8000 links over night appeared on this site. google error?

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:15:50 +0200, Marco <mysteriouspast (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

We drilled down to the links that google reported and could not find
any real www . ibes . pl links that really pointed to his site. What we
saw was links that had "des" in the achor text which google might

Or someone at www . ides . pl did some black hat SEO with typo

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
pH lectures - guide to hand pH calculation with examples

__/ [John Bokma] on Friday 28 October 2005 14:33 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

first things to crop in my mind. You see, search engine algorithms are
not mission-critical, so they are likely to be poorly tested.

Are you serious?

Actually, yes. Let's think about it...

Search engine engineers write code which will analyse millions of sites. They
can also then embed some junk code in the trunk, for whatever reason[1].
When the refined algorithm is finally ready for 'prime time' (e.g. Bourbon),
would it make much difference if debugging information was included in
compilation and resulted in a 1% slowdown? Would it have just a slight
affect on the performance or will it unleash the thunder of death upon the
search engine?

In search engines, there are no right and wrong answers. There are many
pointers and their ordering (relevance) is a 'fluffy' art. It doesn't make
much difference if one domain among 80 million gets 8,000 links. It's
peanuts. It's affordable. There are bigger issues to address, but nontheless
such mistakes give a bad name to the SE and are embarrassing. They should be
high enough up the agenda.


[1] This makes you wonder if there are 'test set' Web sites that SE's are
using to test their spiders on. Under such circumstance, there is unfair or
unbalanced treatment of the World Wide Web.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Open the Gate$ to Hell
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:30pm up 63 days 23:45, 5 users, load average: 0.11, 0.06, 0.01
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

On 28 Oct 2005 03:39:47 -0700, "Marco" <mysteriouspast (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

http://www.ibes.pl/

This site belongs to a friend of mine. He did nothing to build links
or optimizes it. Then one day google reported 8000+ links and he has a
PR6. We both do not know what happened. We are both very honest in
terms of SEO. We just are trying to figure out how google game him 8000
links and a PR6 over night! And it has been about a month now.

I'm afraid it's either a Google glitch/bug or your friend has managed
to pickup the backlinks from another page on the internet (probably a
blog looking at the backlinks) through blackhat means.

The glitch/bug thing has happened to one of my sites in the past for
no apparent reason, it had plenty of links to it, home page content
completely unique, but for about 6 weeks it showed the PR and
backlinks for another page!!

While it was like this it received no traffic from Google!! I tracked
the page down and the content wasn't even similar, still don't know
why it happened. I've seen similar on other sites I don't own, but
because I don't own them can't be sure it's the same thing, could be
due to the next thing that could be the result of the phantom
PR/backlinks for your friends site.

You can pickup the PR/backlinks for almost any page on the internet in
two ways. The first is a 301 redirect your page to the high PR page
and wait for Google to do it's thing. Remove the 301 redirect and you
have a page with loads of backlinks and high PR. You will not benefit
from this directly, the backlinks aren't real and the PR isn't real. I
have seen webmasters use this to con reciprocal links though!!

The other way is less predictable, you copy the content of a page to
your site and hope for the best, sometimes it will report the same
PR/backlinks as the copied page. Again you won't benefit directly from
this. I have a PR9 page on a free site that was over 3,000 backlinks.
Links from the page do not pass PR and the page isn't indexed in
Google and receives no traffic.

Would I be right in assuming your friend has not seen an increase in
traffic?

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Marco wrote:

http://www. ibes. pl/

This site belongs to a friend of mine. He did nothing to build links
or optimizes it. Then one day google reported 8000+ links and he has a
PR6. We both do not know what happened. We are both very honest in
terms of SEO. We just are trying to figure out how google game him 8000
links and a PR6 over night! And it has been about a month now.

I think you are being superstitious which actually steers you away from
understanding what is happening. I don't think there was an error or a
miracle here. You could also check your IBLs on Yahoo that is known to
report backlinks much better. There are only 37 of them today.

So, what I think was happening is simply this: your link was at one point
in time added to the template of that instapundit.com blog site (or any
other site to that matter). If you look at the right bottom side of the
pages, they have gazillion links to personal journalist’s blogs/sites. It
looks like yours might have been a part of that list at some point in
time. I have a nice illustration of my own: I have added Roy’s site to the
template of my USENET archive, and so his links appeared on 240,000+
pages in a second. Well, those pages have to be re-crawled until Roy’s
links can be seen. He is not going to see effects of it until the next IBL
update, after which it would seem that tons of links suddenly appeared
from nowhere although they have been there for quite some time.
Google seems to be pretty slow in updating the links (in addition to
unfair in reporting the number of them), and so the links that might have
been removed just before the update are still there for Google. Like I
said, for links check Yahoo instead. Also, start using the MarketLeap’s
Link Popularity tool to see the trends:
http://tools.marketleap.com/publinkpop/

This is not to say that I am not a bit impressed by this effect pushing
your site’s PR to 6 The PR jump is pretty unusual, but then, again, Google
has been known to take geographical data into consideration lately, and so
the fact that your site is in Polish (though hosted in Germany) and not in
English might helped a bit.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------


--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 17308 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

"Marco" <mysteriouspast (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> writes:

http://www.ibes.pl/

This site belongs to a friend of mine. He did nothing to build links
or optimizes it. Then one day google reported 8000+ links and he has a
PR6. We both do not know what happened. We are both very honest in
terms of SEO. We just are trying to figure out how google game him 8000
links and a PR6 over night! And it has been about a month now.

This is kinda weird. I searched for sites linking to www.ibes.pl, and
found lots as you say. And then I looked at a few of them. There are
for example lots of hits on Instapundit (major high-traffic weblog
site); but when I looked at the pages (including source) I can't find
ibes.pl anywhere in the page at all.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b (AT) dd-b (DOT) net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> writes:

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

first things to crop in my mind. You see, search engine algorithms are
not mission-critical, so they are likely to be poorly tested.

Are you serious?

Compared to spacecraft, medical devices, avionics --- YES. I've
actually worked on avionics software testing a little bit, and read
about some of the other extreme testing regimes. I'm *really*
confident Google doesn't go to that extent when testing their search
engine algorithms; all sorts of things about the way they do business
point that way.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b (AT) dd-b (DOT) net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b (AT) dd-b (DOT) net> wrote:

John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> writes:

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

first things to crop in my mind. You see, search engine algorithms are
not mission-critical, so they are likely to be poorly tested.

Are you serious?

Compared to spacecraft, medical devices, avionics --- YES.

But "poorly tested" is quite a misleading statement.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:42:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [John Bokma] on Friday 28 October 2005 14:33 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

first things to crop in my mind. You see, search engine algorithms are
not mission-critical, so they are likely to be poorly tested.

Are you serious?

Actually, yes. Let's think about it...

Search engine engineers write code which will analyse millions of sites. They
can also then embed some junk code in the trunk, for whatever reason[1].
When the refined algorithm is finally ready for 'prime time' (e.g. Bourbon),
would it make much difference if debugging information was included in
compilation and resulted in a 1% slowdown? Would it have just a slight
affect on the performance or will it unleash the thunder of death upon the
search engine?

In search engines, there are no right and wrong answers. There are many
pointers and their ordering (relevance) is a 'fluffy' art. It doesn't make
much difference if one domain among 80 million gets 8,000 links. It's
peanuts. It's affordable. There are bigger issues to address, but nontheless
such mistakes give a bad name to the SE and are embarrassing. They should be
high enough up the agenda.


[1] This makes you wonder if there are 'test set' Web sites that SE's are
using to test their spiders on. Under such circumstance, there is unfair or
unbalanced treatment of the World Wide Web.

Roy

I always assumed they had a mini-web set up they could run test algos
on.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

__/ [Big Bill] on Friday 28 October 2005 20:46 \__

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:42:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [John Bokma] on Friday 28 October 2005 14:33 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

first things to crop in my mind. You see, search engine algorithms are
not mission-critical, so they are likely to be poorly tested.

Are you serious?

Actually, yes. Let's think about it...

Search engine engineers write code which will analyse millions of sites.
They can also then embed some junk code in the trunk, for whatever
reason[1]. When the refined algorithm is finally ready for 'prime time'
(e.g. Bourbon), would it make much difference if debugging information was
included in compilation and resulted in a 1% slowdown? Would it have just a
slight affect on the performance or will it unleash the thunder of death
upon the search engine?

In search engines, there are no right and wrong answers. There are many
pointers and their ordering (relevance) is a 'fluffy' art. It doesn't make
much difference if one domain among 80 million gets 8,000 links. It's
peanuts. It's affordable. There are bigger issues to address, but
nontheless such mistakes give a bad name to the SE and are embarrassing.
They should be high enough up the agenda.


[1] This makes you wonder if there are 'test set' Web sites that SE's are
using to test their spiders on. Under such circumstance, there is unfair or
unbalanced treatment of the World Wide Web.

Roy

I always assumed they had a mini-web set up they could run test algos
on.

I guess they could use their cache, which may be out-of-date, but nontheless
serves as 'good enough' data to test premises on.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:40am up 64 days 11:55, 5 users, load average: 0.97, 0.61, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

I always assumed they had a mini-web set up they could run test algos
on.

Be sure about them testing. It's hard to get hired by Google, and I doubt
sloppy coding has much chance there.

One thing they do for testing is allowing only a small subset of their
users to see the new features. But I am sure that there has been a lot of
testing going on before that happens.

Also, I can't think of anything at Google that *requires* a regular update,
like with software, just to make money. Google gets money if they don't
change anything about their software for a year or two. (I doubt MS will
replace them in 2 years, but who knows).

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/