Linking Strategy - Pitfalls

[ReadyCompanies]

What is the Linking Strategy - Pitfalls

can anyone enlighten me about Bad Neighbourhoods

everyone almost wants to exchange Reciprocal Linking for the sole reason of increasing the Google PR rather than for their visitors info.

most are totally unrelated type of businesses

if we link - then there may zero effect

and it looks very silly for a pet food supplier to link with a dentist

Any Comments

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.