| This 77 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 77 ( 1 2  ) || |
|Cross-linking filter implemented?|
| 12:19 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When the last update went live a group of heavily cross-linked sites in our theme came from nowhere to dominate the serps not only in our geographical area, but right accross the board for searches relating to nearly every European country.
48 hours ago it was relegated heavily, and just when I thought it was really gone, a few minutes ago it returned.
Anyone else seeing this with huge cross-linked networks? I have a feeling Google is tuning their cross-link spam filter and they haven't quite decided where to set it yet.
P.S it needs to be more severe GG ;) - turn up the power!
| 8:28 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>The power of the dark side...
he, he, he ,he .... >:)
no more ot posts from me, here, i swear!
| 6:56 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I run 4 sites, all with separate domains but on the same class c block. Sites are all about 10 or more pages each and have been optimized for da engines and up for about 1 - 2 months. All sites are Search Engine legal i.e. no hidden text or images. I have had great results with two of the sites (top 10 for some of the keywords) The sites all unrelated. Now the fun part. The first site has existed for a number of years (we'll call it site A) and has a great page rank 7/10. I created pages on this site to market and sell my first item (it was related to site A). The pages on A were spidered in a week or so and did well in the rankings.
I then created site B, with content and product totally different that A. Same goes for site C and D, all unrelated. Now to get the B, C and D up and riding, I placed links on some of the pages on site A. Sure enough B,C and D were spidered with a week or so of being put up and I was as happy as the vicar and the choir boy! I also linked B to C and B to D, an incestuous web you might say.
I am using SSI so the cross linked page links are at the bottom of every page, a right little link farm I realized and from what I have read not a good idea. This is what is meant by crosslinking right? I have now removed all cross links on sites B,C and D. A is the only site that links to B, C and D.
Every time I put up a new site (I plan to put up one a week) I'll add a link to it from the mighty "site A". Why should I wait months for my site to be spidered :) Will google eventually see that the sites are unrelated and penelize me? It hasn't so far. If site A was selling cat food how would it know or care if site B was selling paint? I've read all the posting on getting links from other sites - sound overly simplistic to me and I don't know who would want to link to my sites even though they have some useful info on them and are not just selling the product.
What happens if I remove the links from site A for the other sites once they have been spidered. Will google look for these links in the future and if it doesn't see them, drop the rating of site B,C and D? Should I wait for B, C and D to get a good page rank and then remove the links. I actually have a site that I did this for and it now has a page rank of 6/10, originally got spidered off a link from A and then I removed the link on A.
Its all fun and games right now and I'm pretty excited about the results. My cross linking concerns came about due to all my pages as of today "June 8th" having disappeared from google but I think that just them being respidered (sever logs seem to confirm this and it has happened to me before) It better be!
| 7:44 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This thread might help tou
| 10:19 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a technical site on widgets (widgets are, as we all know, very complex things). The site is currently ~50 pages, but should double or even treble in size over time. It's a non-commercial hobby-site.
I want to set up a small site for the less technically minded to help them get into the wonders of widgets. This will be five or ten pages, will overlap the main site in subject-matter, but will consist entirely of unique content. Call it a doorway site. It will be hosted on the same IP-address.
(1) If I link the main site from the doorway site am I running any risk?
(2) If I link each site from the other, am I running any risk?
(3) If I have five such 'doorway sites', each linked to the main site (but not linked to each other), then am I running any risk?
(4) If I have five such 'doorway sites', each reciprocally linked to the main site (but not linked to each other), then am I running any risk?
(5) Interlinking all six sites is a definite no-no, right?
(6) Would I be better off just putting all the sites on the same root url so that I can interlink them as much as I like without worrying about cross-linking? (This would significantly reduce the number of directory listings I might get. There are a fair number of directories that would happily link to my non-technical widgets site but not to my main site - too much detail.)
| 12:47 am on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>(1) If I link the main site from the doorway site am I >running any risk?
First, avoid the term doorway. People don't like that word around here. It is associated with spam. There is not problem as long as the site offers unique content.
>(2) If I link each site from the other, am I running any >risk?
This would be a cross-link. Doing this on a small scale should be fine.
>(3) If I have five such 'doorway sites', each linked to >the main site (but not linked to each other), then am I >running any risk?
If you doing this just to create a pr boost, I highly do not recommend it. If you are doing it to make things easier for the visit then go ahead. There is always a risk. This might be considered spam if a blant pr boost technique. Only will cause problems if it catches someones attention (like a competitor) and it can not pass the spam free test.
>(4) If I have five such 'doorway sites', each >reciprocally linked to the main site (but not linked to >each other), then am I running any risk?
Same as question 3. Really this small amount of cross-linking should be fine.
>(5) Interlinking all six sites is a definite no-no, >right?
Again same as 3 and 4. The problem is when you start generating these types of sites just for pr.
(6) Would I be better off just putting all the sites on the same root url so that I can interlink them as much as I like without worrying about cross-linking?
If you make them just pages within the same site, you are safe and you can go wild with cross-linking internal pages.
Remember do things to benefit the user and not just for the sake of pr and no one can you a spammer.
| 9:13 am on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> If you doing this just to create a pr boost, I highly do not recommend it. If you are doing it to make things easier for the visit then go ahead.
I'd like to create several independent sites so that they can approach the same (or related) subject-matter from slightly different angles. The main site is a pretty technical reference site; the others will be introductory and more focused. I hope that once introduced to bits of the subject people will find the reference site useful. It's all for the user ...
... except that I'd also like to link the main site from them in order to pass on traffic and pr. I'll make the other sites anyway. The question is just whether (and if so, how) I can safely link them.
> ... avoid the term doorway. People don't like that word around here. It is associated with spam.
Sorry! I really don't think what I'm planning is spammy. I was worried that it might trip a spam filter though. Sounds like it should be fine, particularly if I don't reciprocal link (the only reason for doing that would be pr, so I won't).
Thanks a lot for your answers. :)
| 9:53 am on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If the topic of the site is related, I'd say that once you get beyond 2 sites, crosslinking is risky. Google has never made clear at what point crosslinking is excessive. Thus, it would come down to whether what you were doing was spammy in the eyes of some Google employee.
| 2:14 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks; I'll be sure to keep it clean.
| 2:57 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If the links are there to help the visitors and the content on each site is unique then there shouldn't be any problems, especially with a small number of sites.
| 4:10 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
if you have 10 + 1 site, and you place links on those 10 sites and link just with/from these 10 sites, to the "1" site, is the risky? Is this crosslinking?
I know that creating links to all those 11 sites, where every site has 10 links to the other 11 sites is a not-done idea..
| 4:21 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The site is currently ~50 pages, but should double or even treble in size over time. |
Try turning up the bass... ;)
| 2:36 am on Jun 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If the topic of the site is related, I'd say that once you get beyond 2 sites, crosslinking is risky. Google has never made clear at what point crosslinking is excessive. Thus, it would come down to whether what you were doing was spammy in the eyes of some Google employee. |
The strategy itself isn't that "risky", the risk comes into play by continue to exploit the benefits of crosslinking without adding other less intrusive strategies to complement.
WebmasterWorld employs crosslinking but as each forum grows independently of the others that crosslinking effect becomes much less noticable, to:
1. the naked eye
2. googles automatic spam filters, and
3. even spam reports where action is taken
I for one use this strategy often but use it wisely.
Before even touching a website upon starting with a new client I rapidly induce crosslinks, not sheer numbers of links, the quality of the link is far more beneficial.
A page, or two per existing site is added promoting the new site and as many internal links are developed to this page with the most appropriate anchors, and then these pages link out to the new site again using the most appropriate link anchors.
They are related, on-topic (the anchors, pages titles, and page content say so), but most importantly allow me the time to "best optimize" the site without the clients waiting to see results.
Directory and link exchanges (both solicited and unsolicited) are next, and as the ranks improve and reach top, the cross-links are no longer needed to maintain the ranked level achieved.
From here content is diversified, and more ranks are achieved.
In all fairness, a business that pays an SEO to produce results has far more to lose than a business that doesn't, if results are not achieved. In addition, Google also provides the option of allowing them (google) to do this for you without going through an SEO.
In either case these businesses are paying for performance and regardless of how "good" or how "bad" that implemented strategy is the pending results is what matters.
Going back to > crosslinking and spam reports > if for instance Google reduces this strategies effectiveness > some sites would drop like a rock, however most would not - the simple true "SPAM" is not really tactic or technique it is more "lack or substance".
If you see a high rank site that uses a particular techique excessively > how is their actual content? On par with yours, better, worst, more, less... be objective?
Just because they have sheer numbers in links "50K" doesn't mean this is the only reason they are #1.
| 3:00 am on Jun 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Just because they have sheer numbers in links "50K" doesn't mean this is the only reason they are #1. |
Fortunately they are not #1, but their spammy tactics are the only reason this particular group of sites is ranking well.
I actually caught this guy 2 months ago, and have watched his client sites rise though the SERPs as the crosslink backlinks have been spidered and factored in. They took a bit of a dive from Dominic by losing recent backlinks but appear to have recovered.
This SEO was actually doing something a bit worse before...cloaking a links page on each of his clients sites that crosslinked to the other sites. Apparently he realized this was "bad" and he'd get caught. So he did get a little smarter, but he's completely depending on the crosslinks at this point. Diversification is not his strong suit.
| 3:03 am on Jun 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I noticed a few people speaking about having the cross-linking be valuable for the users. How would the spider really be able to tell if the cross linking is valuable?
| 3:06 am on Jun 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I dumped all the bogus cross-links after 30 pages went from pr4 to pr0. Any idea what to do next? Google should give us a break. I don't think the links have anything to do with the quality of a site.
| 11:14 pm on Jun 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well - nobody ansered my question, and it's very relevant to all this discussion that followed it:
Where is the proof that cross-linking domains brings more pagerank than building the same number of pages internally in 1 domain?
I confess to having not read the Google founders' papers because I know I would be wasting my time. However, I do know from the discussion among people who have read it that there was NO MENTION of linking between domains generating extra pagerank.
I have two strategies:
1) Single domain. Loads of content. A couple thousand pages.
2) About 6 domains divided by geographical location. Cross-linked only from the home page and a couple of relevant places in the sites. Put together, I guess the number of pages is a bit less than the single domain in 1)
What I can say is that strategy 1) works much better for me. This leads me to believe there is NO EXTRA PAGERANK BENEFIT to cross-linking domains.
So what is all the fuss about? - when people make duplicate content on different domains and link it all together - now that is an artificial boost.
| 12:04 am on Jun 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Kurupt: nothing to do with Google, it's about helping the user of the web sites in question.
| This 77 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 77 ( 1 2  ) |