homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.246.212
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

    
Your New Link Strategy
Let's Discuss Post Jagger Link Dev
Crush

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 1:27 pm on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

So as you can all see your domain now needs to be as old as the internet itself to rank now. In the areas we play all the old domains rule the front page.

I see very few options now. Buy an old domain, buy someones old site or buy adwords.

We do link dev in a big way.10 people full time but starting to think it is a waste of time and the money can be better spent on something else.

What is your post jagger stratergy.

 

ken_b

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ken_b us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 2:54 pm on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jagger isn't over yet is it, other than brainstorming possible changes in strategy you might not want to get too far ahead of the game.

I'm thinking offline contacts might be more valuable in the process.

Crush

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 3:03 pm on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Jagger isn't over yet is it"

Ken you can see which way it is going. I would be surprised in Jagger 3 bring up anything too different from what we have now.

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 8:44 pm on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Same as pre. Build a good site, get it good links, get it links everyone else has, get it links no one else has, make the anchors look as natural as possible and continue on my way. Google's link analysis is getting more and more complicated. I changed up how I was dealing with them about a year or so ago and it's been working fairly well.

Crush

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 9:45 pm on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

sugarrae, you got domains in the top 10 for a nice commercial phrase registered in 2005? I doubt it.

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 4:11 am on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

No, but latter half of 2004. Google isn't quick anymore. But I wouldn't call a 2004 or even 2003, 2002 site "old" - old sites are sites from the 90's - least that is what I think of when I think old sites - my ugly ones from the ninties. ;)

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 4:21 am on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>the money can be better spent on something else.

After thinking about it, you're right - I have changed something in the last year about link dev - I stopped chasing Google and started chasing users. I have lots of new sites doing just fine without Google and eventually, they pop out of whatever phase Google has them in and into the ranks and do just fine.

Essex_boy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member essex_boy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 6:48 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ill second that

shri

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 8:16 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> What is your post jagger stratergy.

Get Slashdotted once a month. ;)

vfilip

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 10:27 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think i will stop Link exchange with non related websites . I suspect that is the main reason for dropping in Jagger .I am thinking to kindly request to non related web sites remove their link to me . Would it be enough? i don't know .

also i will start link exchange from pages inside the web site (not just home page) with absolutely related web pages from other web sites .

Am i correct?

cleanup

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 3:23 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Vfilip, "a mI correct?"

Yes I think so.

antmcd

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 6:59 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

my link strategy remains the same. link to relevant sites; vary the anchor text and descriptions, and point links to various pages on my client’s site.

link building IMO should first be to gain visitors, and secondly to help with your PR. how building quality links to your site, could be a determent to the site defies logic. link building is simply part of an overall marketing strategy...

if it isn’t broke, then don’t fix it... :)

Swebbie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 8:11 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Looks like what's going on is google ignoring or severely diminishing the weight it gives reciprocal links in its ranking algo. If you think about it, recip links are a form of unnatural linking from a search engine's perspective. But honestly, with so many web pages online now, who but the very elite are actually getting many natural one-way links? I'm talking about commercial sites, not informational ones. I'll probably keep on getting recip links with sites that are high quality and closely related. I see no real reason to stop, even if they will "weigh" less at Google. Google can go fly a kite.

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 7:50 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

...what's going on is google ignoring or severely diminishing the weight it gives reciprocal links in its ranking algo. If you think about it, recip links are a form of unnatural linking from a search engine's perspective.

I don't think it's recips. Look at it this way: If you have an intimate encounter with a stranger and come home with an STD, does that mean that having intimate encounters leads to STDs?

Of course not.

I have sites with recips that are doing better than ever. I don't think it's the recips themselves, but if recips are an issue, then it might be about who you are reciprocating with and what neighborhoods that puts your site within.

When I say neighborhood I'm talking about neighborhoods of sites that are likely to be manipulative, that may practice aggressive link development.

The algo has steadily been putting the squeeze on anything that looks manipulative.

neuron

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 9:21 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I do know what you are talking about, Crush. I can't say I've suffered much, but some.

I'm planning on the long run. I buy domains, throw some content on them and some links, let them age, more content, more links, age a little more. Wait and wait.

Jagger isn't over yet and these new dials will be tweaked back to mild over the next couple of motnhs, that's something that seems to happen after every update, but yes, I can see where it's going.

While I don't think I need to change my link strategy, much as sugarrae said, I also see that press releases like shri said can be a valuable part of a link campaign, and this will be more important in the future.

I also think that who you link to counts more than ever, and how you link to them. Linking to junk sites can sink you. reinforcing a search engine's assessment of an existing site by correctly categorizing/anchoring it may give you a peg of trust.

Looks like what's going on is google ignoring or severely diminishing the weight it gives reciprocal links in its ranking algo. If you think about it, recip links are a form of unnatural linking from a search engine's perspective.
Absolutely not. Reciprocal links existed before the search engines. They are natural to the web. Before search engines came to be that was how you got most of your traffic. I've seen some sites that used recips tanked in this latest update, and others doing better than ever. It is not "reciprocal" that makes you better or worse, it is the quality of the sites you link to that matters in recips.

I'll probably keep on getting recip links with sites that are high quality and closely related. I see no real reason to stop
exactly the way I feel.

What I see in these updates is an emphasis on authoritative links. I believe google may have implemented TrustRank or something like it, in that it can now algorithmically assess a site's reliability for discretion and how it does linking categorization.

That is, I think they have a dial now for which they can tweak you on how well you topologicize (new word?) a sites and links to sites, in comparison to their already existing topicologicalization of sites. Something like PageRank on steroids. The more your linking topicalization synchs with theirs, the more your links count. The more you reinforce what they already believe, the more value they give your links.

Thus, you want to link to sites and make sure you say of them what google says of them, and the more links you can get from sites that topologicize sites as google does the better you will rank. (I think I just swallowed my head.)

I also think that toolbar data from users may have been incorporated into rankings, for such things as the more traffic you pass through your links the more your links are trusted. But I may just being seeing ghosts.

Swebbie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 4:14 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

If I'm not mistaken, Google has all but said they seek to de-emphasize "unnatural" linking strategies, and recip links would fall into that category, would they not? After all, from a search engine's perspective in the ideal online world, a site would get links from others purely on the quality of their content and the perceived value to the linking site's visitors (relevance, etc.). I bet the algo looks at the % of recip links and de-values based on that. In other words, if 100% of my links are recip, they probably get severely downplayed in terms of weighting for rankings. If only 50% are, it seems logical that both the one-way inbound links AND the recip links would get more weight assigned to them. No?

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 6:45 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>recip links would fall into that category, would they not

No. As neuron said, recip links are natural - but like anything else, they can be abused. When I look at recip link potentials, I basically ask myself - if a search engine didn't exist, would this trade still make sense? If the answer is yes, then I would consider it "natural".

A site selling baskets linking to a site about apples in a recip would seem natural.

A site selling apples linking to a site for apple lovers in a recip would seem natural.

A site about apples linking to a site about pesticides in a recip could be natural, could not, depending on the themes and circumstances.

A site about apples linking to a site in a recip about bicycles would not look natural.

I think the industry itself determines relevance though. Some sites have what would appear at first glance "unnatural" linking partners - but if all sites in that industry link to these types of sites (for recips or not) then it may be natural for *that* industry.

ken_b

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ken_b us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 6:58 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

de-emphasize "unnatural" linking strategies, and recip links would fall into that category, would they not?

Sometimes they might, but not always.

The difference might be whether they appear to be arranged reciprocals or natural reciprocals.

The difference between the two types might include the time span between when a link is placed on site A link to site B and when the recpricating link on site B appears.

If the time span is short it might be a sign of a manipulative deal. But it might not be, so other factors would have to be considered.

I don't think it would be too hard to make a fairly credible argument that reciprocal linking is one of the most natural form of linking.

The question is, are they natural links or manipulatibe links.

Swebbie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 7:57 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd have to disagree, even though I seek recip links all the time myself. I do think they are "unnatural" from the search engines' perspective. They want links to be a kind of vote for the site being linked to. In that analogy, it would be akin to me giving you a quid pro quo in return for your vote. Not exactly natural. Who knows, really, what the engines are looking at? I'm just speculating... could be way off base.

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 8:39 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>They want links to be a kind of vote for the site being linked to.

Links, including recips, existed long before the engines started using them as a voting system.

Swebbie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 9:43 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Links, including recips, existed long before the engines started using them as a voting system.

No kidding. The thread is titled "Your New Link Strategy." The question is what kind of links are ideal as a strategy in light of the Jagger update at Google.

johnser

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 10:26 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

We're doing recips for sites which already have a good inbound link base.

For everything else, we're ramping up on the 1-ways

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 10:32 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

In that analogy, it would be akin to me giving you a quid pro quo in return for your vote. Not exactly natural.

Swebbie, I agree with you but also disagree.

Recriprocal links are essentially natural
1: Reciprocal links are natural, they have "existed long before the engines started using them as a voting system."

Reciprocal links have become unnatural
2: The scale and sophistication of reciprocal links has mutated beyond what previously existed, becoming something more manipulative than helpful to users (and website owners expecting traffic).

As I stated before it may not be so much the process that is broken, but how the process is being used. It's very simplistic to say that G is discounting reciprocal links across the board.

It makes far more sense to say they are mapping link relationships, identifying manipulative link relationships by applying a matrix of known signals of manipulative linkers, then mapping out the resulting neighborhoods and discounting all links within these neighborhoods.

The implications for link builders is to create a set of signals that might indicate that a site may be in a bad Jagger link neighborhood, then obtain links from sites that are clean.

neuron

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 10:36 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

If I'm not mistaken, Google has all but said they seek to de-emphasize "unnatural" linking strategies, and recip links would fall into that category, would they not?

Yes and no. A long, long time ago, in a land far, far away, in the realm of the early Internet, before search engines and in the earliest days of search search engines, before search engines began to crawl the internet, people used to find websites by manually crawling the Internet. Some people began to bookmark their favorite sites, and websites began to link to other similar sites, but often they didn't want to pass traffic to another site if they wouldn't pass traffic back. I'll link to you and send you traffic, if you'll link to me and send me traffic. Reciprocal Linking is not only one of the earliest forms of natural linking, but it imitates what happens a lot in scientific and peer reviewed publications, the “I'll link to your academic paper if you'll link to my academic paper”. Citation analysis, the forerunner of hyperlink analysis, and PageRank (a formula to measure a site's value by how many other sites link to it) measure a recipient document's value by how many other sites link to it (PageRank is a formula to calculate the value of links as some are more valuable than others), and they also share the effect of having given a desire to cheat. The fact that some people abuse this should be cause to discount certain links, but it would be wrong to assume the search engines are not trying to identify which links should be discounted, and they are likely to be a bit wiser than to apply blanket discounts to all reciprocals, or to all blog links, or to all paid text ads.

So, webmasters said, “hey, they are ranking sites higher that have more links. How do people get links?” Well, reciprocal linking came to mind as it was a good way to get links before linking began to determine how sites were ranked, but once this was known people began to try to use reciprocal linking to scam the engines, by artificially linking to any site just to get another link. But not everyone did this. Just because some sites began to abuse the reciprocal linking process doesn't mean all sites that do this are bad sites. There were still sites that engaged in reciprocal linking that could be trusted. The problem became that it was difficult to tell which sites wore white hats and which wore black hats, it was difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Sites which establish links to other sites in a trusted fashion, that help the search engines index the internet, leave a certain footprint, they reinforce existing topological patterns, and sites which abuse link analysis leave different footprints, degrading the semantic mapping. I think google now has a way to measure this, and it increases the value of links coming from sites that link authoritatively, and devalues links from sites that link all willynilly to anyone, including linking to lots of other sites that engage in the same willynilly linking behavior.

If you have a cowboy site and you are linking to several hundred bali and thai hotel travel sites, to lots of viagra and casino sites, then you are not going to establish much trust in the algorithm

So, the way I'm adapting is just to lean more and more in the direction I've already been going. First, I want two directories on my sites, one for targeted one-way outgoing links to virtually all sites in my own industry. I start this looking at the major directories and collect their related categories and listed sites. I then combine and adapt their category structure into my own version, and go through all the sites listed and review them, categorize them and write original one or two line descriptions of the sites, in my own words.

For instance, if I had a fertilizer site, then I would have a “Fertilizer Resources” link directory in which I would have links to all sorts of other fertilizer sites, such as Chow Chip Jewelry, Ammonium Nitrate Suppliers, Potassium Suppliers, Phosphate Suppliers, Manure Haulers and Suppliers, Fertilizer History and Science sites, government fertilizer related legislation and rules, and agricultural sites and universities. I would try to thoroughly document and arrange the existing sites in that area, provide an index of sites that people interested in fertilizer like me could find other content about fertilizer, to become trusted in the bullsh*t industry. After adding 80% to 90% of sites that I found in major directories, I would then go out and find about that many more sites on my own for inclusion, sites not found in those other directories. When reviewing those sites I would also access if they would trade links back, and if they didn't trade links I would probably ask for a one-way link. Whether they linked back or now I would still keep linking to them.

Then, I'd put up a second “Other Fertilizer Resources” directory, which could be a subcategory of the Fertilizer Resources directory. In this directory I would again link to all sorts of sites that might be of interest to my visitors, like Rodeos, Saddle Shops, Cowboy Boot Shops, Pickup Truck sites, Chewing Tobacco sites, Country Music, Cow Chip Societies and other such things. For those sites that that engaged in reciprocal linking and didn't link to trashy sites, I'd ask for a recip, for other sites I'd just ask them to link to me if I thought they might be receptive.

Basically this is what I am already doing, but I intend to do it in a more dedicated fashion, and even re-do some older sites that were a bit less discriminate in their linking. That may not exactly be “new”, but I think it is the direction to commit to. I don't think I'll be linking to any more Bali or Thai resorts or hotels, much less any viagra, gambling, or porn sites, except of course from my own resort, hotel, viagra, gambling, and porn sites.

I also think press releases should be an integral part of any online advertising strategy, and while I have done very little in the past, it is likely to something I will do much more of in the future. I will probably also begin paying for more text link ads on suitable sites than in the past.

While I don't recommend it for others, I will probably still do a little blog and guest book spamming, as I think that's pretty much okay as long as the recipient site itself is not linking out willynilly indiscriminately to other sites.

Reciprocals will probably always remain in my arsenal. It's not whether you do it or not but how you do it that counts.

It's very simplistic to say that G is discounting reciprocal links across the board.

It makes far more sense to say they are mapping link relationships, identifying manipulative link relationships by applying a matrix of known signals of manipulative linkers, then mapping out the resulting neighborhoods and discounting all links within these neighborhoods.

The implications for link builders is to create a set of signals that might indicate that a site may be in a bad Jagger link neighborhood, then obtain links from sites that are clean.


Exactly. That's what I was trying to say.

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 10:45 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say.

Fewer words can get the point across better sometimes.
;)

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 10:52 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>No kidding. The thread is titled "Your New Link Strategy." The question is what kind of links are ideal as a strategy in light of the Jagger update at Google.

My response was to your quote above:

>>>I do think they are "unnatural" from the search engines' perspective. They want links to be a kind of vote for the site being linked to.

and not the original post of this thread.

You said recips are "unnatural" because engines want links to be a vote. My point is that recips are indeed a natural occurence (though they may not be *used* naturally by all) and have been around since before the algorithms. The engines know recips are a natural part of Internet life. I think they're smart enough to try and devalue only those recips they see as trying to game the system.

Swebbie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 11:23 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

The engines know recips are a natural part of Internet life. I think they're smart enough to try and devalue only those recips they see as trying to game the system.

I'll buy that the engines have a way to differentiate between "unnatural" and "natural" recip linking. You've won me over on that. But that doesn't mean they aren't devaluing even what they deem to be natural recips. They may be accepting them as valid, but weighting them less vs. the other variables that go into ranking sites. Fair enough? I read a decent article about this very thing the other day in an SEO newsletter (can't remember the author's name). They ran months-long tests on a large number of sites to reach the conclusion. But hey, who knows?

Regent

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 7:11 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where can I read more about new strategies for acquring one way links? I haven't read anything that is really working well for SEOs.

I suppose that three way linking is a form of one way links as long as the three way link does NOT become a triangular links, which closes the loop... The loop must stay open for it to be considered a true one way link.

sugarrae

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 7:35 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interesting thread on the free side:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Supporters thread:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Lorel

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2816 posted 4:17 pm on Nov 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

So as you can all see your domain now needs to be as old as the internet itself to rank now. In the areas we play all the old domains rule the front page.

I see very few options now. Buy an old domain, buy someones old site or buy adwords.

Buying up old domains won't do any good. When you buy a domain you are the new registered owner and that domain will now bounce back into the sandbox.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved