| 10:54 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The conclusive evidence is that related links is not true. |
that's a monumental statement. what type of evidence can you share that could put any doubts to rest?
after reading your post i am not convinced that links from relevant pages are not more valuable than links from irrelevant pages.
| 11:53 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Crush for the most part. But don't get rid of your links pages... Depending on what type of links going out relating to your content. A page with many outgoing links and few if any to that page coming in were or will be devalued. You can always rebuild those pages with more content and get related or non related links coming into that page and it WILL come back with so called PR too.
I'm seeing that on many sites even during these new Google changes.
If you want to do link exchanges KEEP doing it as long as it's related and usefull content for your surfers.
I think Brett had this figured out a long time ago and where ever his post is to make a site work in a year whatever holds strong.
Guestbook spammers and all that get one way links in still work like a charm on any major search engines.
I hate that. But they are getting devalued now too.
I'm kind of lost in my thoughts here but to sum something up. Go ahead and build link directories as long as it's relevant sites to your content your linking out to.
Sites that have a particular niche then have a links page..Then in that links page they have a minny directory of many different topics of links going out will and have been dying for the last couple years.
Example my site about "cars" (not really but thinking of getting a new car;) Then I have a link at the bottom of my page called "links" or whatever. Usually quit hidden from the surfer but ok for the Webmaster because I have PR. The link page goes to a directory like this; Home Shopping, Videos, Wedding Sites, and so on. Then you click on one of the above with a page full of those topics. Those sites are failing now and people come hear and say I'm white hat cause my site is about "cars".
| 9:44 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Look, the links we got were from Eastern European sites and not in English at all. Related sites, my ass. Google's also is simpler than most people here think. Just need to know what to do.
| 5:46 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would expect for your rankings to go away in the long term. If a site is to rank based totally on unrelated links, then you need more than a few thousand links to achieve that (given your keywords are competitive).
Link-exchanges are still ok, but don't expect them to do anything for Google or Yahoo! rankings.
Not really. :)
| 6:30 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
few of the pages on my site with rich content are still PR2 after current update, while 3 of my link pages gone up to PR3, reason beyond my understanding.
| 7:48 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|We bought a load of links from many different sites totally unrelated and saw our rankings shoot up in 10 days and still going. |
So you suggesting to abandon relevant links which are useful to us and visitors in exhange for purchased links from totally unrelated sites?
There is more to this than meets the eye of course. Look at the quality of the recips you had in place while your ranks dropped slowly.
High quality, niche related exactly to your topic?
I am finding the opposite, very closely realted partnerships in the high competition sector I am in are not at all slowing us down in the SERP's, more the opposite.
| 8:22 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I would expect for your rankings to go away in the long term."
Beleive what you want. Google's algo is a peice of cake.
| 12:02 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Because your PR dropped you conclude that link pages are dead? PR is a meaningless metric and it fluctuates anyway. I have my own theories why link pages suck, but that's another story :)
| 12:03 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
SERP rankings depend on more than just links, like ummm...content!
| 6:30 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I guess good for you, if that's whats working right now for you.
Nothing stays the same, not even the almighty Google.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
| 2:19 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Been there since 99 in one form or another. I will be right :)
| 2:23 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Quantity over quality is also my experience of the moment.
The SE's will be looking to change that as soon as possible. It's not a good state of affairs. If you're in it for the long term, get as many topical links as possible and don't over-dilute it.
| 2:39 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Conclusive evidence links pages are dead. |
If they look like all the other links pages out there, then yes, they have been dead for quite some time.
| 3:24 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google's algo is a peice of cake. |
It must be nice to be filthy stinkin rich. I'll bet your posting this from your yacht as you pass by some remote island :-)
I do agree that the relevance of incoming links is generally less important than the relevancy of outgoing links.
| 3:31 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I do agree that the relevance of incoming links is generally less important than the relevancy of outgoing links. |
It's not really the link itself, but where that link is within a structure of a site. And then, where that link is on the page within that structure of the site.
Your Inbound Links (IBLs) mixed in with 15, 20, 30 even 50 others on a links page is worthless. Sure, maybe a 1,000 of those incoming links might have a slight ripple effect somewhere for those 4, 5 and 6 word phrases. ;)
Your Outbound Links (OBLs) based on the same above structure are just as worthless. The days of swapping links in this manner have been over for some time.
| 9:12 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It must be nice to be filthy stinkin rich. |
but he is old already :P
anyway, the question now is a bit different.
how will decrease in growth of ANY incoming links reflect the rankings in short term?
| 12:01 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One experiment doesn't mean very much, and certainly isn't scientific. I think it's safe to say that a combination of the following is best for improving SERPs: Links from sites within a similar genre
Links that are embedded within good original content
Links that have carefully selected anchor text
Links from sites that are one-way
Links that have a high PageRank
Links that look organic
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 12:03 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you have lots of established, disposable domains then this would work nicly for quick boosts in the SERPS.
But the algo will catch up with you and your domain will plumit as fast as you can say the word bollo*ks!
| 1:19 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In the grand scheme of things...."link pages" have no redeeming value...serves no purpose other than the aforementioned reasons given in the posts heretofore. Link pages aren't dead yet, maybe have one foot in the grave...but it will not long before the SE's put the final nail in the coffin.
Besides link pages on a website looks so "mom & pop" and so 90's. Serious commercial sites should not have them.
| 3:41 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Crush, thanks for sharing your experiment. I am not as convinced as you are, as single incidents don't necessarily allow definite conclusions and there is a lot of 'background noise', ie fluctuations in rankings. However, I would appreciate it if you could keep us updated and post how the site is doing in one, two or three weeks. best, W.
| 3:43 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would think that links embedded in content are king. The problem is finding other site that will exchange links with you in this way!
I think there is still some value in regular link exchanges but not alot.
*goes off to find some guestbooks and forums* :op
| 5:48 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|A link from a directory unless dmoz or yahoo or something is just as worthless. |
There are lots of good niche directories, some of which send me large numbers of actual visitors. There's lots of direct value, and probably SE value as well.
| 5:49 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Link pages/recips have been suffering for sometime in google. IME, I have never, ever deemed it necessary to have relevant (whatever that may be)links to score high in google The only thing that may or may not be going on is some form of local rank, but mass links still trump that in general.
Buying links is near the same, depending on what you are doing. Think hard about what links are on the page and where they are placed. Consider some other factors that may rate on the "is this natural scale".
However, it is nearly impossible to talk about any single factor in google without including the actual target DOMAIN in the discussion. The domain/s you are using may be far more important than you think.
Oh, and crush, can i borrow $100?
| 8:39 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|i.e lots of links going out with one link coming in to that page looks like a links page, so Google will devalue it. |
So large blog roll calls are hurting blog pages? Probably not.
| 9:17 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What do you need a hundred bucks for mfishy? To buy a new bathrobe to sit in while you count your money?
| 9:46 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I had purchased some high PR links from a somewhat related website and my rankings went down. As soon as I dropped the links, my ranking shot back up.
This could be a different experience than crush as my links were a PR 8 coming into a PR 4 which could have set something off in Google.
| 11:53 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|We did recips for years and now our sites have been declining in the serps slightly. |
I suspect your decline is other reasons as I've done RECIPS those for years too and my sites at the peak of it's game in the SERPs. FWIW, the links to my site drive almost 50% of my traffic so I would prefer to keep them in the long run as they aren't a constantly changing algorithm.
| 4:31 am on Feb 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think link pages are natural in many contexts. For instance, nonprofits will generally link to other nonprofit organizations in the same field. I suspect search engines would try to detect this and not penalize.
There are people who have link pages who aren't in it for the money =)
| 5:48 am on Feb 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Crush, in another recent thread you said something to the effect that "we just spam them" referring to how you contact sites via email for link exchange. Plus, you admit you seek links from link pages
|lots of links going out with one link coming in to that page |
I do a lot of link exchange myself, as you know, but I don't seek links by spamming, and I don't seek links from pages with lots and lots of links going out from them.
I think your problem is you lack of standards. You are like a girl that will sleep with anyone complaining you can't find a permanent boyfriend.
As for links from relevant sites. I jumped on that bandwagon years ago and wish I had not committed so hard. Links from related sites can help more than links from unrelated sites, but not much more. You can only give a link 100% value. How much of that is given by anchor text? How much by description? How much from the general content of the page the link is on? How much from the general content of the site the link is on?
I'll also verify that on the 10 days to full impact. I would say 11 days is closer.
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70 (  2 3 ) > > |