Link Vault is banned. What's next ?

43 comments

So the news: Link Vault is nowhere to be found.

Who's the next victim ? I speak no evil.

PS: They are still using Adwords.

Comments

Could it be because it

Could it be because it works?

I nofollow that.

I nofollow that.

yes, I noticed this a while

yes, I noticed this a while back, was a hand job because PR still displaying etc

http://www.link-vault.com/

Also noticed some grumblings on the forum there about the direction.

http://forum.link-vault.com/viewtopic.php?t=2892

IMO Big daddy is a lot about DP, Link Vault etc and MFA sites as often there is a combination of large indexed sites with adsense on them sporting 5 links in the footer.

Is this new?

I left coop to join link vault last week and had trouble finding it in google. I just figured it had always been banned?

LOL no..

LOL no..

It still has one page indexed. I think it's weird anyway. Maybe some sleepy Googler forgot about it :)

Only one in www, a few

Only one in www, a few without the www and quite a few in the forums. It seems the forums are OK in G's eyes :)

maybe manual bans don't extend to subs [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alink-vault.com -site:forum.link-vault.com&safe=off]the way the authority does in the algo[/url]

Actually, the www and non

Actually, the www and non-www versions are two distinct websites in Google's eyes. So is the forum.

That's exactly my point

That's exactly my point Expertu.

Status flows down from the site.dom to sub.site.dom in G's current algo, but it seems that bans to site.dom to not extend in the same manner.

That's exactly my point

That's exactly my point Expertu.

Oh sorry then :)

but it seems that bans to site.dom to not extend in the same manner.

Well think if a ban of a blogspot subdomain would affect all the blogspot subdomains.

Is this what you are saying ? That a ban goes (should?) only to a single version of a website (www or non-www or a specific domain) instead of propagating itself to all of them ?

Could simply be the indexing

Could simply be the indexing problems that Google are having - I have a clean informational site with lots of .edu and .gov that keep disappearing and re-appearing in the index, and no longer ranks for its major non-commercial keywords.

I have some affected websites

I have some affected websites by this freekin' indexed pages fever. I read every day about it from people complaining.

I never saw or heard anyone say that ALL it's pages were removed. It's highly unlikely that this site: bug is the case here.

My 2 cents.

Doubt it is really banned...

The site:link-vault.com command still returns a lot of pages...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Alink-vault.com&btnG=Search

Personally, I think it is silly that Google is in the business of "banning" sites using coop or lv. People should be able to advertise on other people's sites without having to jump through nofollow hoops (which are of questionable value anyway) to prevent risking banning. Google should just get better at ignoring those kinds of links.

I'm sick of hearing the likes of Cutts saying "we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater" when every day they throw the tub out as well.

there is a big difference

there is a big difference between banning the link-vault domain and the link vault network.
Banning the domain might scare away 20% or more of the webmasters but the formula works and if not link vault there are plenty of copy cats out there waiting in the wings.

"copy cats out there waiting

"copy cats out there waiting in the wings."

Me included. F'ing tough to sign up people in this climate though. So we are building in functionality that takes in all 3 engines as google returns wank now. May as well use msn and yahoo as well.

Not a ban

It's not banned. Take a look at those pages that have supplemental index. Most of them are not even live anymore.

Actually it still may be

removed... example no longer applies.. Google let em back in.

What's with the pink tags

Why the nofollow tags in this story? C'mon, that's not right.

As Brian mentioned it might

As Brian mentioned it might be more of an indexing issue, looks pretty much like the digg.com issue a few days ago, which is now looking normal, but I suppose the purposes of digg.com and link-vault aren't really too comparable, so I guess a few days will tell.

Why the nofollow tags in

Why the nofollow tags in this story? C'mon, that's not right.

Why transfer pagerank to a page that's anyway not indexed. It's a google search. Chill :P

It's not banned. Take a look at those pages that have supplemental index. Most of them are not even live anymore.

We'll have to wait a few days and see.

why withhold

Quote:
Why transfer pagerank to a page that's anyway not indexed. It's a google search. Chill :P

You didn't answer the question. 'Chill' isn't a reason, it's a 12yo's expression.

Why *deliberately* take the time to withhold links from a site that apparently is worth a story, but yet not worth a link? I call foul. There's no reason for that. You wanna talk about them publicly, have the decency to give them some link love. There's reasons to use nofollow, I don't see it here.

Instead, they get a nofollow from an industry news site, a site that SHOULD be (and almost always does) passing pagerank/trust/whatever.

Unless this is one of those industry political infighting things with everyone running around with hidden agendas. Most times I miss those connections, which would explain all of the nofollow, the lack of an explanation, and my inability to grasp the reasoning.

I call foul

I call foul

And you have all the rights in the world. It's a free speach world nowdays. But please let's not turn this into a fight.

Instead, they get a nofollow from an industry news site, a site that SHOULD be (and almost always does) passing pagerank/trust/whatever.

Hey Wheel. Understand this please: that page is not indexed in any search engine. Having pagerank is useless. I see no reason in transfering pagerank or weight to a search results page.

It's just my way of doing things, and please don't mess up the subject here. Link Vault's problem.

If you need to discuss the nofollow issue, go ahead and create a thread at DP, SEW, WMW, or do a blog post in your on site.

Cheers mate.

Here's how I define 'ironic'

Quote:
It's a free speach world nowdays

followed with a quick 'but you shut up'

Quote:
If you need to discuss the nofollow issue, go ahead and create a thread at DP, SEW, WMW, or do a blog post in your on site.

Let me read you a line from threadwatch itself. Actually, the very page you submitted that story to -

Quote:
Please link out generously

. So how about you keep the nofollow tags on YOUR blog and follow the guidelines around here when you're posting a story.

Cheers mate.

followed with a quick 'but

followed with a quick 'but you shut up'

I never said that man. I just wrote a statement. My intention was not to "shut you up".

Once again, I have to tell you, you have some problems in understanding what I have to say. If Aaron (or another editor) wants to tell me that I did something that's not according to the rules here, I can bear with that. I'm human, thus I make mistakes.

You on the other hand, can discuss it. Not impose it.

I did wanted to link to the Link Vault has been banned DP thread, but I realised I haven't wrote that part, only after I submitted the story. I just wasn't able to edit it later.

This will be my last reply to you, because I can barely accept your way of puttin' things on the table and because you are totally offtopic.

It's just my opinion and my way of seeing things. I don't expect you to agree and that's ok.

Cheers and have a happy week man.

PS: If it matters so much to you, please message one of TW's editors and ask them to remove the nofollows in the story. I'm not allowed to edit it.

Actually it still may be banned.

We'll have to wait and see. :)

Understand this please: that

Understand this please: that page is not indexed in any search engine. Having pagerank is useless. I see no reason in transfering pagerank or weight to a search results page.

lol, I must admit I thought you were serious Expertu, until I read this.
Way to contradict yourself in three sentences.

I must admit I thought you

I must admit I thought you were serious Expertu

It's reasonable to think both ways.

Can you tell me more about my unseriousness ?

I don't think any reasonable

I don't think any reasonable person could say that "Having pagerank is useless" followed by "I see no reason in transferring pagerank" after using nofollow tags.

Ger, I was reffering to

Ger, I was reffering to "having pagerank is useless" (or transfering pagerank to it) for a search results page, that's not indexed in any search engine. Why would that help that page ?

"I see no reason in transferring pagerank" meant I have no reason in transfering Pagerank (it's an outbound link) to a page that's not in Google's or any other SE's index.

I hope this helps a bit. If I'm making no sense at all, sorry. I'm tired.

From Google:

When Google sees the attribute rel="nofollow" on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results.

Why would I give "credit" to a page that's not even gonna be ranked ? :)

That's my point actually.

Why the nofollow tags in

wheel wrote:
Why the nofollow tags in this story? C'mon, that's not right.

1. Why send PR to Google. Does Google need more PR? Those links were not to LinkVault, there were to Google. Linking to a Google search results page does no good to anyone.

2. If you want to link to someone, please submit your own story instead of trolling this one.

Now, can we please get back to the topic?

Offtopic is a crime now?

Since when did this blog require anyone to be ontopic? I bet I could get another two pages out of it by mentioning Iraq :).

The fact is, someone posted a news story here about a major industry player and can't even be bothered to give them a link. Maybe folks don't see that as wrong. I do.

It goes like this

It goes like this then
http://www.link-vault.com/
done.

everyone happy?

Hey Aaron. I didn't started

Hey Aaron. I didn't started this. I couldn't care less for that link :)

pink

I seem to have lost my pink indicator, can anyone help me find it again?

As for some site being banned or not, Google is free to do that as they please.

As for some site being

As for some site being banned or not, Google is free to do that as they please.

Well sure. But it shouldn't stop us talking around that story. :)

comes the enforcer maybe?

GOOG garners an audience by endorsing websites (search results) and earns a living selling links (adwords et al).

GOOG then threatens to penalize sites for: "excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling" Cutts.

Translation: do not endorse other websites or buy/sell links or we will slow the crawl of your site and therewith by the new BD infrastructure cut the flow of traffic to your website.

In short: stay off of our turf you webmaster you.

If a person wants to believe that Google rules are strictly for producing better search results, that person will so believe.

I submit that GOOG is heading off its only, potentially overwhelming, competitor (millions of webmasters who endorse other websites and buy/sell links) by punishing those who don't comply. And, once traffic goes south, if the punished spend more for adwords?

it shouldn't stop us talking

>> it shouldn't stop us talking

no, of course not :)

I phrased that post badly, I was thinking that it would not come as a surprise if Google wants to ban a site that does link exchanges.

That kind of activity is in direct competition with AdWords, although banning (if such has happened) would probably be justified by alleged "manipulation with search results". It's a thin line.

I could have phrased it a little more sharply, like "Google is free to censor or bury anything they don't like at will without any control, notification, or appeal whatsoever. Including competitive activity, politically or corporately less desired views, web pages from any domain, country, or of any specific nature, or indeed anything else"

But having that freedom does not mean that it's wise to exercise it.

Going from an automatic selection to a censored list implies editorial activity: Manpower. Which, again, means responsibility for what is -- and is not -- in the list. And responsibility means just that.

So, once you start taking that route you will simply have to accelerate, because the boys who can afford lawyers will be looking at you all the time. Plus legislators and all possible kinds of special interest groups.

So, either you stay away from manual as much as you can, or you have to do a proper editorial job. Hire lots of hands, set up principles, train people, all that stuff.

Btw, that is the exact same dilemma all ISP's face with (binary) newsgroups.

I see your point Claus. In

I see your point Claus. In my opinion, networks like Link Vault and Co-op, do indeed manipulate the search results. I am a member in one of these networks, I won't hide that.

As for banning, as it is now, I think that it should be made only manually (by a minimum of X reports trough the spam report page etc).

There's can't be any real 100% accurate filter for this. And good websites might always be caught in the middle.

> seem to have lost my pink

> seem to have lost my pink indicator, can anyone help me find it again?

Claus - download searchstatus plugin for FF, right click icon, select 'highlight nofollow' and you should be cooking with gas again :)

Search status rulez. Has

Search status rulez. Has Alexa too.

Doesn't cut the mustard

From what I'm seeing it looks like Link Vaults inbound linking doesn't cut the mustard with BigDaddy. It looks like the BL's aren't waranting a crawl even with 3,630 of them. Just skimming the link:www.link-vault.com query I see nothing about linking or networking. I see alot of forum, seo, real estate, directories, painting, hair removal, Australian restaurants, a New Zealand blog here and there. All off topic crap.

I take what Matt Cutts says with a grain of salt but after spending all last week looking at sites in supplimental and trying to find a common denominator its all pointing to what Cutts was saying about off topic in and out bound. In his May SEO post on his blog. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/

It points to a few things. The Google elite/trusted sites get stronger the riff raff and new sites get the shaft. Now it's only a matter of time before the competition starts Google bowling you out with off topic inbound links. What should Google even care? Well hell they've fixed the storage issue and get more adwords subscribers. Its a win win.

Manual penalty on this site. I say no. I think big daddy is overly picky on what it crawls and when by using IBLs and OBLs as an excuse.

I'm with seomike

it's about link quality and quanitity within that. Just my $0.02. I see on-topic links still working quite well and quickly, too.

Which brings me to my next post... about Google's new link roll program.

search status

-- thanks, but no thanks, I'm not sending requests to Google and Alexa for each page I view. ;) I don't need to see PR or Alexa rank anyay.

Somebody somewhere had a neat greasemonkey script that only coloured the links and no more... Ah, found one: http://full-speed.org/files/nofollow.user.js

That one makes the links strike-through, but editing it to making them pink is as easy as replacing "text-decoration:line-through;" with "background-color:pink;" .. i think. Will do so now.

Added:
I found "fuchsia" to be more eye-catching than pink, so I made it

"background-color:fuchsia;"

("color" must be spelled without a "u")

Agree with SEOMike on that

Agree with SEOMike on that one. Same with what MaxD was saying:

IMO Big daddy is a lot about DP, Link Vault etc and MFA sites as often there is a combination of large indexed sites with adsense on them sporting 5 links in the footer.

Seems that some components in Big D were great for screwing with the weighting algorithms of many co-op networks. Pages dropping or at least going into supplementals means less weight for people means less incentive to participate.

I'm curious to hear who's had non-high quality sites (what else would you put the code on?!?) with co-op outbound links that haven't been hit hard with de-indexed pages or pages going into supplemental.

Getting rid of the sites doing the linking is probably much easier algorithmically than targeting the sites receiving links (not only because then it may open the pandoras box to ruining your competitors). With most co-ops, probably the most common denominator is that receiving sites are constantly having lots of links appear and then later disappear. This also happens to lots of sites though because of the traditional format---that is links showing on the homepage of the blog only to later fall off when more posts are made. So, with link vault not being the normal co-op setup (permanent links in their case) maybe a ban of them is the best way to throw salt on their program.

It wouldn't be hard to to create co-op that looks more like a blog (on each site) and creates permanent and temporary static links (and content too).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.