Warning: This tool or project is no longer maintained and kept available only for archival purposes. Since GoodRelations and schema.org have evolved significantly in the past years, the current status available on this page is unlikely to function as expected. We take no responsibility for any damage caused by the use of this outdated work, to the extent legally possible.

Due to a lack of resources, we are unable to provide support for this project outside of consulting projects or sponsored research. Please contact us if you can contribute resources to update and enhance these resources.

GoodRelations - The Web Vocabulary for E-Commerce

This is the archive of the goodrelations dicussion list

GoodRelations is a standardized vocabulary for product, price, and company data that can (1) be embedded into existing static and dynamic Web pages and that (2) can be processed by other computers. This increases the visibility of your products and services in the latest generation of search engines, recommender systems, and other novel applications.

[goodrelations] Fwd: Google Penalizes Overstock for Search Tactics - WSJ.com

Martin Hepp martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org
Thu Feb 24 12:17:08 CET 2011

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for the link. As far as I understand, Google did not penalize anybody for linking to Overstock.com item pages via "semantic" links, i.e., in RDF statements. They seem to have filtered out the positive effect of someone from an .edu domain linking to a particular item page.

So, if someone at Stanford would link from a stanford.edu page to


and discussing it as an example of GoodRelations usage, Google would no longer count this with the full stanford.edu page rank. That seems reasonable to me.

In my opinion, this cannot have a major effect on the 900,000 overstock.com pages in breadth, since academic post will usually mention only 1 - 2 URIs.

So if this correction is properly implemented by Google, it should only correct the excessive inbound pageranks for 0.0001 % of the item pages.

And again, the WSJ report is not about "semantic" links in RDF triples, but about a correction method against "social link building" to overstock.com pages from pagerank-strong .edu Web content.

The bad ranking of some pages reported seems to be the result of Google "overshooting" a bit with their correction factor.

Martin Hepp

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Barbara H Starr wrote:

> Hi All,
> I would love for you all to read the article below!  It is my belief, that colleges and universities have been linked back to Overstock.com as a result of their adoption of goodrelations and rdfa for e-commerce!  To hear that tOVerstsock have been penalized for this (backlinks from goodrelations adoption in effect) as a result of unethical back linking is amazing to me! (If you read the article below, it specifically cites back linking from .edu sites as a judgement for downgrading the SEO ranking of the site)
> I do not see any black hat tactics here!  Merely academic references! Would love to hear any thoughts on the matter
> Here is the link to the article!  And FYI, this has serious bottom line impact!
> The original article and citation against JC Penny was in the NY times. 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162753779521700.html
> looking forward to your feedback
> regards
> Barbara Starr
> _______________________________________________
> goodrelations mailing list
> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations

More information about the goodrelations mailing list