Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Massive, Insane Crosslinking Scheme By Guess Who?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5483 posts

Posted 22 December 2013 - 08:16 AM

I just watched this Matt Cutts video.   He answers the question.... 

 

If I have 20 domains, should I link them all together?"

 

The question was from a guy in South Africa, who wanted to link all of his sites together in the footer and even offered to nofollow them.

 

 

The video begins on a humorous note, Matt, shares that before the video they were kinda joking about the question at the Plex....  

 

"First off... Why do you have 20 domain names?"   

 

That came off (to me) like...  "You little weasel... You got 20 spammy domains... We know that you are up to no good... Nobody on this Planet should own 20 domain names.  Shame on you for even asking a question like this."

 

Then Matt talks about an extreme example when someone owns a blog network, but he still couldn't think about a really good reason to link them all together in the footer of the website.

 

The whole time I am watching this video, I am wondering if Matt has been to Amazon anytime within the past few years to see that they might hold the world record for followed-in-the-footer-cross-linking... they have FOLLOWED footer links out to thirteen different country domains (which, maybe, Matt would approve of based on his comments to a guy in South Africa).. but they also have followed links out to over thirty other AMAZON-owned websites that include...  AbeBooks (does Amazon really need another book site to stuff the SERPs with multiple offers from a single company???), Audible (a digital book selling site owned by Amazon), Book Depository (another Amazon place to buy books), BookWorm (an Amazon kids book site)... and they have books for sale on more of the sites in the footer,  

 

I would think that Matt should be saying.... "For Goodness Sake... why does Amazon need all of these book sites?  Amazon.com is the biggest gorilla on the web - especially in the book space."  

 

This isn't limited to just books, Amazon also owns Zappos, the 2000 pound gorilla in the shoe and boot space, but they also sell shoes and boots on amazon.com and on at least five of the other sites with followed links in the footer.

 

At Amazon they are saying... "Hell yeah... just link to all of your sites in the site-wide footer and pump massive amounts of link juice out to them."

 

It's hard to search for a common retail product and not find Amazon at the top of the SERPs.  These other sites are kinda ineffective from that perspective but they often clutter up the first page of the SERPs so this guy from South Africa - along with you and me - have trouble selling anything online.  

 

So, at least half of the people in the Plex are reaching for the BAN button when a poor guy in South Africa asks about nofollowing the links in his little network of sites but the biggest Book Monopoly on the planet that dominates the SERPs in almost every online retail venue has got followed links to about fifty websites (counted when writing this post... but probably more when you are reading it) seems to be given enormous dominant Universal Preference across web retail.

 

So, I wonder how Matt would have answered the question if the person was asking about fifty followed links in his footer was J. Bezos?


Edited by EGOL, 22 December 2013 - 09:31 AM.


#2 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1652 posts

Posted 22 December 2013 - 08:59 AM

Amazon is a massive massive advertiser on google. Nuff said.

#3 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5483 posts

Posted 22 December 2013 - 10:48 AM

Amazon is a massive massive advertiser on google. Nuff said.

 

huh?   Wouldn't that be considered to be "paid placement"... or "paid preference"... or indirectly "buyin' links"?

 

A couple years ago a lot of people thought that all of the Hayneedle sites got slapped down for their bigass footer / header links.



#4 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1652 posts

Posted 22 December 2013 - 11:44 AM

 
huh?   Wouldn't that be considered to be "paid placement"... or "paid preference"... or indirectly "buyin' links"?
 
A couple years ago a lot of people thought that all of the Hayneedle sites got slapped down for their bigass footer / header links.


Send it to the ftc. Send it to msn. Have the big boys challenge it.   From a 2011 estimate:  http://www.wordstrea...google-earnings  Amazon at $55 million +, the 2nd largest advertiser.  Nuff said.


Edited by earlpearl, 22 December 2013 - 12:16 PM.


#5 TheAlex

TheAlex

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 22 December 2013 - 01:41 PM

Big brand sites like Amazon have so many other positive signals that it's easier for them to get away with erm...stuff. Amazon UK has less than half the footer links of the .com, so as Amazon UK is smaller I guess they can't get away with as much. I didn't realise DPreview was Amazon-owned.

 

Did you see this? https://docs.google....oVxVS4/viewform / http://outspokenmedi...d-sites-really/

 

I'm not sure if anything has come of that yet...



#6 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 12:59 AM

It does show how g##### has a one track mind.

 

Zappos is in Amazon's footer.

 

Before Amazon acquired Zappos, Zappos had just under 1 million external links.

 

The last time I checked after the acquisition (which was quite awhile ago), Zappos had 18 million external links.

 

I just checked Majestic SEO and now Zappos has 59,513,464 external links from Amazon alone.

 

It's amazing the reach that Amazon has.



#7 praveen

praveen

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 248 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 09:20 AM

Not just Amazon. Most major Brand sites (atleast in the niches i play with) have atleast a min of 20+ links to various other properties and they go scot-free. If this was done by the guy from SA, i am sure he would have been smacked hard... Its either my way or the highway..



#8 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1652 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 02:48 PM

Barry thought this was interesting and referenced it at SER:   http://www.seroundta...spam-17857.html



#9 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5483 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 02:53 PM

ha ha... Glad Barry thought it was entertaining.   :)



#10 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2149 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 03:35 PM

I vote for earlpearl's suggestion.

They, G et al, will only change things with legal action or threats of legal action.

 

Send it to the FTC. Send it to msn. Have the big boys challenge it

The FTC or any other body will not do anything until they get complaints.

 

As with all these things, can it be proven that people get slapped with a penalty for all these crosslinks and not Amazon because they are a big revenue to Google.

 

I'm guessing not because there are no rules defined anywhere, no contracts, no bill of rights, no regulation, no nothing and I bet this is on purpose except for the regulation. This could be changed.


Edited by bobbb, 23 December 2013 - 03:45 PM.


#11 mrgoodfox

mrgoodfox

    One Who Engineers

  • Moderators
  • 1030 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 09:06 PM

I vote for earlpearl's suggestion.

They, G et al, will only change things with legal action or threats of legal action.

 

Send it to the FTC. Send it to msn. Have the big boys challenge it

The FTC or any other body will not do anything until they get complaints.

 

As with all these things, can it be proven that people get slapped with a penalty for all these crosslinks and not Amazon because they are a big revenue to Google.

 

I'm guessing not because there are no rules defined anywhere, no contracts, no bill of rights, no regulation, no nothing and I bet this is on purpose except for the regulation. This could be changed.

 

I'm personally against governments forcing companies to change their products based on what they think would be better for the public. I think one correct route to fight it would be for webmasters to unite and promote alternative search engines to the big G. 



#12 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2149 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 11:03 PM

If what they do is illegal then it is the only way and while we wait for webmasters (an insignificant segment of the population) to unite and promote alternative search engines, which don't exist yet, can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale.

 

Have you ever tried convincing someone to use something else than Google and Youtube. To the majority of people Google is indistinguishable from the Internet.

 

What you need is an assault like the EU is trying. but only the DOJ can do. Just talk of anti-trust is enough. Like they did to IBM and Microsoft. There already is regulation but it is not being enforced.

 

You don't need governments forcing companies to change their products; just their business practices to conform to the regulation.

 

We can force Google to change their product: agent Googlebot disallow /. .. but then we are back to my bridge.

 

antitrust: protecting against unfair business practices that limit competition or control prices.


Edited by bobbb, 23 December 2013 - 11:10 PM.


#13 mrgoodfox

mrgoodfox

    One Who Engineers

  • Moderators
  • 1030 posts

Posted 23 December 2013 - 11:46 PM

If what they do is illegal then it is the only way and while we wait for webmasters (an insignificant segment of the population) to unite and promote alternative search engines, which don't exist yet, can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale.

 

Have you ever tried convincing someone to use something else than Google and Youtube. To the majority of people Google is indistinguishable from the Internet.

 

What you need is an assault like the EU is trying. but only the DOJ can do. Just talk of anti-trust is enough. Like they did to IBM and Microsoft. There already is regulation but it is not being enforced.

 

You don't need governments forcing companies to change their products; just their business practices to conform to the regulation.

 

We can force Google to change their product: agent Googlebot disallow /. .. but then we are back to my bridge.

 

antitrust: protecting against unfair business practices that limit competition or control prices.

 

I have a question (a genuine one)..

 

Why shouldn't Google be allowed to highlight Amazon's pages more strongly based on the fact that Amazon is one of their high paying customers? Google search is a Google product. Why shouldnt they be allowed to write their algo however they want?

 

I ask the same question about Microsoft. Why should they be forced to offer IE alternatives in Windows?



#14 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5483 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 09:13 AM

Why shouldnt they be allowed to write their algo however they want?

 

I think that is a genuine question.

 

I believe that a webmaster should be able to run his website however he sees fit.

 

And, I believe that Google should be allowed to highlight Amazon's pages more strongly because they are a paying customer, if that is what Google wants to do.  However, if they decide to do that then they should give the same opportunity to everyone and make their decision on that clear. 

 

I think that Amazon has developed a wonderful website that has earned a preferred place in google rankings.  How exactly that place is determined would be a difficult thing to decide.  

 

Personally, I think that a couple of my sites should outrank amazon because I have greater variety of products in my business niche, a website full of helpful content and a staff who is ready to answer questions about the products from anyone by email and phone.  I think that I have amazon beaten on almost every front except in the technology aspect of a highly funded ecommerce website and the visitor's ability to purchase diapers at the same time he is shopping for the items that I sell.

 

What I don't like about this situation with the South Africa guy writes to google about his desire to list all of his websites in his footer (maybe he is proud of them) and even offers to pay Google homage by nofollowing the links.  They assume that he is a weasel.  Whereas Amazon simply decides to give sitewide links from a pagerank 10 website to all of their properties, which is something that the guy in South Africa was afraid to do (or else he would not have written to Google) and with Amazon it is obviously OK.  I am betting that the consensus of most webmasters is that they would be penalized for building a bigass footer pumping all of that linkjuice out to their network of sites.



#15 mrgoodfox

mrgoodfox

    One Who Engineers

  • Moderators
  • 1030 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 09:31 AM

And, I believe that Google should be allowed to highlight Amazon's pages more strongly because they are a paying customer, if that is what Google wants to do.  However, if they decide to do that then they should give the same opportunity to everyone and make their decision on that clear. 

 

I agree with you on this point. 

 

Google should be allowed to highlight Amazon more strongly because they're a paying customer but they need to let people know that they are doing that. Similar to the fact that if a blogger publishes a paid review, they need to mention that the review is a paid one. 



#16 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 09:54 AM

When is Matt going to write a book telling me how to build and link a website together because it is truly what I am missing in my (reserve) library that is kept just above the place (but still within reach) of where I keep the toilet paper.

Amazon pays Google money and Google turns a blind eye? No I don't think it's that ridiculous, I just think that Amazon doesn't care because they now have an online brand. I salute Amazon for sticking up two fingers at Google :)

 

I also think these videos are cute because they seek to create noise, confusion and uncertainty. Google is just the same as it's always been. Get links, make them relevant, and if you wanna go to your nan's for tea, then power up videos like these.

 

:)



#17 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4426 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:58 PM

How do you know Amazon is not penalised for this already? Maybe they get most of their sales from people visiting Amazon?



#18 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2149 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 02:52 PM

Why shouldn't Google be allowed to highlight Amazon's pages more strongly based on the fact that Amazon is one of their high paying customers? Google search is a Google product. Why shouldnt they be allowed to write their algo however they want?

I ask the same question about Microsoft. Why should they be forced to offer IE alternatives in Windows?

Google and anyone else can offer whatever product they want and make it in any way them want. Their product says it will produce the most relevant results to queries. It has "rules" about spamming to which it applies penalties but not to its friends (big customers) That's anti competitive and the definition of anti-trust.

Analogy:

They control a toll highway and limit the driving speed and gross weight per wheel. They give driving violation tickets for non-compliance, except for friends and big customers. So you can't compete because you cannot get product to market in the quantity and time as the big guys. Giving the big customers a price break is just business. You compete by giving better service? or however. Anti-trust.

You are a big trunk line owner (AT&T, Bell) and want to shape (throttle) Internet traffic to manage your resources. This is good for all but you only throttle voip traffic because it competes with your telephone business. Anti-trust.

You are on the same hosting as a very big business that just happens to be your competitor. He goes to the hoster and wants them to throttle your traffic and send parts to them or they will move their business. Anti-trust.

I could go on all day.

The beef with Microsoft was not to force them to offer IE alternatives. I would not do that either. MS was telling OEMs like Dell and Acer and all the others that if the OEM preloaded a MS product competitor it would affect the terms of their Windows agreement. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Anti-trust.

MS today can send (steal) all G queries keywords to Bing just like it could send that same traffic to Bing by making their product, Windows, the way the want to make it as is their right.... and your traffic to your competitor. Hey it's their product. No one is forced to buy it. You can make your product how you like but cannot conduct business how you like. There are regulations... about employees, about race, religion, etc, and about anti-competitive practices.

 

As Jonbey says "How do you know Amazon is not penalised for this already" It needs to be proven about the Google tricks. This is the hard part.

The title of this thread was "Massive, Insane Crosslinking Scheme By Guess Who?" Sorta complaints about G (dirty) business practices but the status quo seems to be the solution (what everyone wants)

I'm confused. Why are we discussing this then?


Edited by bobbb, 27 December 2013 - 02:53 PM.


#19 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 10:02 PM

The title of this thread was "Massive, Insane Crosslinking Scheme By Guess Who?" Sorta complaints about G (dirty) business practices but the status quo seems to be the solution (what everyone wants)

I'm confused. Why are we discussing this then?

 

No guts, no glory.


Edited by chuckfinley, 02 January 2014 - 10:02 PM.




RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users