JOE BOB'S BLOOP Theory

Can any one explain haow Joe Bob's BLOOP theory works in practice ? BLOOP = Back Links Over Optomisation Penalty

For example, Does BLOOP only come into effect when a large sitewide hits ? Or does it also become an issue after extensive link building activity ( all on different IP's and C blocks) ?

hope someone can help

Cheers,

Broker Boy

NOTE : I think i may have fallen fowl of this filter but first i want to establish general consensus of two factors

(a) Does it exist ?
(b) If it does exist how do we 'think' the filter is structured

I believe there's a less painful variant of BLOOP: BLOOD (BLOO Devaluation). It would not surprise me if G used a variable dampening factor on backlinks (and PR FTM) to distinguish between related and unrelated links.

I also keep an eye on the PRolong Theory (sorry to use that name again ;) ) stating that backlinks are evaluated first, and only accepted when proven valid - one way or another. I just hope for Google's sake that they have software to do that and don't rely on manpower, but judging by the numerous reports from people dropping from the serps (etc.) temporarly, I just wonder...

WIT,
With BLOO do you think that the effect is discounted over time ?? Or it is a permeant feature ?

I guess we put lots of links into this section and cannot understand why we have seen a drop in rankings ... the only think i can think of at the moment is a BLOO or a BLOOP on that page.

Any help is appreciated - NOTE : We have dropped from 16th to 31 and we cant understand why at the moment.

Cheers,

Broker Boy

There is no "lag time" for links to be counted for anchor text. I am in DP's COOP network; and I have seen the word I am using go from 19 to #7 = though it bounces wildly. I'm not linking to my site with that term anywhere else right now (though obviously random links to my homepage are always possible).

I think its more of an issue with sitewide links from an unrelated site that are not counting for very much anymore.

I like Wit's idea of BLOOD. There is almost certainly a devaluation of new links for either a set amount of time or an amount of time based on a complex formula. I'm also fairly sure that the penalization of links is more strict for new sites than for older sites.

Sitewides and SharedC-Block links are certainly affected, but so are regular, powerful links. I'm currently linked to by 10 pages out of the top 20 results for my keywords and over 30 of the top 100 pages. I also have more backlinks (using any command you can think of - Yahoo! Link Cmd, Google's, MSN's techpreview, altavista, etc.) than many of the sites in the top 20 and am #1 allinanchor and have been for a little over 3 months.

Link devaluation is something that we will have to deal with, and certainly something that will probably get stronger over time to hurt sites that get lots of SEO work or lots of spammy links very quickly. It's almost certainly a preventative measure against spam & SEO as it hurts the SERPs by not letting new sites in... The BLOOD factor is probably one of the bigger players in the whole 'Sandbox' & 'March Filter' effect.

i agree with this observation ... i notice the age of the site appears to be a factor on the DEGREE of the hicky google gives you for doing the SQAME Thing or things .....

i also agree that devaluation is going on simultaneously with BLOOP ... they devalue all the time .,... and they PENALIZE if you get a score that is too high ... i think it is cummulative like a CREDIT SCORE .... hen you cross the line a litle you get a little hicky ..... cross a lot youo get a big hicky ..... cross WAY TOO FAR .... you dissappear ...... there is a sligding scale HICKY i call it .... also the death penalty .... and it is applied BY KEYWORD ..... NOT BY SITE ...... which i am surprised at to be frank ....i would have expected this to affect the site .,.,... not just the KW involved ...... so that alone tells you it all has to start with a specific ancor text somehere they dont like ...... hmmmmmmmmm

i have tested and reproduced a sliding scale penalty ( we droppped from #14 to #31) and also a death penalty case .... the kw is TOTALLY GONE .... so i know both versions exist ..... andi know it is by kw .....i will tell any honest webmaster interested by PM exactly what i did to get that ..... of course each circumstanc will be different but you can learn from a spoecific case ...... but i dont care to wise up the jerks here who sell their spammy siteide links and know it all alreaady ..... remember they claim it is IMPOSSIBLE for gooogle to PENALIZE you for LINKS comming in ..... yea right ...... so pm me if your a serious webmaster and like to know what line to NOT cross .........

there seem to be a LOT of factors which in the right proportions can incur the PENALTY ... here are my general thoughs of what is stirred into the soup .....

1) ratio of exact kw ancor text links to non exact ancors
2) (MANY wILL SCREAM AT THIS BUT I BELIEVE IT) the ratio of links from sites ith HIGHER PR than your own ( i recommend only a TINY frction of HIGH pre links) .... a high ratio of high pr links is the SUREST AY i know of to get whacked .... stay away from a bunch of HIGH pr links ... that is the death penalty for sure .... especially if it is a big share of your juice ..... get a lot of dinky links .... loer pr than your own .....

think about it .... why wouLd some newspaper link to your or me?? only because We paid them .... and REMEMBER ... GOOGLE WANTS US TO PAY GOOGLE ..... NOT SOME FREAKIN NEWSPAPER ..... RIGHT?? SO THIS ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE ....
3) ratio of sitewides
4) BAD NATURE of the links ..... HIGH LINK DENSITY (tablkes of links, kw12, 3, 4, rtc) .... and no context ....
5) bad sites .... also linking to sex, porn, or viagra ....
6) high ratio of off theme links .....

one thing i noticed .... it appears they are not discounting recriprocals as bad as they used to .... if they are on theme ....

How, exactly, do you cross a line, where it opens up the floadgates to other sites linking to you? What is that? Seriously. I cannot conceive of a situation where something I did (other than join some stupid link exchange site and actually have links from my site to the link exchange site), can harm me. You know, I'm not only a serious 'webmaster', but I am also a serious businessman who runs my company using a variety of systems that allow the show to run along, operations wise, by itself. My job, if you will, is running the company, my hobby is SEO. I will not link to a site that does not fall into a series of 'requirements'. What are we talking about here? You cannot control who links to you. Period. It's like saying that you should be punished for kids throwing eggs at your house on halloween. Is it your fault you are a teacher (grin)?

Joebob, I have a challenge for you. I would be THRILLED if you could prove to me that who links to you (not under your control) can harm you. I am seriously interested, heck, fascinated with any evidence you have. I challenge you.



Not sure what EXACT point you are trying to accomplish by #1, so I will move to #2 and retort, the proverbial scream. Oh yes, stay away from "related sites", especially sites that are PERFECT, no, no, not perfect, "related" to your site, your product, your industry. Stay away if THE PR IS HIGH. That sounds more ridiculous typing than it actually does saying it outloud. Simply because nobody within earshot knows what the heck I'm talking about. I hope I 'interpeted' your paragraph properly, there were numerous spelling issues, etc...




First off, I have 2 very well situated competitors that actually do buy newspaper links. I don't like it, never will. Damn, I hope they get penalized for it. I don't know how long it will last, but they have been rockin for 5 years now and still are. I can tell you, based on the positions they have, in my industry, they have grossed millions in the last five years doing this. Again, I don't like it. And I won't do it. But it 'ain't' hurting them.

However, the premise of your 'point' is not sound. My company has been written up in numerous online newspaper ads. Jeez, hope Google doesn't penalize me for it... I assume you are reffering to sites that buy ads. Again, it is not against law or nature to buy advertisements for your company. Apparently newspapers do that, it has something to do with their 'business model'. But Google, focusing on developing their algorythm, may choose to discount links from unrelated sites, or media (that's unrelated I guess right?) sites. Not PENALIZE them. Let them have cake, and let them buy their links. It may work for a while. But when it stops working... oh well.



First off, #4 is incoherent, but commenting on #5 and #6; YOU control who you link to. I have a GAZZILION gambling and sex sites pointing at my site. Jerks. Theirs is a numbers game - they hope, like 1% of the spam link emails, they send, that someone actually links to them. It's seedy. It's like telemarketing in the 80's - same deal, a numbers game, but different medium. So, HEY EVERYONE, ""don't link back"". That's the key. So easy isn't it? Google has already figured this out, like 2001. It does not matter who links to you......



Because we are all trying to figure out, and consequently manipulate Google's algorythm, it would be reasonable that google would build into their algorythm the ability to see a whole pile of links into a site's main page, while seeing reciprocals going out from the same site's lesser pages. Perhaps called "links.html" pages. Or if the links are off topic (definition of 'off topic' to be determined) - of course they will clue into this. Get creative. If you are hell bent on appealing to Google, your best chances are to do the following, and argue if you will, but it's worked for us:

1. Create a site, with at least 1500 pages of real content and/or product information (can help establish you, depending on industry, as authority). Try to have each product page have an e-commerce aspect to it where the customer, or visitor can add a product to cart, etc.
2. Have each page have a unique title/description and mostly unique content.
3. Creat a link exchange campaign that involves drawing potential links from a variety of related sites (to yours) listed in dmoz, do research on what sites rank high for your targeted keywords, and solicit links from allinanchor, allintext, and most importantly, 'emulate' the backlinks from the sites you wish to rank with one day.
4. If you are not an affiliate site (easier imo), get listed in dmoz, if not in your main product category, in your local directory.
5. Register with other directories - I found a huge help by paying, yes PAYING to be registered in business.com and yahoo.com, amongst others. Well worth the money if you are in my position. There are at least 40 other worth while directories to submit to.
6. And most of all, imo, targeting major keywords is not all it is cut out to be. Yes it is hard, but I will tell you from experience, it is better to appeal to individual searches, custom and specific searches that going after the largely heralded 'keyword'.
7. And most important of all, spend at least 1/2 hour a day on seochat.com and don't do anything stupid.

DON'T WORRY WHO LINKS TO YOU. IT'S LIKE TRYING TO CONTROL WHO SAYS STUFF BEHIND YOUR BACK. utterly useless.

Cheerio...

*DON'T WORRY WHO LINKS TO YOU*

In general absolutely, in particular it may not be quite so cut and dried.

I've recently seen a number of examples where the addition of third-party site wide links has triggered a major drop in SERPS.

Not per se mind you, the sites in question had been cross/interlinking for quite some time without apparently showing up on the radar, but those site-wides seem to have crossed some line.

Yup,

I hope people realise that - although in theory you can't control who links to you - most bought/unrelated links are pretty obvious. Furthermore it may be that sites are not directly penalised for (e.g.) having lots of sitewide backlinks or links to/from "bad" sites, but these symptoms are bound to trigger a closer investigation* at some point. I'm sure every SEOd site around violates Google TOS and guidelines to some extent (because these guidelines are pretty vague ;) ) and could pay for it eventually if they stand out too much. You'd have to be very "evil" to get banned completely though. Devaluation of any kind seems like a good reminder to get "bad" people on the right track (again). It's like cutting your kid's cookie ration

*...performed by either a smirking human or an intolerant bot, whichever...

Thanks Guys, your input is much apreciated - The next question is if a bloop or blood is placed upon a page on your website what would you then do ?

Would you (a) Add new links with differnet anchor text to break uop the pattern
(b) Remove the offending links and change the anchor text.
(c) Change the optomisation a little to work on some additional neiche kw's ?

Cheers in advance,

Broker Boy

I did a (b) once, but that was only to stop the SC forum pages ranking higher than my own ;)

Hope there are former BLOOP/D victims around, willing to share their tale of recovery. Maybe a bit more detail from JoeBob... I'm interested.

If this theory holds true then I am officially offering up Link Assasination services. I have a website with 100,000 pages that I'm sure is not related to anyone's competitor's websites.

Tired of being stuck in the #2 spot for your favorite keyword? For a MERE $5k a month I'll bomb your competitor!

j/k, btw.

-Michael

the only way "link assassination" (I like this wording) would make sense on google's end is to punish both sites doing it. Not just the one getting the inbound link, but the one giving it too. If it was only the one getting the link to be punished, the previous post's idea would be too easy to drive competitors out of the serps.

Exactly - they had been cross/interlinking. As long as you do not link back, it is of no consequence who links to you.

Actually, I have experienced differantly. It does seem to me that spammy links can have a negative impact.
Has anyone else seen this?

-Michael