Is Google cracking down on Link wheeling and link filtering?
 

Just want to confirm. Am getting conflicting information. My sites are fine. Method still works like clockwork for me. Just want to know what the recent dramarama at BH and "guerilla marketing" forums are all about. Probably some punk kid who fux0r3d himself with xrum3r:1orglaugh

What method is that Juicy?

I searched it, and link walked myself to:
http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ink-wheel.html

*shrug*

simple symmetrical (i dunno what other word to use) link wheels can be easily identified by the spiders. i can't verify one way or the other if simple wheels are losing steam, but i've heard talk of it too. which might be jibberish being spit by random im failures, but does make sense. if the search engines wanted to combat manipulation of the serps, a simple wheel is easily identified. more complex wheels with crisscrossing paths however can be next to impossible to identify. i have a handful of different linkwheel charts which are apparently mathematically impossible problems to solve. the charts themselves are an np-complete problem, making them algorythmically next to impossible to solve. solving these problems still eludes computational scientists. and solving the problems grows harder and harder as the size of the problem grows. So if you're using a larger complex linkwheel, i imagine you're pretty safe for the time being. As for the simpler, easily identified linkwheels i really wouldn't be surprised fi they're taking a shitkicking, but i don't know i learnt linkwheeling from a hardcore mathfag. seems to be working fine for me...

Meh.

Ultimately we organic, natural link gardeners will win...

:D

huh slow down for the slow ones :upsidedow

thats the answer...

well designed wheels are very difficult if not impossible to detect with a machine...

however, i think that the se's could look for the same consistent patterns in the sites that links are coming from especially considering the frequency that wheels use social networking sites..

i have heard that google is starting to place less weight on social sites, but i guess time will tell... :2 cents:

I hope not..

so? find out who has the current authority and reapply the wheel schematic with the new high authority as your points. :2 cents:

Nice tip there Juicy :)

angry -- I'm hitting you up on icq.

what if all the parts of the wheel come from the same ip block?

Wow, the Jew really showed in that post :) Good shit.

To find steroids you test for the hormone levels they produce. That way you don't have to test for each individual steroid that comes out.

Same with link wheels... Google is getting better and better at finding the signature that produces black hat results over white hat.

Until then, link wheel like there is no tomorrow!

enough of this mainstream bullshit. this is an adult board.

Fuck, I'm lost.

No, wait. I think I got it.
Basically a link wheel example would be 8 sites on MySpace.
Profile 1 links to profile 2, 2 to 3, etc and then number 8 links to your actual site?
Do this with about 4 or 5 blog sites/social sites all linking to your main site at the end of the cycle?

look at the actual picture from the warrior forum i can understand it clearly now...

Linkwheel is deadly effective in adult, budsbabes. It just goes by differing names. Same process, different names :thumbsup

Don't listen to me unless you need advice on cooking fries...

is there a secret to that?

you are right and everyone is talking about this thing that's very 1998 as if its something from next year.... just because some 14yr old kid coined a phrase that sounds cool. growing networks of sites and linking them together in a variety of methods began from the first day PageRank and HITS went live (two algorithms which rely solely on linking relationships between pages). It's nothing new.

And as you suggest.. there is a very easy way to detect them... its the same as how you know someone is cheating in a casino... the guy is winning. you can't hide that an inordinate number of links are pointing to one place, the patterns, their common sources, dns, IP's and the non-natural way at which these links are happening (the rate, locations etc). you would have to be able to emulate random surfer behavior / webmaster behavior as GOOGLE see's it in every aspect to be undetectable. its not the direction of the links and who's linking to what that makes it look natural.. its actually emulating natural behaviors that makes it look natural. webmasters are pretty random. link velocity is pretty random. surfer behavior is pretty random. and Google has 12-13 years or more of data to be able to determine whether its natural or not.

furthermore, you're now reduced to using blogs and social networks that do not nofollow the links. that makes it extremely obvious where the problem sites are and who is abusing theses sites to manipulate another sites rankings... particularly since it's inevitably going to be 20,000 other people doing the same.
:2 cents:

thanks, explained a lot

i don't proclaim to be any seo expert, but fucking all this talk of google's anti-seo stance drives me nuts. i swear to god it's all so blown out of proportion. 98% fear mongering. duplicate content, predictable linking patterns, nowhere near as threatening as they're made out to be in my opinion. just my :2 cents: though...

really, what is google going to do, penalize or de-index anyone who ranks well? are they going to manually investigate every single page ranking first page for every single search term that throws up a flag? i honestly don't think they care half as much as everyone talks like they do.

why would they be out to destroy webmasters? webmasters are their bread and butter. they can change their algorithms, shuffle the serps every once in a while and thats more than enough to keep things moving around.

build a quality page with informative quality content, and vary your backlinking strategies so you have links coming from a variety of spaces. as long as it's not cloaked shit spam pages or mfas clogging up the top rankings, i doubt they give a fuck.