Great community. Great ideas.
Welcome to SEOChat, a community dedicated to helping beginners and professionals alike in improving their Search Engine Optimization knowledge. Sign up today to gain access to the combined insight of tens of thousands of members.
Jan 23rd, 2013, 08:32 AM
Poor quality site ??
we all hear about how google doesnt like poor quality sites, and how it may penalise you if poor quality sites are linking to your site.
Its not too bad to be able to find who is linking to you, BUT how can I judge which of those sites linking to me are poor quality ? They are not link farms or spam sites or anything that would automatically alert you to something being wrong, but this doesnt mean google wont rate them as poor quality.
Is it possible to see anywhere how google judges or rates a site for quality ? a tool, a report, some software ? I dont think the old PR is the key here is it ? If i can judge a site for quality in the same way google does, then i would aim to remove links from poor quality sites to mine. Thanks everyone, in advance.
Jan 23rd, 2013, 11:33 AM
Common sense usually tells me if a site is low quality. Many outbound links. No trust with Google. Spammed text, etc.
Jan 23rd, 2013, 12:00 PM
Thanks so much for your reply josh ! Totally agree with re many outbound links, spammy content etc but how would we confirm this and "no trust" with google ? As humans you and I might appraise the same site differently so we could expect some variation in opinion. I would expect google to judge a low quality site through its software or algorythm - is this how you would see it ? If so how can we view a site the same as google does and decide if the site is low quality based on googles view ? In the same way how can we judge a high quality site eg where we would like a link form ? The same criteria must be used by google to decide whats high as well low quality ? if so how can we absolutely judge high and low quality too ?
Jan 23rd, 2013, 12:03 PM
I personally associate trust with PageRank. I guess it's just something you have to test and review until you see 'trait's of a poor site.
Jan 23rd, 2013, 12:39 PM
Thanks again josh, appreciate your input. I was hoping you wouldnt say PR. Isnt PR being given less and less weight by google ? Bearing in mind the massive exponential jumps between a PR or 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 etc, its difficult to climb the scale, and there are few comparatively few sites with a PR of say 5 or 6 upwards. I would suggest the majority of sites on the internet are 0, 1 and maybe 2, but i dont think you need to be a spammer or link farmer get a score of 0, a legit hobby site or blog could get 0. This would imply that the PR would call all sites say less than 4 or 5 low quality - in the same way google would say a spammer or link farm was low quality. I hope this isnt right because it means I would need to remove all links to my site from anywhere with a PR of less than the magic number. Any thoughts ?
Jan 23rd, 2013, 02:36 PM
Your question seems aimed at finding useless sites (to a human) that google currently sees as not being spam.
The premise is garbage.
You want links on high quality sites that you yourself would visit. Those are sites where you don't have to worry about google seeing them as spam now or next week. Short term gains might be had with the 'google doesn't see it as spam even though it is' method but in the long run you will loose big.
Jan 23rd, 2013, 03:15 PM
Any SEO who claims PageRank is not important (on some level) is not fully educated and away in my humble opinion.
Going after sites with X PageRank for rankings? Flawed.
Using PageRank as a clue in how Google see's a page? Sure.
PageRank is important. It's not the most important. PageRank, used with other metrics can shed a lot of light on a site or domain.
Jan 23rd, 2013, 08:00 PM
For me, I think google may be using some typs of bounce rates to judge user engagement but user engagement alone is no indicator of the quality of a website.
Jan 24th, 2013, 06:04 AM
Google only justify the quality of a site i.e poor or good. Google checks quality content of a material of a site and good backlink and other many factor. After allows PR.
Jan 24th, 2013, 07:44 AM
Guys thanks so much for your input, really appreciated. realityhack - sorry if i upset you :-) but no you don't quite understand my question. I'm actually trying to decide if a site that links to me is viewed as poor quality by google, therefore potentially hurting not helping my ranking. the site linking to me is just a normal website with no ill intentions, spam or link farming, it has PR of 2. I would like to see what google sees in terms of judging the quality of a site. If PR is the only visible thing we can see from google, then is that enough to assume a site with PR2 is ok and not seen as low quality ?
Jan 24th, 2013, 08:00 AM
Hi to All,
I am a new member of this forum. Today I was reading about recent update announced on 22 January 2013. I followed reference link of the post. At the page of googlewebmastertool , webmaster explain some key points they track while creating algorithms for filtering low quality sites. You can have a brief reading on post 'more guidance on building high quality sites' on official webmaster blog by google.
Jan 24th, 2013, 08:16 AM
Well content is the main factor to know is that site is poor or good.
Jan 24th, 2013, 09:07 AM
Having a link from a poor quality site to yours won't hurt your ranking, it just won't do it any good. Alot of sites who have suddenly lost their rankings think they have been 'penalized' but this is not correct. It's just that Google has said some/all of the inbound links they have no longer count for anything and so other sites deserve to rank higher.
Originally Posted by Sinclairos
Now if you tootle off and buy 5,000 poor quality links you may get a message in GWT about 'unnatural links' but I remain skeptical about this going forward because Google does not want to be seen as opening the door on negative SEO.
Jan 24th, 2013, 10:03 AM
Thanks again to all. ralph do you have a link to that article ?
Doodled - "a link from a poor quality site wont hurt your ranking" - but surely if other sites deserve to rank higher doesnt that mean my ranking has been hurt ? I thought the purpose of the disavow tool was to stop google looking at links pointing to your site, from poor quality sites, that would otherwise harm your ranking. Doesnt this mean that links from poor quality site DO harm your ranking ? I also thought the disavow tool was created as a measure against negative seo, ie you could use it in case i bought 5000 links and pointed them to your site !
To come back to my original q - i still cant see how to judge a site for being high or low quality - unless its an obvious spammer or link farm. You could say it needs to be high in the serps and have good PR, but the 2 arent nec related. If content comes into it, i would suggest content is subjective and we might all view a page in a different light. If a totally genuine small hobby site or blog has no PR and no ranking, no seo etc is this description of a low quality site ? Maybe its badly coded and looks awful too, but does this make it low quality ?
I thought low quality meant spam and link farming and possibly sites that had malicious code and intentions. Surely a genuine small hobby site isnt graded low quality like spam and link farms just because it is a small hobby site ? help !!
Jan 24th, 2013, 01:43 PM
Right - this whole "spammy links hurt your site" can be a real red herring.
Have you received a message from Google in GWT about "unnatural links". If you received this then Google has reason to believe you are behind the low quality links and you need to go do disavows. Very important - "Google has reason to believe". Without this the world of negative SEO would have already spun completely out of control!
To your other question yes, your rankings have been hurt but you have not been penalised. You have just lost link juice in relation to others. Like this:
Week One: Sinclairos' website has 1,000 links and Doodled's has 100. Your website ranks higher than mine
Week Two: Google realises 990 of Sinclairos' website links are from link farms and so are worth nothing but Doodled has links from 'nice' pages.
Week Three: My website ranks higher than yours.
You have not been 'penalised' - it's just your 'link juice' has been adjusted to what it should be and your page now ranks where it should do. In a way - not penalised, just unjust rewards removed.
Depends if it has one of those crazy 'Links' pages for link-swapping where you are link 1,563! Seriously I have seen some small business websites that have more pages dedicated to link-swapping than they actually have pages of real content - at some point they tip over the edge and are more of a link farm than a business site.
Originally Posted by Sinclairos
By hadoq in forum Google Optimization
Last Post: Feb 15th, 2011, 02:18 PM
By Gunn in forum Google Adwords
Last Post: Oct 31st, 2008, 04:12 PM
By sef165 in forum Google Adwords
Last Post: Apr 16th, 2008, 03:18 PM
By ClickyB in forum SEO Help (General Chat)
Last Post: Sep 27th, 2007, 01:11 AM
By MelanieC in forum Google Adwords
Last Post: Jul 17th, 2007, 11:29 AM