Ranking Experiment

its already making waves
the link popularity is jumping every day..

 

BL info in MSN moves a lot faster than SERP results in Google. It will take about 2 weeks to see any serp movement on the page.

 

Wow!


Google 11
Yahoo 1150
MSN 9119
Alltheweb 1610
Altavista 1740
Teoma 381
AOL 10
Alexa 13

checked by Uptimebot.com

 

this is amazing
Google 9
Yahoo 19,900
MSN 11,002
Alltheweb 18,700
Altavista 20,100
Teoma 591

total 70,302 WOW

will see how google handles this
will have to wait a few more weeks

 

I don't see how you guys think BL data is amazing when Google serp data is the real issue here. We are also lacking the total amount of weight Shawn pointed to that domain. He might be pointing 30K+ weight to that page.

What I'd do, is put the page into your KW tracker, make a custom chart, and watch the serps over time.

 

You do have a point in the weight,
but as stated a few time google only update thier back link one every month or 2 ,
where the other SE update the BL daily

 

I think what he's actually saying is that it really doesn't matter one bit how many links are being reported, it's the actual results that matter.

 

i agree 100% ... garbage sites with poor rnakings can have high BL's ... the point here is do all these dynamic coop BL's make for favorable serps?

this site will get sandboxed ... jsut watch .. the sudden influx will trigger filters.

that's my prediction.

 

well lets find out then..
ill do some searching.. i skip google for now.
cant find it manually. look on a few pages. and
according to market leaps tools
http://tools.marketleap.com/verify/

not in the top 3 pages. but we need to give it more time..

 

If this falls off the map (my prediction SERP-wise in G), will we consider slowly added links - of which at least some are semi-static?

 

I don't believe that is the object of this test.

 

Thanks, and all due respect as always. But whether it is the object or not, and we get definitive proof that quickly added, churned links will get you penalized heavily in G -- then why don't we act on it?

To me, if I have proof of a big problem, and that problem is easy to fix, I simply cannot see why it would not be addressed.

 

Because this is a test of the Coop. Not anything else.

(Unless I understood badly).

 

huh?

will somebody please explain what we are testing?

if you guys are looking for BL's ... i' laughing my a** off. i thought this was to see if serp's are being affected.

which is it? if you guys are counting links... you're clueless ... we all know it raises BL's ... i have 6 exmaples of coop only linking and the #'s are in the 2000+

 

I don't know what this is about any more... or if anyone is really paying attention to it any more, for that matter.

 

post #1 from the big guy himself. let's stay on target.

 

LOL... when I got the email notification, that said "from the bug guy"... which left me wondering, "who the heck is the bug guy?"

 

LOL ... too funny! i have to be the sloppiest typer in the web business!

 

The site won't get sandboxed unless it's new. UCCF has been around for ages. What I predict will happen (as I have seen it happen in the past with my own terms) is that the site will hold a high ranking initially (top 10) and then fall off over time provided that the weight pointed to the page doesn't change.

 

Cool - so this IS the object of the experiment.


My question still remains:

If Google's rankings drop off the planet (my prediction) - will the coop then consider:

- Adding links slowly into the mix.
- Making at least some of the links semi-static.

If not, why?