Links-Do they have too much weight?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Yes and it is that minority that ranks for the competitive keywords.

Begs the question re. cause & effect; ranking does not necessarily mean that such is the result of a deliberate effort to acquire IBLs.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

False. For becoming aware of new Domain Names SEs have a variety of means which pre-date the existence of the IBL craze.

False?

I can by domain name and stick a site on it and not touch that website again. Check back on it in 30 days and it will not be indexed.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Begs the question re. cause & effect; ranking does not necessarily mean that such is the result of a deliberate effort to acquire IBLs.

Now we are going to debate rather the site owner intentionally acquired backlinks or if they appeared accidentally.

Amazing ! !

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

False?

I can by domain name and stick a site on it and not touch that website again. Check back on it in 30 days and it will not be indexed.

Absent internal access to each SE's system, how would you know that that it has not been indexed?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Now we are going to debate rather the site owner intentionally acquired backlinks or if they appeared accidentally.

Amazing ! !

Are you claiming that only one occurs? And, define "accidental" as here used.

[Terry Van Horne]

False. For becoming aware of new Domain Names SEs have a variety of means which pre-date the existence of the IBL craze.

Yeah... then how come a domain registered months ago isn't indexed at all? I added AdSense to see if that would induce indexing or to see if the Media crawler for AdSense would be added to the organic index. A week and nothing yet. I'm also testing see if some Social Bookmarking sites using NoFollow will induce indexing. I have the Google Toolbar installed and have gone to the site, that doesn't seem to be doing it either.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Absent internal access to each SE's system, how would you know that that it has not been indexed?

lol, If I do a search on Google and it's not there then it is not indexed.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Are you claiming that only one occurs? And, define "accidental" as here used.

The point is that we need links rather they are accidental or not.

[Toni Anicic]

You can't rank for any competitive keywords without backlinks. Your site can't be indexed if you haven't made some backlinks OR submitted it to Google via submit form for indexing.

Also, backlinks are the only thing that will get you ranked better once you have made perfect on-site optimization. Both you and your competitors can optimize their site for certain keyword and when it comes to who will outrank whom, it's all about who has more backlinks and whoos backlinks are more relevant and pass more juice.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

The point is that we need links rather they are accidental or not.

Agreed! But there is no such animal as an accidental link. There is always a reason for an IBL... sometimes it's $'s, a scheme between two parties or a user who finds content worth linking to... I think this debate is over how links are acquired not whether they are needed. Obviously they are needed to some extent. My concern is that for many learning the trade IBLs are put above content on the priority list. Lasting benefits from one way links are for the most part the result of content not $'s spent on links or schemes between webmasters.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

lol, If I do a search on Google and it's not there then it is not indexed.

Google does not share all that it has; and, it is likely that such is the case for all other SEs as well.

As for Google, bear in mind that Google is a Domain Registrar; and, they became such for the express purpose of having direct & prompt access to the data required to identify newly created DNs, etal..

The fact remains that no SE requires links in order to identify & crawl a site; the technology to do such pre-exists the advent of GUIs, and dates back to the days of text only readers/browsers.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Toni Anicic

Your site can't be indexed if you haven't made some backlinks OR submitted it to Google via submit form for indexing.

Not correct. See Links-Do they have too much weight?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

The point is that we need links rather they are accidental or not.

IBLs are not necessarily a prerequisite to attaining ones goals.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Agreed! But there is no such animal as an accidental link. There is always a reason for an IBL... sometimes it's $'s, a scheme between two parties or a user who finds content worth linking to... I think this debate is over how links are acquired not whether they are needed. Obviously they are needed to some extent. My concern is that for many learning the trade IBLs are put above content on the priority list. Lasting benefits from one way links are for the most part the result of content not $'s spent on links or schemes between webmasters.

I agree.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Google does not share all that it has;

If the page is indexed but not in the index, then it would seem not to be indexed. However, if there is an indexed page that Google is hiding in their index then it's about as good as a non-indexed page. What good is a hidden indexed page?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

IBLs are not necessarily a prerequisite to attaining ones goals.

Rank a site number 1 for the keyword computers with no inbound links and we can talk more about there being no need for links.

[Terry Van Horne]

deepsand, that kind of logic is such that one would believe you think if I have the ability to kill someone I'm actually doing it. My experience and part of an ongoing test is that a site registered in the summer and made live about three weeks ago by changing the DNS pointer ie: I pointed @ my DNS server from the registrar (parked domain). Today I found that the site was first indexed on the 14th of November, co-incidently, just a few days after I added AdSense.

AFAIK, there are no links, searches on Yahoo! for the site in their index or IBLs showed 0 results. Google has begun crawling but there are 40-50 pages and Google has indexed less than 20. A link check indicates 0 IBLs.

I went out of my way to ensure there will be no IBLs until I finish some tests. IMO, there are three ways for this site to have been found:
1. deepsand is right, the domain registration change prompted the crawl (least likely since it was done weeks before the site got indexed).
2. I have one browser with the toolbar. It has some features disabled so I use it to test features on a site (that likely occured around the 3rd of November)
3. The AdSense Media crawler is crawling for both organic and paid results... rumored but... that's just that, a rumor, until I see something to indicate it's true. It might also indicate that AdSense Partners get extra trust since they are partners ie: adds trust like an IBL.

IMO, AdCents makes the most sense since AdSense contributes to Google's bottom line. Matt Cautts also mentioned a long time ago Media crawler was also contributing to the organic crawl which was partly why I chose to test this rollout strategy. I have to wonder what part QualityScore may have contributed to the intial indexing commencing.

Prior to the registration change the site resided on a private 10. wihich required creating a VPN tunnel... chances of outside forces finding it before the the registration change are near 0.

IMO, this is to some extent an indication that IBLs are not a requirement to get indexed. What will be interesting now is to see if IBLs will be required for full indexing and ranking for the kind of terms I generally see off the launch and initial indexing of a site. Generally I would submit immediately to ODP and a handful of other directories that I feel are important. The next step is to try some Bookmark sites that are using "nofollow". What I generally have done first will be done last to see how fast things get found, indexed and affect on rank. It means the site won't make a lot of money for a while but...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

Rank a site number 1 for the keyword computers with no inbound links and we can talk more about there being no need for links.

Such or similar ranking is not necessarily required to attain ones goals.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

If the page is indexed but not in the index, then it would seem not to be indexed. However, if there is an indexed page that Google is hiding in their index then it's about as good as a non-indexed page. What good is a hidden indexed page?

That depends on ones goal(s).

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I think this debate is over how links are acquired not whether they are needed.

Thread Title is "Links-Do they have too much weight?"

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Such or similar ranking is not necessarily required to attain ones goals.

If my goal is to rank #1 for computers?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

That depends on ones goal(s).

You feel people have a goal to have their site indexed in an invisible index that only you know about?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

If my goal is to rank #1 for computers?

Is that the end goal, to simply rank #1?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

You feel people have a goal to have their site indexed in an invisible index that only you know about?

I believe that merely ranking high on any SE is not the end goal of most.

I also know that such is neither necessarily required nor necessarily the most cost effective means of attaining ones end goal.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Is that the end goal, to simply rank #1?

The end goal is to see you do it with no links.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

The end goal is to see you do it with no links.

[full house]

Does anyone here tried to do SEO without link building? If yes, is it successful?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

Does anyone here tried to do SEO without link building? If yes, is it successful?

Webauts has already said so at Links-Do they have too much weight? and Links-Do they have too much weight?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Webauts has already said so at Links-Do they have too much weight? and Links-Do they have too much weight?

Show the site and what it ranks for.

[almer]

It's probably webnauts-dot-net.
And 7,482 autographed posts are easily forgotten by someone "not focused on linkbuilding".

[janeth]

Originally Posted by almer

It's probably webnauts-dot-net.
And 7,482 autographed posts are easily forgotten by someone "not focused on linkbuilding".

lol, 7,482 links. A lot of links.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Re: Links-Do they have too much weight?

Yes, without further information, according to this Video: Matt Cutts on Changes at Google november 2008.


We can also ask:

1. Too much weight for the position on the SERP pages?
2. Too much weight for internal or external pagerank?

In addition, what link are we talking about? Is there a canonical, generic or pure link (vote)?

Creating a Science of the Web

What do Tim Berners-Lee and his team mean? Creating a semantic web. Isn't semantic stable links a very important part of that science?

We know that your position on the SERP's is a function of more than 200 variables and as more independent variables are introduced others will play a diminished role.

My own opinion: Stable semantic links to your site / pages are still important. The last W in WWW is web and that is about links.

What are Backlinks?

"Google and Yahoo rank websites according to how many quality backlinks they find pointing at your website. A large number of links does not guarantee success. You need quality backlinks in order to rise to the first page of results and the more you can find the better".

And

"So anything you do to try and manipulate your rank in Google can draw a red flag and your site could be banned, penalized or have your keyword rank filtered out, i.e., you won't be able to rank for anything no matter what you do".

My bolding.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by full house

Does anyone here tried to do SEO without link building? If yes, is it successful?

I never tried any off-page link building strategies for my web sites, except of manual directories submissions. If I have success, I am sure you can tell if I have success or not.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I never tried any off-page link building strategies for my web sites, except of manual directories submissions. If I have success, I am sure you can tell if I have success or not.

Your links are link building and what about bookmarking sites?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Your links are link building and what about bookmarking sites?

Only on a few of them which are high quality, and only my articles, and not all of them.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Only on a few of them which are high quality, and only my articles, and not all of them.

You have links in your signatures, on some of your articles, in directories, from blogs, forums as well as some high quality links.
Sounds a lot like link building.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

You have links in your signatures, on some of your articles, in directories, from blogs, forums as well as some high quality links.
Sounds a lot like link building.

I do not have the time to go into a discussion about that, but you can check out the answer yourself:

Links in my signature only counts as 1 and not over 7000. I said above I have submitted to directories. I think almost 1000 (hand picked though). How many blogs? Maybe 2O posts all together? Social Media? Not more than 20 or 25. That I am a member n almost 40 forums? NOT REGISTERED FOR LINKS! REAL CONTRIBUTOR!

Thats all I did since I own SEO Workers. Do you call that effort for link building?

You want to see facts how people get links for free, not even asking for them?
http://www.seoworkers.com/media/links.gif

Look at it very carefully.

I hope I answered all your questions. If not, I will not be able to make it more simple than I did already.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I do not have the time to go into a discussion about that, but you can check out the answer yourself:

Links in my signature only counts as 1 and not over 7000. I said above I have submitted to directories. I think almost 1000 (hand picked though). How many blogs? Maybe 2O posts all together? Social Media? Not more than 20 or 25. That I am a member n almost 40 forums? NOT REGISTERED FOR LINKS! REAL CONTRIBUTOR!

I also do not have time to go into a discussion but will say that links in your signature do not only count as 1.

And 40 forums is a heck of a lot of forums, as is submitting your site to 1,000 directories.

I don't ask for links either, however to act as if I don't need them or that I just sit in the office and they just appear would be misleading.

You've got to work for them and you've done a good job of getting yours. Had you done nothing, your site would have never started ranking.

You've got to have links, and submitting a site to 1,000 directories is link building.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I also do not have time to go into a discussion but will say that links in your signature do not only count as 1.

I hope you are kidding me Janeth.

Originally Posted by janeth

And 40 forums is a heck of a lot of forums, as is submitting your site to 1,000 directories.

WOW! Now I am honestly more shocked!

Originally Posted by janeth

I don't ask for links either, however to act as if I don't need them or that I just sit in the office and they just appear would be misleading.

As I said, those were the little efforts I made since the site exists until today. You call that effort or big effort?

Originally Posted by janeth

You've got to work for them and you've done a good job of getting yours.

OK. There you got me. I wrote excellent and high quality articles and tutorials, an excellent free online tool (which is in an upgrading process), and all above hosted on an extremely seo friendly web site, accessible and usable for all users (including people with disabilities), 100% valid and correct semantical markup, and in addition maximum machine readable, since the document type is XHTML+RDFa, and not just plain HTML or XHTML. I know that the site's visual appealing might not be rated higher than intermediate, but it is very well visited and has a very low bounce rate: 42% (I think WOW!)

More: http://getclicky.com/stats/home?site...e=last-30-days

Originally Posted by janeth

You've got to have links, and submitting a site to 1,000 directories is link building.

Well theoretically I can submit up to 150 web directories a day. For 1000 how many days I need? Your answer is my answer.

Peace!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I said above I have submitted to directories.

John, I did that in the beginning too, and discovered how easy it was to get a tool bar PageRank of three. I stopped there. Some of them required a link back, what is called triangular linking.

Now, I do not involve in such schemes any longer unless both the outgoing and incoming link get the rel="nofollow" attribute.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

John, I did that in the beginning too, and discovered how easy it was to get a tool bar PageRank of three. I stopped there. Some of them required a link back, what is called triangular linking.

Aren't you aware that this spam technique hurts with Google?

Originally Posted by kgun

Now, I do not involve in such schemes any longer unless both the outgoing and incoming link get the rel="nofollow" attribute.

I prefer Linking Secrets Of The Ultra-Rich - In Search Of Stuff
Please don't tell my secret to anybody.

Thanks.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I prefer Linking Secrets Of The Ultra-Rich - In Search Of Stuff
Please don't tell my secret to anybody.

Thanks.

"Trapazoidal?" "evolutionise?" Hm-mm; if they can't get the simple stuff, like spelling correct, ... .

Personally, and bearing in mind that we are here talking about hyper-links, I find the "rhombic hyper-dodecahedron" model to be the most robust. (Note: Owing to spatial limitations, only 3 dimensions are here presented.) Just as you cannot detect the 4th dimension, neither can a 3-dimensional Search Engine, thus rendering the true link exchange network fully cloaked!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Aren't you aware that this spam technique hurts with Google?

John did you read my post? That was before Google started to write about the rel="nofollow" attribute on bought / sold links.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I prefer Linking Secrets Of The Ultra-Rich - In Search Of Stuff
Please don't tell my secret to anybody.

I don't buy that spam secret. When I click that link I get the following information (their words in quotes and italic):

1. "You are the 1st person to read this article".
2. Insted of triangular linking they recommend a little more complicated trapezoid linking scheme using a simple binomial coefficient.
3. "As you can see, this is a ludicrously simple setup, and with its emphasis on a mixture of PageRank’s, C blocks and anchor text, creates a link structure that is almost undetectable. We can not guarantee it, but this is as close as you can get to Stealth Linking® short of employing proprietary, industrial strength stealth technologies".
4. "For more information on this revolutionary proprietary breakthrough, email us to obtain details on purchasing our Trapazoidal Linking Matriflux™ eBook, with step by step instruction to a number one ranking, for the introductory price of US$9.95 TODAY".

Revolutionary proprietary breakthrough.

John don't come to WPW and reccomend link spam to me.

Report that site to Google. They got you. It is not in my linkcollection.

Added: This post was written before I read Deepsand's post.

[ilitron]

I heard that there is another Google slap coming up and its for the people who abuse linking.
New algorithms just for them.
ha

ili

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

John did you read my post? That was before Google started to write about the rel="nofollow" attribute on bought / sold links.

Sorry bro, but I missed that one.

[quote=kgun;404026]I don't buy that spam secret. When I click that link I get the following information (their words in quotes and italic):

Originally Posted by kgun

"You are the 1st person to read this article".

LOL. I read that!

Originally Posted by kgun

Insted of triangular linking they recommend a little more complicated trapezoid linking scheme using a simple binomial coefficient.

I did not look into that complicated version.

Originally Posted by kgun

"As you can see, this is a ludicrously simple setup, and with its emphasis on a mixture of PageRank’s, C blocks and anchor text, creates a link structure that is almost undetectable.

I do not agree that the method A > B > C > D > A is undetectable. Maybe they mean their complicated version? And the method the method A > B > C > D > A is not spam. Why should it be?

Originally Posted by kgun

We can not guarantee it, but this is as close as you can get to Stealth Linking® short of employing proprietary, industrial strength stealth technologies".

Now they can guarantee? Hmmm....

Originally Posted by kgun

"For more information on this revolutionary proprietary breakthrough, email us to obtain details on purchasing our Trapazoidal Linking Matriflux™ eBook, with step by step instruction to a number one ranking, for the introductory price of US$9.95 TODAY".Revolutionary proprietary breakthrough.

I never ordered that either.

Originally Posted by kgun

John don't come to WPW and reccomend link spam to me.

Am I recommending spam sharing a link building within for sites like A > B > C > D > A?
I am sorry for the misleading article. I was only about the A > B > C > D > A and then A > E. My mistake posting that article and not my concept as I described here now.

Originally Posted by kgun

Report that site to Google. They got you. It is not in my linkcollection.

I do not report to Google web sites that do not directly or indirectly harm my business. I work for SEO Workers and webnauts net and not for Google.

Originally Posted by kgun

Added: This post was written before I read Deepsand's post.

Got yeah man.

[deepsand]

For those who missed it, the article is a spoof. Look at the article date, at other posts on this blog, etc..

In Search Of Stuff

[Webnauts]

I said above:

"I am sorry for the misleading article. I was only about the A > B > C > D > A and then A > E. My mistake posting that article and not my concept as I described here now."

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by janeth

Rank a site number 1 for the keyword computers with no inbound links and we can talk more about there being no need for links.

* search engineering * shows another very good and less competitive example than * computers * on google.com

from the number one site

These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: search engineering

and the backlinks tell it all.