| 5:31 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
- you don't exchange links with any page with a white bar.
- Don't exchange links with any site that has a huge link directory
- Always view the source code to make sure there's no monkey business
- Always check the robots.txt to make sure there's no monkey business
- Always check the backlinks of any sites they are linking to to make sure they show up as a backlink
- Never trade links with anyone who approaches you for links
- Always trade links with those that you approach
There are probably more things to keep in mind when trading links.
And for those who haven't read it yet:
The Dark Side of Exchanging Links
Some of the tricks Webmasters sometimes use to get around linking back to you.
| 6:03 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Never trade links with anyone who approaches you for links <<
martinibuster, you are having a wicked moment, no?
wwenshion, sweetie pie, welcome to WebmasterWorld, enjoy your time here, it's great.
Question meat, answer: no way to avoid such nonsense. Take what martinibuster said, figure that one in 100 who approach you will be nice and honest and trudge along from there. Then figure that one honest person does what they say they are going to do and does do it and then they get another job 6 months later. The new webmaster thinks that reciprocal linking should be automated, starts up with another method, does or does not incorporate your old link into the new mix, and either cares or doesn't care that your old link page is toast and this goes on again every 12-18 months.
The reciprocal web is deep, my friend, the recipweb is wicked. The recipweb is fickle, the recipweb is flawed. It is no place for the weak. Consider this the beginning of your study.
| 9:57 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Never trade links with anyone who approaches you for linksAlways trade links with those that you approach |
If my knowledge of simple logic is correct, this will stop all link exchanges if all webmasters used these rules. Only when both webmasters contact each other simultaneously an exchange will take place.
But in general I agree with these rules. Looking at the number of bogus link exchange requests I get it is hardly worth the effort to find that one single honest webmaster. Looking for your own link partners is more effective.
| 1:46 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
IMHO bigger problem is a lot of link exchange requests from low quality sites - not hiding anything, not using dirty tricks, just plain low quality/unattractive/not-related. But when quality site webmaster asks for link, it is mostly honest and good trade. I have quite a few good links from webmasters who approached me first. Is it possible that this depends on the niche you are at?
| 6:25 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have slightly different criteria:
- The link page should be in google cache (and not be too different from the original page!)
- the page has no nofollow instruction
With these 2 criteria, you are probably safe. (I have many more criteria for relevancy, number of links, page rank of the linking page and not only of the home page etc..)
I disagree that link requests should be ignored, especially if you publish your linking policy.
I have about 20% good requests in average, so it is worth having a quick look.
| 7:13 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Linking has corrupted the web.
These days everyone knows that links have "value", and this has led to greed. Noobs often over value links.
Too many are quick to take advantage of a "free" link, but slow to give anything up for it.
Too many forget about traffic.
One of my sites has a high quality, niche directory. We ask for a link back, but do not require it. I have watched over the past 18 months as the number of people linking back has dwindled to about 1%.
They want traffic from the directory, but they don't want to give the link that might contribute to the directory being able to produce traffic.
We have considered taking the directory down, or changing to a tiered structure that would include pay for listing, link for more limited listing or free basic info listing with no OBL.
The SE's have forever altered the web, and not necessarily in positive ways. The change in linking patterns is an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
| 7:27 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Build a worthwhile site that actually brings something to the party and people will link to you!
I have never asked anyone for a link (except dmoz)
| 4:06 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
thanks you all
martinibuster <Never trade links with anyone who approaches you for links >
because my website is a new one, pr is just 0. if i don't apply for exchanging link, i am not sure anyone will approch me for links. which pr is suitable for my request a link trade? now i just apply for it at somesites pr 2-4, i think others with high pr will not approve my submit. and after my site get high pr, if i should delete some low pr links?
sorry, i don't what is white bar? i read the recommend thread and learn more, but it's too long, i didn't find the answer. ;)
| 8:36 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>The link page should be in google cache (and not be too different from the original page!)
Not being cached doesnt mean anything. Ever heard of "noarchive" or "nocache"? It doesnt diminish the value of the page.
| 9:11 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I found the google cache test to be a very quick and reliable way to find if a link page is not scam.
I am not even sure a "nocache" or "noarchive" will prevent Google to cache a page as these tags apply to proxy servers and not to search engines.
I also do not see any advantages for a webmaster to put a "nocache" or "noarchive" for a link page ... that is supposed to be entirely static.
May be, I may miss a few good linking opportunities from time to time, but I prefer to stay on the safe side.
| 1:13 am on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I understand your use of the cache, but many dont want Google to cache their content for copyright reasons.
This may be a bigger issue than whether or not a page is cached.
| 11:32 am on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I am not even sure a "nocache" or "noarchive" will prevent Google to cache a page as these tags apply to proxy servers and not to search engines. |
Google--as all other major search engines--recognize the noarchive attribute. Technically spoken they will still store a copy of the page on their own system, but they won't make this copy available to the user.
|I also do not see any advantages for a webmaster to put a "nocache" or "noarchive" for a link page ... that is supposed to be entirely static. |
Lots of scraping is done by scraping the cache of the search engines, not the pages of a website itself. If you have assembled a high quality links page (not one of those huge reciprocal link directories where you don't want your website to appear anyway), you may want to protect your work from being scraped by denying the search engines to display the cached version.
| 11:37 am on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Which one is it? You mentioned both above?
"1. Never trade links with anyone who approaches you for links.
2. Always trade links with those that you approach"
| 5:51 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Martinibuster is basically saying (I think)....
Anyone can and will approach you for link exchanges when your website's pagerank increases and becomes more popular. Mediocre or low-level sites do this because they want to increase their own PR. They do this by reciprocating links with a higher ranked site. (Maybe yours) But, we all know the risks of linking to low-ranked sites with little or no content.
However, if you do your research and locate high-ranking appropriate sites to trade links with, you will increase your chances of elevating your own pagerank. This is because an IBL from a PR8 site is better for you than an IBL from a PR3 site. Since you control who you approach, you should only approach those sites where an IBL would result in progress for yourself.