Not quite sure what you are saying here.
    Cazzie [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Hi Malibber!

    Thanks for the welcome, but I've been around a good long while. I just fancied a change of name - and I hope that doesn't upset anyone. I've been upsetting people in Other Forums and didn't want to be too easy to trace right now. And I didn't like my wimpy name.

    For what its worth I think this is only part of the answer. And my research has been hampered by the fact that in other forums the moderators have been *snipping out the f****** urls* of the problem sites!

    Well, thats going to help, isn't it??

    Ah - I just remembered it was you came up with the circular link thing. I liked that theory a lot. Perhaps not being as visual as you I can't quite see how that ties in with my theory. Can you explain it a bit?

    You know I think Google has maybe decided to implement more than one 'improvement' at once, (or the same one in different ways) and as I don't understand a lot of the exotic looking code behind some peoples pages I'm a bit hampered. But *my* pages are as simple as pages get (yet strangely good looking) and have 0 page rank. And the better looking my pages, the less Google likes them.

    So whatever the problem is, at least for some sites, is simple beyond belief. Like my code.

    I think the fact incoming links from other sites aren't found might be a red herring - that is - that might be the penalty not the problem IYSWIM.


    I

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    >Not quite sure what you are saying here.

    Cazzie, I'm barely sure myself, but do you know the difference between an absolute link and a relative one? An absolute link says http://iciclessite.com/page.htm and a relative one - well I'm not sure of the grammar but on Gordons site its "../page.htm" I think. There might be other ways to do it too.

    Well I'm thinking that repeating "http://iciclessite.com" more than a few times in a page might now be considered spam. It maybe slows the page down too as I think the domain has to be looked up or something.

    The site navigation should be exactly the same using just relative links so long as the page you summon is in the same directory on your host as the page doing the summoning, and if you want to try it out you shouldn't come to any harm. Once *someone else* explains it.

    Actually Cazzie when I looked at your source code I did a search in notepad. I recall near the word 'menu' which appeared a lot, so did the phrase I did the actual search on - 'ideas.com', around 30 times I saw that on one page.

    Now I think this discussion has gotten a little beyond my technical expertise, and if I'm onto something perhaps someone who knows what they're talking about might want to take a look.

    And if I *am* right, don't anyone mention the solution in searchengineforum or any site for lamerz, just let them know its at abestweb. After its been tested, preferably.


    I

    PS: I mean this kind of thing "menu4[2]='(a href=http://www.free-interior-decorating-ideas.com)". It appears a lot.

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Icicle ]

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    668
    I don't think our site nav is it. All my sites are linked with standard text link nav. and 3 were booted and I still have some where I remained #1 on googly and a few where I had links from the sites google booted that lost ranking big time!!

    What I see is there are 3 sites of mine which have caused the prob. this month and can't say yet exactly what it was...
    maybe keyword to text ratio or affl links to text ratio.....crosslinking...????? oh hell my brain hurts, I don't much care anymore and refuse to try to figure it out LOL

    I think Google is just screwy lately ....ya thats the ticket!

  18. #18
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Do you use absolute or relative linking? And are any of your urls public?


    I

  19. #19
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,082
    I was in another forum and they were thinking that the relative links are the problem. Who the heck knows?
    Cazzie [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  20. #20
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    No one knows. But I can say with a fair amount of certainty that they aren't a problem on your site, my site, Big Chuck's site or Malibber's site.

    [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    The phrase 'iwon.com' appears 120 times on iwon's index page.


    I

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Icicle ]

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,082
    Well I just looked at both of Gordons sites and he used absolute on one site and relative on the other site. And neither of his sites are showing page rankings. My personal feeling is that google messed up. They were at my other site again yesterday and did 30 crawls. I can't see the server logs for the decorating site so can't say if google was there.
    Did you notice the code that they are using when you do a links search? this is what I got when I tried the backwards link on my other site: wMmj1acR6hs:
    then it says no links can be found. I think everyone gets a different code.
    Cazzie [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  22. #22
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    BTW I think using absolute linking isn't the problem in itself - its just more likely to give the appearance of spamming.


    I

    [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Icicle ]

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,082
    No! His links are showing, my links on another site are not showing. But I do not see a page rank for either of his sites, do you? Maybe my google bar is not working right. In fact today, I have been all over the net and have yet to see a page rank, so maybe the google tool bar is not working.
    Cazzie

  24. #24
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Damn! I just editied that! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    I got rid of the google toolbar a few days ago as mine didn't look like it was working either, so I don't know Gordons page rank either - except that he said it was six.

    I did a search for 'perfume' in Google. The first result has IMO spammed the word 'fragrance' in their filenames, if my new theory is right. But then again it is a very big page.


    I

  25. #25
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    668
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you use absolute or relative linking? And are any of your urls public?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    absolute and no they are private.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Code to show pages from MySQL?
    By Peaces in forum Programming / Datafeeds / Tools
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 12:05 PM
  2. Do Google CPM Ads Show Up On All Pages - Or Just
    By MoneyBusiness in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 13th, 2007, 02:47 PM
  3. How to show record-level data in plain text on index pages??
    By jrbrunger in forum WebMerge (Fourthworld.com)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 11th, 2006, 12:31 AM
  4. Which Allposters pages show ae products?
    By TJ in forum Cusimano.com Scripts
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 5th, 2005, 10:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •