Page 2 - JOE BOB'S BLOOP Theory

I think you will find, like everything else talked about here, that it is probably a correlation, perhaps coincidence. I have tons of porn and gambling sites pointing at me. Tons. I don't know why, and I don't care. Google just discounts them. Maybe it is a competitor buying into this ridiculous theory that one way nasty links can harm you.

I am a perfect example of how tons of nasty links do not affect a sites ranking. So please show us if there is proof of the other. You, JoeBob, whomever. Please show us.

Are you saying that they are linking to you with keywords? Bare links, yes, no harm no foul. Keyword targeted links can be spammed, I'm pretty sure.

Trust me, I'd love to be proved wrong on this one.

What is your top keyword/website combination for GG? I really do have a 100k page site we can test this with.

-Michael

Are you referring to something like Google Bombing? Yes, that can be done, but it doesn't affect the regular serps of a site. For example, type in 'Failure' and you get the white house bio of george Bush. Funny stuff. But that site also shows up for 'George Bush' or 'president'.



I'm sure - but I don't want to be proved wrong!



I rank for some pretty challenging keywords, and as for testing, what do you have in mind? I'm not sure we could emulate 'harming' a site with the tools we have at our disposal. Anyway - let me know what you are thinking...

The theory being tested is whether or not someone linking to you with specific anchor text can cause your site to be penalized for that text. I believe that it can be.

The way we can test that is to take a keyword that you currently have good G placement with, and I place 100k links, all from the same, unrelated website, using that keyword as the anchor text.

If you're right, then nothing should happen. If I'm right, you might get banned for that keyword, or at least penalized.

Don't worry if I'm right though, for a modest fee I would promptly remove the links.

-Michael

There is nothing wrong with paying attention to the various theories that are being developed. However, it seams to me that a lot of SEO’s are desperately searching for the one theory that is going to make their life simpler…


Finding that one theory becomes an obsession and when a certain theory appears everyone is trying to figure it out with all kinds of calculations in an attempt to see if this is the one to hang their hat on!

That is when Paralysis of Analysis sets in.

The fact of the matter is G* has always been consistent (well, for most part). The reason they come up with the adjustments to their algorithm is to circumvent SEOs attempts at abusing the algorithm. This is an on going process that will never stop.

The most recent adjustment to PR update was the simple result of the natural growth of the internet. First, G* had to raise the bar as the existing BLs were going through the roof. By raising the bar they created room for growth. Hence the loss of PR of all sites that hadn’t increased BLs dramatically including but not limited to MSN. And my site for that matter.

The second adjustment was credit given for site wide incoming links. Who didn’t see that one coming?

What is a good SEO suppose to do then?
Stick with the principals of what a good site should be. A trizillion pages of similar content is not a “large” site. A trizillion links coming in from a site of trizillion similar pages is of no value to anyone. These things may have temporary benefits, but it’s only a matter of time for G* to catch up. Stop fooling yourself and get on with the business building a real site.

raz

Hi,

I think any kind of link helps, search for "viagra", the first page result shows lots of sites spamming guestbooks..
I see the same thing going on with some travel sites.

Any site, any keyword, as long as it ranks well for it? Does it matter how competitive the keyword is?

No, for the test I don't think it matters. Although you may not want to test with your *top* moneymaker, just in case I'm right.

-Michael

It's not worth the investment of time and resources to test this theory in my opinion, but go for it if you have the extra time and money, etc...

I have personal experience with "spammy" sites linking to me with specific anchor text.

These inbound links do not "penalize" your site in any way (i.e. bring you down in SERPs) they are simply discounted by google for lack of relevance, spamminess, etc...

Going back to the BLOOD discussion:

I think that the something completely different is in effect at Google. Instead of devaluing backlinks, I think that Google over values backlinks (without regard to relevance and anchor text content). What I mean is that while google does factor content, on-page factors (metatags, etc..), relevance of backlinks, anchor text, etc... the #1 criteria for ranking is the amount and potency of backlinks from different domains (more specifically different IP C-blocks). Links from powerful "authority" sites (no I'm not a Hilltop freak) are given even more "weight" (the bigger the site the more weight given) while "superfluous" links from the same domain (i.e. run of site text links) are given less weight. And since the google link: command is purposely incomplete, making backlink potency and amount analysis difficult, many seo/webmasters misdiagnose why they rank below other sites.

In google, backlink info (amount and potency) far outweight any other factor. That is why sites with a solid amount of relevant content, a solid amount of relevant backlinks, good anchor text, solid on-page factors, etc... can still rank "relatively" poorly (especially if they are not indexed in DMOZ and do not "acquire" seriously potent backlinks form high PR "authority" sites). This effect is compounded (in my opinion) by the fact google does not place a high degree of importance on the relevance of said backlinks. So a site with thousands of high "potency" non-relevant backlinks (from different domains) will out rank a site with hundreds of extremely relevant backlinks (from different domains). I think that the amount of content (individual pages) is also a major factor, but I'm not going to get into that now.

Because of this added "weight" placed on backlink info it is difficult for new sites to compete with sites that have a "head start" on picking up backlinks. However, in time a site that constantly increases the amount of relevant content and relevant backlinks will overtake the competition. It just takes much longer in Google than it does in a search engine like Yahoo that gives more "weight" to on-page factors, etc...

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

We'll test it like everyone else does, with some 'nigritude ultramarine' type word. The algorythm shouldn't care what keyword it is, as long as my site ranks well for it.

If you want to do it, I'm game.

Cool, fire me an email with the site and keyword, will take me about 10 minutes to get it up there. Should see results in a couple weeks.

-Michael

Just did. We'll see. I'll bet you a coke!

interesting stuff, but i still can't believe that people flamed googlemasters for coining the 'cutesy' phrase 'PRolong' but can then turnaround and talk rationally about theories called BLOOP, BLOOD and BLOO

my guess is that just ONE BIG siteide probably will not necessairly draw the penalty ..... it will probably just be ignored .... i think many other variables must also come into play ..... and there are a lot of variables ..... anyone looking for a cookbook on this one best move on .... but the list above is a good roadmap of the kind of variables to watch for in combinations expecially ./.....

for those NONBELIEVERS ...... basically what i am saying is that googles new policies are something like this ......


IF they can see you are walking in the red light district ...... then THEY are willing to give your competitor the power to screw you ........

besides ... google want to make money ... and stomping out links selling is good for their business .... they dfont give a flip if some competitor blows out another as long as the searchers see enough relevant serps to stay around ...... NOTHIN else matters to them ..... SO GET REAL .......

also, what google has failed to recognize ..... is that NEARLY EVERY site at the TOP of compeititve serps is living NEAR THE EDGE ..... they dont get there otherwise ..... so everybody in the top 10 is in or at least NEAR the red light district ...... IN MOST competitive commercial K's anyway ..... forget the fun or academic issues ..... that is a differetn ballgame ....


BTW .... inkjet ..... the spelling beeeeeeeeee enthouiast have clubs now they join to keep their nurosis in check so they dont step on themselves in public .... you can search yahoo for a spelling beeen enthouisast annonomous chapter in your area ....... yahoo's serps are looking more relevant lately than googles are ....... and they include LOCAL features .....

but hey .... it is almost christmas season again ..... right??? here COMES google. ......

True, but I think those were other people.

BLOOP is a well known acronym by now (like BL, PR, IBL) so a slight variant will be easily recognized... Personally, since I can remember the word PRolong AND what it means, I believe it's actually a good name for the effect, albeit a bit cutesy.

I just hope no-one proposes other variants like...

BL Under-Rating,

BL UniFormity Factor,

or BL Obviously Bought