Google targeting of link networks

Jagger - revisited

The Jagger update in October 2005 was a major event - it had far reaching consequences that affected a lot of webmasters and SEO’s.

When the fall-out finally settled, it was observed that “authority” sites had better positioning, and that link exchanges appeared to be devalued.

I’m now coming to the speculative conclusion that what Google did was far more fundamental - that what Google are now trying to do is isolate types of linking patterns that suggest “manipulation”, and devalue those link patterns algorithmically.

In other words - Google faces an internet environment where text links purchases are becoming increasingly common, and rather than try and penalise sites individually, what Google are trying to do is automatically devalue anything that looks like a “links network”.

That in itself isn’t astonishing - we already know that Google doesn’t like link networks and wants to devalue them.

What’s interesting is that Google may be using a more fundamental approach to devalue link networks - Google as examining the entire structure of the web, and raising a red flag on entire regions where linking patterns don’t fall into what Google regards as natural parameters.

And then devaluing all of the pages involved.

Authority

One of the key suggestions after the Jagger update was that authority sites were being given more status.

Google has played with authority concepts for years - ways to identify websites of most trust and value.

After Jagger, my presumption was that this element had been “tweaked” directly - but looking at the general situation now, I’m beginning to think that authority status was *indirectly* raised by Google trying to target “unnnatural” linking patterns that suggested links generated for purpose of affecting ranking alorithms.

Link exchanges are one of the most obvious attempts at “manipulation” and form of “link network”. After Jagger, many reported rankings held from link exchanges were gone.

The suggestion was that Google had attempted to target link exchanges directly, but now I think it’s more likely that this was merely symptomatic of Google trying to identify what it considers natural linking patterns.

Reasoning

I thought about all this more deeply after viewing the stats for one site in particular.

It’s a non-commercial site in a sector of relatively low commercial value. It provides some of the best resources of its kind in its niche.

Because of that, it’s linked to by over 30 different universities, around a half-dozen .gov sites, and has multiple listings in DMOZ.

In other words, it has all the hallmarks of a “trusted” site - an authority.

From a user point of view it is - but after Jagger, it was reduced to around 30%-40% of normal traffic.

If Google had directly tweaked authority filters, this wouldn’t make sense.

However, the site does run text links, and for all intents and purposes is involved in a link network.

From a webmaster point of view, as an otherwise non-commercial project that otherwise makes a loss, it needs funds to sustain itself. Text links are one way to address costs and help it function.

From a possible Google point of view, algorithmically the site shows an abnormal linking pattern, and therefore the pages displaying ads should be devalued, because the links on those pages cannot be trusted.

Looking at the rest of my sites in this context, this idea makes a lot of sense - I run a number of sites displaying AdSense, and my earnings tanked to around 30%-40% of previous AdSense revenues. These aren’t “spam” sites in the traditional sense - but they are involved in link networks.

However, a couple of other sites I run involved in that no longer run link ads have seen their traffic significantly increase - a major one I previously reported as increasing by around 300%. In other words, previous traffic was around 30%-40% of what it is now. Notice a pattern there?

So with the suggestions above, Google didn’t drop their traffic on account of not being authorities - but because of how they link.

If this is what Google actually did - if Google is now actively seeking out link patterns that suggest link purchases and other forms of link manipulation - then it’s a very clever way to try and address what Google no doubt sees as a problem, even if webmasters would disagree.

I’m going to try and test this further - by removing the link network aspect from a few of my bigger sites I’m going to see how this affects traffic. This is especially in the case of the authority site that lost traffic.

If I’m right, then by the summer, it should have traffic returned to around previous levels.

By which time, no doubt, Google will be applying new tricks from up its mathematical sleeve.