"A link is a link" vs. "relevant links"

[SteveGerencser]

And the whole discussion leads to a chicken and egg argument..

In the beginning there were links.. And only links.. And those links tended to be given solely to sites that you liked or were of similar content (webrings abound!).. All was good..

Along comes a SE and says, hey look, all these wonderful webmasters have given us a tool to use to help us choose the really good and important sites and move them to the top.. And again, all was good..

And then came the "eCommerce" monkey.. The eCommerce monkey himself is not an evil monkey, but he leads otherwise good people to do bad things in an effort to please the eCommerce monkey.. And the link farm was born.. And it was bad..

And since that day it has become a game between the monkey and the SEs to determine who will control the webspace..

I'm sure that relevancy plays a role in the rankings of links, but I'm not convinced that it plays a large role.. If it did then the hundreds, thousands, of generic link directories would not be providing such a large boost to SERP rankings.. Simply because the only relevant content is other links on that same page.. The rest of the directory site is simply random data..

[williamc]

The rest of the directory site is simply random data..

Just like an SE... :P

[dartman]

I run a jewelry site

You might check the url for the site in your sig - imagesontheweb.com/

[cctech]

When we create a web site for a client, as advertising we typically put a "web design by" (or something to the effect)with a text link to our site in the footer. Our client could be a furniture store, a non-profit child care organization, an office copier business, etc. A link from a site like is not relevant to our business and is only there because we created the site and want some advertising.
I have often wondered, in the "a link is a link is a link vs. link relevancy" debate, how g views that link. Any ideas?

[LD]

Re cctech

When we create a web site for a client, as advertising we typically put a "web design by" (or something to the effect)with a text link to our site in the footer

I wonder about the footer link too as we usualy have a "design credit" at the bottom of the sites we design. It is usually an IBL, but does an IBL from a financial site carry the same value as an IBL from a technologoy site, since our business is technology - design and SEO.

[scanmonkey]

I am going to assume ctabuk's position, standing along beside him in that opinion. I don't hang out at "bowling alleys" anyway.

Go ahead and "bowl" me - do it now please, show me what it's like!

Where the heck are you getting google bowling out of this???

There is already a thread going on google bowling
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=64262

[williamc]

ScanMonkey, I am sure there are several. I was just wondering where greeneagles flawed logic process got anything to do with bowling from this thread. :)

[scanmonkey]

ScanMonkey, I am sure there are several. I was just wondering where greeneagles flawed logic process got anything to do with bowling from this thread. :)

BUT - when will you guys twig that you cannot stop someone linking to you???
Send an e-mail 'Oh you naughty Porno/Gambling site, you have placed a link to my site, please delete it'
'Oh yes, of course I will, so sorry to mess your rankings up' Come on guys, get real.You may end up with a hundred so called 'bad sites'pointing at you, what do you do then??? If you have a solution Post it!!!

I think that GreenEagle meant that he doesn't believe "google bowling exists" as "google bowling" shouldn't have any more effect than the spammy link offers that you get every day. That's what I think but I can't be sure.

[greeneagle]

williamc,

In my "flawed logic", I felt it most expedient to try and deal with more than one thread at a time.

Thanks for posting the link to the bowling thread.

I do find it interesting how some can claim that every link is a good link and then fall so easy prey to urban linking myths.

Irrelevant or poor IBLs can't hurt anyone unless they confirm the relationship with OBLs.

If some jackass wants to try and hurt a competitor by submitting the competitor's Site to "bad neighborhoods", they simply waste their own time and resources.

This principle is at the core of IBL/OBL relevancy. It has to be. "True Logic" mandates that there are a great number of competitive and vendictive people out there to alot any negative value to said IBL attack mechanisms.

In fact flipping the coin; if there were any positive value to be ascribed to such attack mechanisms, every other webmaster on the planet would be attacking themselves, instead of their competitors!

In fact the potential for doing damage to another Site through IBLs is in itself, what ushered in the need to assign relativity measurements to OBLs initially, IMO.

Let's don't anyone forget that: Relevancy is not myopic, in that the scale ranges both positive and negative values for not only IBL's and OBL's but for particular relationships between the two.

I believe the more accurate terms for discussing whether logic is flawed are "true" and "false" logic.

Ken

[williamc]

Ken, this thread is not about bowling in the least. Why you would bring it in here and dilute this topic I don't know. But keep the bowling crap in the proper thread please.

(and I agree with the view you expressed on bowling, always have)