I was wondering if 301 redirects could be used as a "buffer"?.

For example, if I blasted 6 of my buffer urls with xrummer and then 301'd these all to my money site. What would Google potentially ban/sandbox? My money site, my 301'd buffers, or both?

Originally Posted by snwbrdstylee

I was wondering if 301 redirects could be used as a "buffer"?.

For example, if I blasted 6 of my buffer urls with xrummer and then 301'd these all to my money site. What would Google potentially ban/sandbox? My money site, my 301'd buffers, or both?

Buffers are used for the sole purpose of "taking the hits" which is why Web 2.0 properties work best. In the case you account gets banned, you get a site "sandboxed" by Google, etc you can always make more.

Once you burn your own domains, that's pretty much it.

Buffers are used for the sole purpose of "taking the hits" which is why Web 2.0 properties work best.

I do understand that but I guess I am wondering more about exactly which sites Google would burn.

For example, imagine I have a chain of multiple 301'd sites with 1 million links pointing to a.com:
a.com -301-> b.com -301-> c.com -301-> d.com -> mymoneysite

Will Google burn all of the domains in this chain or just my money site?

Originally Posted by snwbrdstylee

I do understand that but I guess I am wondering more about exactly which sites Google would burn.

For example, imagine I have a chain of multiple 301'd sites with 1 million links pointing to a.com:
a.com -301-> b.com -301-> c.com -301-> d.com -> mymoneysite

Will Google burn all of the domains in this chain or just my money site?

You're missing the point.

I can't say for sure if Google would burn one or all. If they are all hosted on the same IP or have other footprints that cause them to look like they are setup, then maybe all.

The point is why would you want to risk using a good domain as a buffer? It doesn't make any sense.

Web 2.0 sites have authority in Google's eyes, so they can take a lot. Plus you don't have to worry about getting your paid domains that could be useful for so much more into trouble.

Yeah, But haven't these web 2.0 sites lost some of their authority over time? Such as the power they are worth in link wheels and whatnot. And I don't see squidoo and other sites like that in the top 3 of the SERPS nearly as much as I used to. Has anyone else noticed that?

Don't take my word for it though, I'm not a SEO genius. Anyone care to comment on that though?

Originally Posted by Yukinari84

You're missing the point.

I can't say for sure if Google would burn one or all. If they are all hosted on the same IP or have other footprints that cause them to look like they are setup, then maybe all.

The point is why would you want to risk using a good domain as a buffer? It doesn't make any sense.

Web 2.0 sites have authority in Google's eyes, so they can take a lot. Plus you don't have to worry about getting your paid domains that could be useful for so much more into trouble.

Originally Posted by dishnetboi

Yeah, But haven't these web 2.0 sites lost some of their authority over time? Such as the power they are worth in link wheels and whatnot. And I don't see squidoo and other sites like that in the top 3 of the SERPS nearly as much as I used to. Has anyone else noticed that?

Don't take my word for it though, I'm not a SEO genius. Anyone care to comment on that though?

Squidoo got slapped by Google, but it's still great.

It's not really the sites so much as the way people use them. For example, the link wheel. Every one heard that and started following the exact same linking pattern on the exact same sites.

Yeah, Do you know of any parasite sites like squidoo that are on the rise I guess you could say. Ones that haven't been slapped yet,

The point is why would you want to risk using a good domain as a buffer? It doesn't make any sense.

I am just thinking hypothetically and perhaps buffer was a bad word choice.

My thought process was that I could switch these 301's to different locations without having to link build again, almost like a garden hose spraying domains with link juice if you want to get metaphorical with it. I just see a few neat black hat opportunities with it and was just wondering if any one has ever toyed with it or if it was even worth testing.

Originally Posted by Yukinari84

Once you burn your own domains, that's pretty much it.

If you transfer the domain to someone else, Google will forgive all the sins the domain has committed.
Transferring to your mom, friend or shadow company should get rid of your Google punishment.
It's rumored that it also sets your page-rank back, but i can't confirm that from first hand experience.
Although it's completely illogical, i just thought i'd mention it as a possibility.

Originally Posted by M.A.D

If you transfer the domain to someone else, Google will forgive all the sins the domain has committed.
Transferring to your mom, friend or shadow company should get rid of your Google punishment.
It's rumored that it also sets your page-rank back, but i can't confirm that from first hand experience.
Although it's completely illogical, i just thought i'd mention it as a possibility.

Google has a permanent link memory, so probably not.

You can change your domain to whatever server you like, but Google will know what was done to it, when it was done , and how it was done.

Originally Posted by Yukinari84

Google has a permanent link memory, so probably not.

You can change your domain to whatever server you like, but Google will know what was done to it, when it was done , and how it was done.

I'm not talking about servers. I'm talking about changing the whois data.
As if you sold it.
When a domain chances hands, the domain looses it's penalties and some of it's pr.
Quite logical. Because if you were to destroy a domain, and then just sold on.
You would disadvantage the one who bought it, and not the one who destroyed it.

It would be naive to think a big company like google, who wants want to know everything.
Doesn't check the whois databases. Even it were once per pr update term.
I mean, even i could do that.

And then there is also the fact that you can resubmit it.
Quote from google.

In addition, if you recently purchased a domain that you think may have violated our guidelines before you owned it, you can use the reconsideration request form to let us know that you recently acquired the site and that it now adheres to the guidelines.

Source

Code:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35843

So you change the whois data to make it seem you just bought it. (transfer it to your brother or dog)
And then you resubmit it. Pretty plausible theory if i might say so.
Point is, i can make a thousand theories. But proof is in the pudding.

Originally Posted by M.A.D

I'm not talking about servers. I'm talking about changing the whois data.
As if you sold it.
When a domain chances hands, the domain looses it's penalties and some of it's pr.
Quite logical. Because if you were to destroy a domain, and then just sold on.
You would disadvantage the one who bought it, and not the one who destroyed it.

It would be naive to think a big company like google, who wants want to know everything.
Doesn't check the whois databases. Even it were once per pr update term.
I mean, even i could do that.

And then there is also the fact that you can resubmit it.
Quote from google.

Source

Code:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35843

So you change the whois data to make it seem you just bought it. (transfer it to your brother or dog)
And then you resubmit it. Pretty plausible theory if i might say so.
Point is, i can make a thousand theories. But proof is in the pudding.

I see what you're getting at now.

Yea, that could probably work.