Linking Strategy - Pitfalls [Archive]

TheWebDoctor(tm)

11-01-2003, 09:31 AM

Bad neighborhoods and link farms are in effect the same thing.

If you look at a site and it has themeindex.html in the main category URL, you know right then that the site is using Zeus. In most regards, this a considered a link farm and sites using tools of that kind are considered bac neighborhoods.

If you begin to capture links from sites that are spamming the search engines, they too are considered bad neighborhoods.

On to your second question.

PR has nothing to do with placement or link popularity. PR is a valuation of the information you have. PR is determined by the number of links coming to your web site from like-kind web sites compared to those that are not of like kind.

Ever since SearchKing got busted, PR can not be inflated through links from non-like-kind web sites. It can only be increased by acquiring links from like-kind web sites.

It does not hurt to have a PR0 link to you.

Any links from sites with a higher PR than your site can help increase your PR.

Link popularity is based upon the links into your web site from other sites. It is not based upon the expectations of like-kind web sites.

If you would like more information on this, then let me get the date scheduled with Google for my interview of them on my radio show. After the show, I plan to have the transcript available for everyone to read.

If you have specific questions you would like answered regarding Google, let me know. I'll see if I can work them in.

cbp

11-01-2003, 05:20 PM

PR is determined by the number of links coming to your web site from like-kind web sites compared to those that are not of like kind.

This is totally wrong. PR is calculated from ALL links - PR has nothing to do with links from like-kind web sites.

It is possible that a search engine could use themeing (or "like-kind") when ranking a website in search results, but it does not figure in PR calculations. Google does not do this currently, but Teoma does. A link from a "like-kind" or a site that the search engine determines as having a similiar theme could be given more weight to move a site higher in the rankings, but it is not given more weight in PR calculations.

CBP

cbp

11-01-2003, 05:24 PM

Any links from sites with a higher PR than your site can help increase your PR.

This is also wrong. Links from site with a PR lower than yours can also increase your PR. All links can increase your PR. Obviously a link from a site with a higher PR will increase your more.

A PR site of O on the tool bar can increase your PR by linking to you. In reality, there are probably very few PR 0 sites out there. A PR of 0 on the tool bar means that the PR is < 1. As PR is on a log scale a tool bar PR=0 could be 0.99999 or 0.123 or ...

CBP

TheWebDoctor(tm)

11-01-2003, 06:57 PM

cbp,
I seriously think you read what you wanted into what I wrote. Or perhaps my relating the information was misleading.

At this point, what I'll do is simply let the other readers interpret the information themselves.

After my interview with Google, I will hope to have the audio transcript on my site. One of the questions is about PR and another about Link Popularity. I'm confident that Google will respond to the question and cover this confusing issue.

Links from any site helps with link popularity. I think we can agree on that. I think your problem is you have issues with PR. Unless you work for Google, and I don't know if you do, you might want to tune into my radio show.

Google states:

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."

Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.

Thanks for the challenge.

cbp

11-01-2003, 07:19 PM

The quote from Google is exactly what I am saying and contradicts your claim re links from "like-kind" sites boosting PR.

The interpretation of this part of the Google paragraph has confused people in the past:

So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search

This is NOT saying that "relevancy", "themeing" or "like kind" of links affects PR (which I think you have interpreted it as) - its is saying that "text-matching techniques" (eg anchor text; title text; keyword density; etc) are combined with PR to give a ranking in SERP's - there is nothing there about "like kind" websites giving a boost in PR. I think some people read that paragraph and see PR and relevancy in the same sentence and think PR has something to do with relevancy, when it does not. Relevancy is determined by other factors.

Looking forward to the show - ask Google when will they start ignoring reciprocal links? See this thread
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=6335

This is what I suggested:

If I had my way, Google would ignore reciprocal links. Sites exchange links purely for the purpose of increasing link popularity to get a better ranking. This says nothing about the relevance or quality of the site being linked to. If I had my way, one way links will be given so much emphasis that reciprocal links would not be worth it. This would get rid of those networks of sites that are interlinked for no reason other than PR; it means webmasters could get on with quality sites and not spend time chasing links; it means I will only link to a site if I think it offers value to the visitors to my site; it means (...and dare I say it...) directories like DMOZ will take on greater importance as the one way link will be worth so much more.

Links will always be extremely important, but links from a higher PR page should be more valuable (as it is now) and reciprocal links should be devalued or ignored (this would not be difficult to do in the search algorithm).

CBP

minstrel

11-01-2003, 07:55 PM

The quote from Google is exactly what I am saying and contradicts your claim re links from "like-kind" sites boosting PR.

I'm not sure I'd agree that it supports your claim at all, frankly, but more importantly:

If I had my way, Google would ignore reciprocal links. Sites exchange links purely for the purpose of increasing link popularity to get a better ranking. This says nothing about the relevance or quality of the site being linked to.

Doesn't the earlier quote from Google itself indicate that this is already happening?

If I had my way, one way links will be given so much emphasis that reciprocal links would not be worth it. This would get rid of those networks of sites that are interlinked for no reason other than PR; it means webmasters could get on with quality sites and not spend time chasing links; it means I will only link to a site if I think it offers value to the visitors to my site

which is what you should be doing now anyway if you care about the integrity of your site and recognize that listing high in any search engine won't help you sell a service or product unless your service or product has genuine value...

it means (...and dare I say it...) directories like DMOZ will take on greater importance as the one way link will be worth so much more.

meaning the one way link from DMOZ? we've discussed this at length elsewhere... I think that's dreaming...

Links will always be extremely important, but links from a higher PR page should be more valuable (as it is now) and reciprocal links should be devalued or ignored (this would not be difficult to do in the search algorithm).

Why on earth should valid reciprocal links be devalued? If I link to a site that genuinely adds "value"/information for visitors to my site and another site reciprocates for the same reason, why should that be devalued? why isn't it a good thing, an asset, to both sites and to the integrity of the net? you seem to be implying that a reciprocal link is, of necessity, a conspiracy to fool people... I would argue that it can be but that is more likely to be true for links from unrelated sites or from sites that exist only for the purpose of reciprocal linking.

cbp

11-01-2003, 08:31 PM

I will leave most of the comments above, but just saying that there is a lot of confusion re the relationship and semantics between PR and relevancy (to me they are two totally different things, calcauted seperately, but brought together for ranking search results).

There is not one link on my sites that could be considered reciprocal - they are all there because of the value they offer to visitors. What I object to is the "i'll link to you if you link to me", FFA links pages that want recips, networks of linked sites/domains developed for the sole purpose of increasing rankings (this problem is becoming a serious one for Google), unrelated link exchanges just to increase PR, etc (I think you get what I mean).

I have never asked a site for a link to me (except DMOZ) - but my main site has crept up to a PR 5 since starting in January (used Adwords, but kept adding content). I like to think that all those that have linked to me do so because the site is of value to their visitors and not because I link back to them (I don't to most). The point I am trying to make is that these kinds of links could be valued more highly as they are more likely to be an indicator of quality than reciprocal links.

Off course there are many legitimate reciprocal links between related sites, but one way of dealing with all the problems above is to devalue reciprocal links - there has been a lot of speculation that Google should or is considering doing just this. I have seen recent comments from webmasters that Google have done exactly that and that is why their rankings dropped (I do not agree... yet).

Always enjoy the exchanges..

With respect
CBP

minstrel

11-01-2003, 09:11 PM

There is not one link on my sites that could be considered reciprocal - they are all there because of the value they offer to visitors.

Yes... that's also true for my site: I have never requested a reciprocal link but there are sevral sites that link to me and to which I link because of our common content... that was my point earlier - this isn't a scam, there is no intent to deceive or to artifically inflate ranking - and some of the links to me that show up when I search I wasn't even aware DID link to me. I don't think there's anything there that should be penalized.

What I object to is the "i'll link to you if you link to me", FFA links pages that want recips, networks of linked sites/domains developed for the sole purpose of increasing rankings (this problem is becoming a serious one for Google), unrelated link exchanges just to increase PR, etc (I think you get what I mean).

and I agree with you completely

I have never asked a site for a link to me (except DMOZ) - but my main site has crept up to a PR 5 since starting in January (used Adwords, but kept adding content). I like to think that all those that have linked to me do so because the site is of value to their visitors and not because I link back to them (I don't to most). The point I am trying to make is that these kinds of links could be valued more highly as they are more likely to be an indicator of quality than reciprocal links. Of course there are many legitimate reciprocal links between related sites, but one way of dealing with all the problems above is to devalue reciprocal links

Maybe this is a matter of semantics? I'm not sure now what you mean by "reciprocal links" - the denotative meaning is simply "links to each other" but in this paragraph it sounds more like you are talking about "irrelevant reciprocal links"? or maybe "compulsory reciprocal links"? I'm not sure...

Always enjoy the exchanges..

With respect
CBP

Me too... I assure you that my comments are also intended to be respectful - if I get carried away, just give me one of those "looks" and I'll smarten up - although that doesn't always work with my kids :-)

rlrouse

11-01-2003, 09:34 PM

If Google ever decides to ignore or devalue reciprocal links (highly unlikely), the SERPS will be a mess. They will be dominated by a handful of huge websites in each category because they already have massive numbers of unreciprocated links.

You would see the first several pages of the serps dominated by that handful of super-sites. This would be bad for the users and even worse for Google.

The only way this could possibly work would be if they changed the algorithm to reduce the value of inbound links considerably and rank pages almost entirely based upon on-page factors. Again, highly unlikely.

The "democratic nature of the web" would be no more if Google devalued reciprocal links because the "royalty" would dominate the SERPS.

cbp

11-01-2003, 09:58 PM

Here is two egs of a big problem I see facing Google (fortunatly for me, they are not my competitors):

1)
The 'Gift Basket' industry is appears to be rife with multiple sites/domains belonging to a couple of key operators all with significant cross-linking/reciprocal links. There is even a Gift Basket Directory - but all the sites in the directory are owned by the one company!!! and they reciprocate back to the directory. At the end of the day the small operator is being squeezed out by this spam. From what I understand there have been multiple spam reports to Google, but it been going on for a while.

2)
Another one is assocaited with Fraser Island and surrounding areas in Australia. Here is one of >20 sites/domains from the one operator http://www.seefraserisland.com/ Look at the hidden links to all their other sites at the bottom of the page in the network of sites. Again despite upteen spam reports they still dominate the SERPS - this has been going on for a while.

For whatever reason Google's algorithm can not detect these as spam and boot them. Devaluing or ignoring links that are reciprocated would help deal with these kinds networks that are starting to screw up SERPS in some areas.

The only problem with the above two eg's are that if I was a searcher I would not notice - I would get what I was seaching for (so does it really matter to Google?). The only ones really affected are the sites playing by the "rules/guidelines". There was even a suggestion from someone in the Gift Basket industry about a class action suit against Google based on the above problem ... hopefully that would not get off the ground.

Any other suggestions as to how Google should deal with the above type of problem? Manual intervention is not favoured by Google.

If there is not a solution, then I fear it will be "if you can't beat them, joint them" ...

CBP

rlrouse

11-01-2003, 10:03 PM

cbp

11-01-2003, 10:06 PM

Speaking of Gift Baskets ... have a laugh at this one:

http://fantastic-baskets.com/usa-city2/ohio-painesville.htm

Would you buy from them?
I nominate them for the Keyword Site of the Year Award.

CBP

cbp

11-01-2003, 10:10 PM

The linking structures described in the examples above aren't valid reciprocal links. They're examples of blatant cross-linking and hidden links. These are easily detectable by Google and should be dealt with.

But thats the problem - Google is not picking them up and dealing with them. They have apparently been dominating the SERPS for some time now. I understand numerous spam reports and emails have been sent to Google about them (I even sent one on the Fraser Island one out of sympathy for a site affected). There are reciprocal links between all the site, but as minstrel this could be a matter of semantics in what we call a reciprocal link (I call it two sites linking to each other).

CBP

janeth

11-01-2003, 10:12 PM

I have a question say my site is a pr5. I want to be a pr6 with out adding any links.

If I took my site and started adding pages. As Google found my new pages they would become a pr4 or pr5.

They would all link back to my home page. How many would I need or how hard would it be for my site to become a pr6 with only the pages in my site?

rlrouse

11-01-2003, 10:17 PM

But thats the problem - Google is not picking them up and dealing with them.

You're absolutely right. Google needs to deal with this if they want to be fair to all webmasters. But their first loyalty isn't to webmasters, it's (supposedly) to the searchers.

That being said, IMO, the wholesale killing of reciprocal linking would damage the quality of the SERPS more than the spam does currently. From a searcher's viewpoint spam isn't even a problem for the most part.

They need to fight spam by fighting spam, not by fighting the symptoms.

cbp

11-01-2003, 10:20 PM

janeth

11-01-2003, 10:29 PM

I would think it would be easy enough to check. All you would have to do is check your links in Google if you have any reciprocal links that show up that should answer the question

minstrel

11-02-2003, 12:51 AM

rlrouse

If Google ever decides to ignore or devalue reciprocal links (highly unlikely)

Why do you consider it highly unlikely? Many webmasters have already accused Google of doing it (though I do not think they have). I have seen several newsletters written by people who know more than me suggesting it (sorry I delete them) and have seen it discussed/suggested in a number of forums.

Be very wary of people who seem to know more than you...

For everyone who has ever read anything that purports to reveal the secrets of Google's strategies/algorithms, or who purports to know those secrets personally, or who purports to have information they are about to reveal to you on payment of a nominal fee, let me ask you this:

If you were the premiere search engine on the net, would you tell everyone how you do it? So that your competitors could do whatever it is that you are doing and possibly replace you?

Can you spell, "N-A-I-V-E"?

Until a better way of evaluating website importance/relevance is suggested, I'm with rlrouse on this one...

ReadyCompanies

11-02-2003, 01:43 AM

hello

fantastic-baskets.com
seefraserisland.com

i just checked out - they both have a good PR of 5

this is SPAM and they are winning high PageRank and Linking
some of their linked domains are Reciprocal links
and they carry the same PR of 5

minstrel

"Why on earth should valid reciprocal links be devalued? If I link to a site that genuinely adds "value"/information for visitors to my site and another site reciprocates for the same reason, why should that be devalued? why isn't it a good thing, an asset, to both sites and to the integrity of the net? you seem to be implying that a reciprocal link is, of necessity, a conspiracy to fool people... I would argue that it can be but that is more likely to be true for links from unrelated sites or from sites that exist only for the purpose of reciprocal linking."

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement above
When is Google going to really check Reciprocal Links which are Related and VALID and not PAID for (FREE) and flag out and EXCLUDE the totally UnRelated and PAID thru the nose type of one-way paid-for-links to buy high PR (aka - pradnetwork/cmagjobs) and those funny Reciprocal Links made solely for the effect on PR?

rlrouse

11-02-2003, 04:59 AM

Why do you consider it highly unlikely? Many webmasters have already accused Google of doing it (though I do not think they have). I have seen several newsletters written by people who know more than me suggesting it (sorry I delete them) and have seen it discussed/suggested in a number of forums.

Because short of ranking pages almost entirely on on-page factors, devaluing reciprocal links would render the SERPS virtually useless IMO. I certainly could be wrong on this, but we have read about the impending demise of reciprocal links for almost 2 years and as of the last update it still hasn't happened. My prediction is that it won't, but only time will tell.

rlrouse

11-02-2003, 05:08 AM

I have a question say my site is a pr5. I want to be a pr6 with out adding any links.

If I took my site and started adding pages. As Google found my new pages they would become a pr4 or pr5.

Yes, by adding quality content pages you can increase the PR of your home page but it will be a slow process unless you add a lot of them (and you should add a lot of them).

Of course the higher the quality and usefulness of the content, the more inbound links you'll get to it so that would help speed the process up.

Personally, I prefer to work on building traffic to my site (and my clients' sites) instead of just increasing PageRank. Every time you add an article (or other useful type of page) to your site you'll have another "road" leading to your site from the search engines as soon as they crawl and index it. A PR 5 site (home page) with 100 pages ranked in the Google top-10 will receive more traffic than a PR6 site with 20 pages ranked in the top-10.

And in addition to the traffic benefits, new pages also provide opportunities to gain new one-way links from other sites which helps build PageRank.

I believe the road to success on the web is paved with lots of quality content, not PageRank. But if you keep adding the content, over time the PageRank will naturally follow, but the traffic boost is almost immediate. And for most sites, the profits are derived from the traffic, not the PageRank.

Duncan Pollock

11-02-2003, 10:28 PM

There's a more or less related thread at:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=36934#36934
Don't ask me why I didn't post my opening remarks to it here instead!
Duncan

anuj_pandit1

11-02-2003, 11:43 PM

Hi ReadyCompanies,
I hope you are doing well.

Recent i read Resarch by Start Market at
( Value Of Link Popularity )
I know that you will be shocked when you will see this Research Ananysing Facts :
you will jump out from your chair *(-_-)*

If a website getting 100 Visitor in day, do you know from where these visitor are coming :

>> 46.13 % from Internal Link
>> 6.86 % from Search Engine
>> 47.01 % from Direct Nevigation and Book Mark

so its value of Links to a website.

Finding a Good Link Partnet mean that UUU are going to find Dimond in Garbage.

So its on you how many dimoand you will find.

Suppose if u have 1000 Link partners and if you are getting at least 1 Visitor from each link, it mean that you are getting 1000 Visitor per day without search engine.
If u get 1% visitor to purchase your product, it mean that you are selling 10 Items or Products per day without usiong Search engine.Its power of Golden Links.

I hope ReadyCompanies, it will help you....

Regards
Alok Kumar Upadhyay

elearning

11-03-2003, 01:24 PM

Hi,

I don't understand why that is not valid.

If you have xx domain names, and each domain name has a one-page "landing" page on it that doesn't go anywhere or is a "For Sale" page and each of these pages has a "Resources or Links" page and each "links" to the other pages (and they would link back) - what is wrong with that?

Why would it be wrong to link active pages to any one (or all) of these "For Sale" pages? If anything wouldn't that lower the PR or produce a null effec on the PR of some of the higher ranked pages?

Maybe I'm missing something here - but some of the e-books that I've read that talk about cross-linking say that this is a good strategy. Are they all wrong?

Thanks,

Mohammed

The linking structures described in the examples above aren't valid reciprocal links. They're examples of blatant cross-linking and hidden links. These are easily detectable by Google and should be dealt with.

rlrouse

11-03-2003, 09:00 PM

Hello Mohammed.

Google doesn't like for a webmaster to crosslink his/her own sites because it goes against the concept that a link is a "vote".

They view dozens of links from each of your sites to the the others as being fake "votes" for your sites, giving your sites an unfair advantage over the others. I don't completely agree with that view because I believe that promoting your own sites though links is just a good business move regardless of any search engine benefits.

But what I or anyone else may believe is right is irrelevant. It's Google's playground and they can manage the swings and slides any way they see fit and it's up to us to comply or get kicked off the playground (get a penalty accessed on our sites).

All of this is just my opinion of course...