Big G Plans To Penalize All Link Building Activities?

[stevesdata]

I cant remember where I read this but almost everyone knows technically according to big g terms of service if you try any kind of manipulation in regards to search engines / SERPS etc. you are in violation and some say technically black hat (although f^&k this we all gotta eat).

I heard some rumours that big g is considering penalizing all link building activities even white hat ones. Has anyone else heard these rumours and if so what could it mean for us? I am sure I did not hear them here.

My understanding is from a white hat perspective directories, press releases, forums, blogs etc. are all potentially equally important for traffic so therefore I cant see them getting penalized but this could be worrying as I am in the process of trying to set up an SEO company. I am very confident about 95% of what I am doing but my only paranoia would be getting a fairly large company / clients site deindexed.

One question I know is hotly debated still is how many links is a good idea? I am planning 100 - 150 per month to try and stay squeaky clean, but I know there are some ppl here that dont hesitate to go for much higher in terms of directory submissions and fairly safe link building activities.

Other rumours I am hearing is that big g can use javascript to try and link sites e.g. tracking codes and also can now apparently follow all links no matter how cloaked or redirected and rank based on outbound link quality e.g. not too many spammy outbound links to viagra affiliate schemes.

Would be very interested to discuss any of the above as some of the quotes I am putting in for SEO work I better keep my nose very very clean

 

[tyler8541]

Hmmmm...I think it would be quite difficult to start regulating this now. Maybe moving forward but nothing retroactive. WOuld be interested if anyone else has heard of this too.

 

[Katarsis]

There's always been rumors, and there always will be. And I honestly doubt they'd be cracking on whitehat activities, no matter what their "official" stance on the mattter is.

 

[Remington]

what could it mean for us?

Just more baloney to ignore.

Cutts says a lot of crap, but this line seems more BS-filled than even he usually is. It's probably actually a rumor started by webmasters hoping their competition will be dumb enough to kill themselves SE-wise.

So what it probably really means is that SEO's going to get easier if a lot of suckers buy into it.

Not that I'd be surprised if Google picked up the rumor and decided to jump on it. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen them claim an algo change that actually only exists in the dreamworld of the rumor mill.

 

[mightybh]

People have been talking about the death of SEO for a long time. The only problem is, Google has no ways of telling whether the bookmarks on a web 2.0 sites are organic or published by a webmaster. If you were to start getting penalised for backlinks then the game would change names from SEO to SEB and instead of creating backlinks people will start bowling their competition by creating backlinks for them.

By the way, directory and forum links are terrible anyway.

 

[stevesdata]

You guys are all probably right.

I know directories / forums arent great prob due to them having the living bejesus spammed out of them

However its also worth remembering if less weight, less ppl will do it, could offer rewards.

I am talking very white hat stuff here anyways. One of the most powerful things I am finding atm is domain age. I am looking at clients sites that arent optomised at all but are 6 years old, PR5 and have a ton of potential. This was all without even the most basic SEO info, stuff I knew about 10 years ago before I could even build sites (I used to run one).

 

[ruler0fall]

Google can't penalize for backlinks why would it be penalized if you tell people on a forum to check your blog out, Or if you social bookmark your blog. Makes no sense.

 

[Micallef]

In order to automatically crawl the web and provide relevant results, google is still utterly dependent on backlinks. The way in which it evaluates backlinks may become more spohisticated, but as long as google relies on them, SEOs will be able to find a way to game the system.

 

[topper99]

...everyone knows technically according to big g terms of service...

Terms of service? What terms of service? You put up a website and they decide whether or not and where to list it in their search engine. There is no terms of service.

 

[stevesdata]

Terms of service? What terms of service? You put up a website and they decide whether or not and where to list it in their search engine. There is no terms of service.

Apologies I meant web master guidelines

 

[zebrahat]

The whole point of 'optimization' IS to game the system, by knowing/guessing how the search engines rank sites, then setting up your site to match. Things like domain age may have become more important because age is one of the things you can't manipulate, but that still doesn't stop a gamer from buying aged domains.

The real beef of Cutts/G is with the fact that the web is structured to support unilateral action---webmasters can freely conduct activity across the internet that will benefit their own url. The little guy can compete with the corporate sites by leveraging his web presence through SEO, so until a Web 3.0 emerges that bars optimization altogether, there will be gaming.

 

[mbceo]

I would believe it if I saw them maximize the amount of backlinks you could have.

Like, for example, a part in their algorithm for backlinks is worth 25%. So, if you had a max of 200, then even if you get more than 200, you still only get 25%.

All of a sudden this sounds like socialism or something .... placing a cap on links.

If I saw that, then I might believe they were doing something. Until then, I build links.

 

[sikandar]

Google can't do that. If they do, people will use all automatic software for link building on their competitor websites.

 

[bocahtuanakal]

Whatever big G plans to do.. there will be a new SEO method or at least a way to get around it

 

[keinehabe]

call you like you wish guys ... few years back first time when web2.0 term started to be used everyone gone crazy and all folks got in panic ... now everyone love the idea ... thing it's ... everything on this virtual world it's into continue and aggressive evolution , that means even '' changing '' some of details , (* example like 4 years back if you had 50 forums back links you was probably on first page of the google , 3 years back if you had an '' digg like '' script / site was also up on the sky .... 10 years back if you had 10 html page and 5 pictures after uploading them and ping them few minutes later ... ) you got the idea ? things are changing ! we are changing .... and of course this changes sometime bring with them '' experience '' in fight with '' spam ''

 

[lesaurus]

At the end of the day there will always be competition for any given keyword, because ranking for a keyword = traffic = $

Google MUST provide the most relevant results to keep its customer base happy. This is why it is the top search engine.

Therefore Google will always have to judge what order to display sites in the serps to meet it's goal of providing quality results

In order to judge it must differentiate between potential candidates using an algorithm as it does now

All the time an algorithm exists, there will always be a way to exploit/ manipulate/ i.e. SEO what we do now.

If backlinks were taken out of the equation we would be left with site age, the content and a few simple other factors. Basically anyone could buy domains, let them age, write some content and be successful. But google needs to know how this site is rated by the masses and how would it measure that?

If anything, SEO will become more complex = more ways to beat your competition if you have the ability or dedication to keep up.

I believe the future for people like you and me is only going to get better as the internet expands, as long as we keep on top of the game and adapt and learn as things change.

 

[1nam1]

G00gle will change to the new generation of search engine , also new algorithm , I think.

Go to this page to check.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/08/help-test-some-next-generation.html

If it use the new on it will affect our ranking.

Try to search this page.

http://www2.sandbox.google.com/

There testing.

 

[the_punisher]

Google can't do that. If they do, people will use all automatic software for link building on their competitor websites.

good point, sikandar

 

[Djingel]

This is the way it is:

1: Links will never be penalized, but they can stop giving them any value. (so it may seem as a punishment when all the crappy links suddenly stop passing any PR flow)
2: The future is user behavior

 

[Remington]

2: The future is a script that simulates user behavior

There, that's more accurate.