Penguin - the Problem, the Opportunity, and the Possible Solution?

Ryuzaki

お前はもう死んでいる
Moderator
BuSo Pro
Digital Strategist
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,139
Likes
12,833
Degree
9
If you were around and had enough assets to get impacted back when Penguin first was implemented, you'll remember... Google's goal was to harm link spammers.

The specific problem was two fold:

1) First, it was that you could buy links in bulk based on which platform hadn't been devalued yet (or re-valued). Social Bookmarks had their moment in the sun, as did guestbooks, blog comments, and much more.

2) Second, it was that you could use the same anchor text over and over and shoot to the top.​

Google's "claim" was that their algorithm already ignored and devalued spam. So what was the point of Penguin then?

Penguin did two things for/to spammers:

1) It exposed the truth that Google could not and was not currently devaluing spam algorithmically

2) It set up thresholds based on percentages, which were dynamically based on your niche, vertical, or keyword set. If you passed these thresholds, which represented natural averages, then you were penalized once the filter processed.
So Google killed a ton of assets out there in the wild, but it also taught spammers how to circumvent the problem.

That, as I mentioned in the title, was the Problem & Opportunity surrounding Penguin.

So what's the Solution?

It took some time. Google needed two things (my third list of two things!):

1) A list of all of the crappy domains that allowed do-follow links to be placed by spammers. (disavow lists)

2) Time to focus on content relevancy beyond just analyzing the words used in anchor text.
The new Penguin should be rolling out literally any minute. Googles says that it is no longer an off-line, side filter, but it will become a part of the constantly updating live algorithm.

They've made no mention that anything would be different other than it's constant re-evaluation of it's contents.

However, here's the reality. If it doesn't happen now, it's coming. That means there's a huge opportunity for some and a huge problem for others.

It means that the SERPs are going to reshuffle heavily soon. And you can poise yourself to reap the rewards.

The Solution is de-weighting a lot of link metrics. These would include the power of anchor text, the number of referring domains, the number of links, etc. Each one of those would derive their weight from the new additional factor: Relevancy.

Here's the thing. It's not an additive or multiplicative ranking factor like the rest.

Typically you might think of:

A + B + C = your ranking weight
But the new reality would be...

A*Ra + B*Rb + C*Rc = your ranking weight, where R is relevancy
So every single ranking factor off-page would now be multiplied by a relevancy factor. If it's relevant (meaning the on-page content of the page linking to you is related to the page it's linking to), then you'd get a multiplied number of anything over 1.0. If it's not related or only tangentially related then your number would become less than 1.0, which would decrease the power of that factor. If the page you get a link on is directly related, that number could rise to 2.0 or higher, making it extremely powerful for you.

What this does is leverages Google's understanding of semantics and synonyms to assign a new weight to the existing factors to make sure their SERPs are highly relevant.

Yes, you can manipulate this. But you shouldn't. Because thresholds are still going to exist, they are just going to shift their focus towards trust and authority.

So the question becomes:

How do you get Trusted, Authoritative, and Relevant links all at once?

You can still cheat that, sure. But the ROI is reduced dramatically. How do you pull it off and make it worth your while?

You become a marketer again (or for the first time in your life).

You create amazing content and get it in front of either a high volume of people and let them share it around, or you get those in control of culture to share it, meaning high-profile magazines, bloggers, news sites, forums.​

You should be tackling both. High volume of normal users and laser targeting high power, but low volume users where you can manually increase your chance of success.

To summarize with industry terms: Traffic Leaks & Outreach.

Everything else will soon provide even more diminished effects than they already do. And those authorities ranking on the current factors prior to the addiction of the Relevancy Multiplier are going to drop... IF AND ONLY IF you're there to replace them.

Will you be ready?
 
I think I like it but I'm not sure I understand what you've just said... :D
 
Or, you can just niche PBN yourself to the top like always....

This is arguable. I agree with it to some degree. I've had several separate PBN's add up to over 200 domains. I screwed them up by selling links.

But to say that you're safe if you don't sell links... that if it's truly private... the safety is inversely related to the size and therefore the power of your PBN.

Yes, I could keep a 5 site PBN, a 10 site PBN, or even a 20 site PBN alive forever. But to do this correctly costs a lot of overhead. I'm far better off just getting 20 legit links, because a 20 site PBN isn't about to put a dent into anything worth putting a dent into.

I've seen people take the PBN strategy even further. I won't out it, but it's literally PBN 2.0. And while the entire network never goes down together, pieces of it are constantly dropping out and having to be replaced.

If you have a PBN and you're killing your footprints well enough that Google never finds it, then you're not using your PBN well enough to make money. The purpose of it is to make money, and a PBN that makes money never lasts.

Or you can treat the entire internet as your PBN and rank for forever and not carry the overhead.
 
You're selling your own speculation as established fact. Just wait and see what this new Penguin actually entails before potentially reassessing your strategy.
 
It's clearly offered as speculation, which is why the word "Possible" and the Question Mark exist in the title, and the use of the word "if" exists all through the opening post.

And the logic still stands. Google's understanding of topical relevancy will grow and will be increasingly used to determine the quality of your content and whether or not it deserves a higher in the SERPs based on the relevancy of your links. If not NOW then soon enough.

Although anyone doing link building already knows this is in place to a degree. A contextually relevant editorial link does far more than any other do-follow link.
 
I'm far better off just getting 20 legit links, because a 20 site PBN isn't about to put a dent into anything worth putting a dent into.

If you have a PBN and you're killing your footprints well enough that Google never finds it, then you're not using your PBN well enough to make money. The purpose of it is to make money, and a PBN that makes money never lasts.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Just because YOU can't make it work, doesn't make it fact.

A PBN is part of an overall strategy, just like anything else. 20 quality, niche specific links can most definitely make you rank, especially when you consider that most links people get these days are shit!

Add 20 quality links to any typical SEO strategy and you will see massive improvements!

Business is Business: Let's do the math in a basic example.

20 quality domains @ $200 each = $4,000 one time cost
100 pieces of content = $1,000 one time cost
Domain Registration = 340/year
Hosting with unique IPs = $360/year

So, in this "extremely expensive" example. You spend $5K upfront and $700/year in business costs, which are tax deductible.

If you can't make your $5,700 back in a couple months, you are in the wrong niche or did something wrong with the other part of your strategy.

Everything after that is gravy... the next year your costs are only And the beauty of a PBN is that you can outsource the entire thing relatively easy.
 
@Ryuzaki

Although I really didn't intend to attack your SEO knowledge you leave me no other choice. Instead of this mental masturbating I urge you to take action and spend a day or two analyzing competitive SERPs. You might be suprised to see how wrong you are.
 
As far as I know relevancy was and is factor since long time ago.

If you have a PBN and you're killing your footprints well enough that Google never finds it, then you're not using your PBN well enough to make money
That's just not true. From where this assumption? :/
 
That's just not true. From where this assumption? :/

Well, you are actually linking to your money site somewhere, right? There is no footprint-less PBN. There's only minimizing it and diluting it to hide from the algorithm. But you won't trick the spam team when they manually bust out the fine tooth comb.

If you can't make your $5,700 back in a couple months, you are in the wrong niche or did something wrong with the other part of your strategy.

I'm not at all interested in an argument, but I do respect and appreciate you for taking the time to actually develop your rebuttal. I like a friendly conversation more than butting heads over opinions or flat out uncalled for aggression.

My frame of reference may be different than yours. You're talking about $5,000 up front for 20 domains and 100 pieces of content. In general, I spent more than that per domain, just for the domain, not including the ~200 pieces of content on most of the sites.. @stackcash can attest to the truth of this statement, as his team wrote all of it. And I'm not talking about 20 domains, I'm talking about 200. The scale of my operation was absurd.

This wasn't one PBN though, it was busted into several separate ones. Yes, I "know how to do it," and yes, my version of building PBN's is "extremely expensive." It lasted for several years even while compromising it with link sales. That was my footprint. But that's an algorithmic concern, not a manual inspection concern.

The larger it gets, the easier it is to connect the dots. Especially when it stops being algorithmic and becomes a manual witch hunt. And that's when the risk stops being "I might lose 20 sites and my money site might get penalized for a few months," and turns into "Google just destroyed about 200 PBN domains, 20 money sites, and sites I built 5 years ago and don't even own any more. They were nice enough to not deindex 3 sites. Those just got penalized and reduced to money losers, not makers."

Definitely call it like you see it.

Unlike the suggestion above (not by you) that I've never spent even a day analyzing the playing field in which I earn my living, I've actually uncovered PBN's that blew my mind. IP's by the thousands, on giant sites. I won't out the specific one I'm thinking about, but it's in the Lawyer niche, where people sabotage each other all day. If I could uncover their network simply using Ahrefs and not even cross referencing it with other tools, then you know damn well Google knows about it. But this is more than a big brand. So I'm venturing to say that they were protected, much like Genius and these other brands are. It's my opinion that no big PBN survives. Of course big is a relative term.

I'm fairly confident I could keep a small PBN under wraps, but I don't do small.

Flying under the radar means you're under the radar. That means you're not registering at all.
 
I too used to have hundreds of domains, the 20 site reference was a number that I pulled from your previous post.

I have also had entire networks of sites get taken down, but that didn't stop me from making $xxx,xxx from them before that.

There is no such thing as ZERO risk. Even a good quality link on a real site can be removed or no-followed or subject to any new change to the algorithm. That is the nature of the beast and the game we play.

IMO, Google was concerned with the hard core, automated spam that anyone with $200 bucks can start slinging all over the Internet. They have already taken a vast majority of the players out of the game with their new changes to favor brands and to eliminate most of the middle ground guys.

IMO, a niche PBN whether 5,10,20,or 50+ sites should be part of your strategy because it still works and will always work when done right.
 
Very interesting thread, some great advice in here. Traffic Leaks & Outreach is literally the only thing I can see a ROI so I like it.

Hopefully in a few months I will see organic traffic...but until then we're all gonna make it.

Also, this debate:

tumblr_ncow7kOlOE1smr45to1_500.gif
 
My frame of reference may be different than yours. You're talking about $5,000 up front for 20 domains and 100 pieces of content. In general, I spent more than that per domain, just for the domain, not including the ~200 pieces of content on most of the sites.. @stackcash can attest to the truth of this statement, as his team wrote all of it. And I'm not talking about 20 domains, I'm talking about 200. The scale of my operation was absurd.

I can attest to the truth of that. It was insane there for a while. Should have never sold links on those properties!

I can't say that PBNs are a venture doomed for failure. It's my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others, that PBNs will be effective as long as links are used to rank websites on search engines.

With that being said, there is a tool for every job. These days, it may not be safe to hit your long-term authority site, corporate site, or local seo site with a PBN. You're better off doing manual outreach and being the good little human that Google wants you to be.

However, if you're in it for straight cash and have a logical plan to make a significant ROI over the cost of your PBN, there really isn't any reason not to go that route. Just knot going into it that your PBN will get nailed, either partially or completely, at one point or another.
 
Well, you are actually linking to your money site somewhere, right? There is no footprint-less PBN. There's only minimizing it and diluting it to hide from the algorithm. But you won't trick the spam team when they manually bust out the fine tooth comb.
Well, I could argue here. I'm curious and would like to know what's a GOOD PBN site in your opinion... I mean how it should look etc. number of pages, content, when was whois updated etc. Because if you had like 20 pages linking to your moneysite and whois indicated that all of them were registered in 7 days time and all of them are from related niches that could be a problem some indicator... But if all other things were done right? What else there is that they could use?

Also, in some cases they could sniff you so using SSL and different IPs to login (WP, Joomla etc.) probably could be a good idea also.
 
He's talking about manual inspection, which are few and far between outside of certain niches. You don't need to be in payday or weight loss to make good money.

You could probably make good money selling septic tank pumping leads. And who the hell is gonna get a manual inspection in that niche? No one.
 
My frame of reference may be different than yours. You're talking about $5,000 up front for 20 domains and 100 pieces of content. In general, I spent more than that per domain, just for the domain, not including the ~200 pieces of content on most of the sites.. @stackcash can attest to the truth of this statement, as his team wrote all of it. And I'm not talking about 20 domains, I'm talking about 200. The scale of my operation was absurd.

Forgive me in advance for asking the obvious question, as I don't know you. So you're saying you had over $1M invested in 200+ domains that effectively got burned up within 5 years? I feel compelled to raise an eyebrow at that statement. Not sure yet whether it's a skeptical eyebrow or a Baller Status: Achieved eyebrow...
 
No good call. I did mispeak because I was focused on the content part. One of the PBNs had mid-to-high four figure domains. The other two had prices hanging in around 300-600 a pop.

Yeah, I'm not remotely that baller. Cash flow is king though. The reality is that link sales helped cover the pricey domains and pay for the expansion of the other other PBNs which got taken out although they were algorithmically isolated.
 
Once again the Private part of PBN rears it's ugly head. If I can buy a link on it, it's not private.

Regarding OP, Penguin didn't introduce percentage thresholds, they've always existed. It just dialed them way down. In ~mid 2009, the exact anchor threshold was 42%...anything under that and you ranked great. Pushed it north of 43% and instant -50. Dial it back and regained ranks. Bofu (you on here bud?) and I spent a lot of time dialing in exactly what the numbers looked like with regards to anchor % and velocity by beating up a bunch of sites and then getting the penalties removed. Fun and profitable.

100% agree on relevance being of utmost priority now. Niche specific link networks FTW.
 
Back