homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.162.174
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
Passing PR from Site to Other Site
Will it flow?
webcenter




msg:87914
 8:15 am on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

hi,

i have 6 sites with PR of 4-5. Now i created another site and i'd like to pass PR from the first 6 sites to this new one. There are no outgoing links on the old sites, so if i include link to my new site the PR will flow?

 

dirkz




msg:87915
 12:16 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

> so if i include link to my new site the PR will flow?

Why not?

internetheaven




msg:87916
 1:02 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Did the first 6 sites get PR from crosslinking with each other or do none of the current 6 sites link to each other?

nileshkurhade




msg:87917
 1:16 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do not include a back link to any of the other sites. (just to be safe)

webcenter




msg:87918
 1:52 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

This 6 site don't link to each other. They have strong links from other web pages.

internetheaven




msg:87919
 2:31 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Then I don't see any problem with having all 6 linking to this new site. But I agree with nileshkurhade, don't put a link back.

rshandy




msg:87920
 3:03 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

A few questions regarding webcenter's post:

If he links all 6 sites to the new site, how many links can he create from each site? For example, can he put a link from several internal pages from each site to the new site? Should he have them all point to the home page or should some of the links point to other internal pages as well?

Why would a backlink from the other sites cause problems? Wouldn't it be similar to creating reciprocal links from other related sites?

internetheaven




msg:87921
 3:33 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, exactly. Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea. Due to the high deviousness of link farms Google couldn't tell which was genuine reciprocal linking and which was a link farm spam. Now, I've found with my sites that any that have a link to each other, the link is either discounted or penalized.

I do feel it's a fair rule of thumb though. Why should Google pay attention to link popularity if you only got it because you asked for it and gave something in return. To create relevant search results only links that were created without coercion should recieve attention. Sites that are linked to because they are of good content, not just because they link to you.

But as a webmaster I use the ring effect (one site linked to the next) purely to guide crawlers/bots through all my sites, not for ranking purposes. It's not worth the risk (see recent complaints from webmasters about the Florida update as to why crosslinking is a bad idea). What may be okay now could get you banned next month.

rshandy




msg:87922
 4:14 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well, I'll accept your reasoning as far as google is concerned, since link farms has tainted reciprocal links, but seems to go against basic 101 marketing techninques. We've sparingly used reciprocal linking for cross-marketing - which benefit all the parties, including the user.

With that said, and if we only use "one way" linking, can site A have more than 1 link pointing to site B from several pages within the site, or does only 1 link get counted and the rest ignored? If there is more than 1 link from site A to site B, can the entire link value be ignored?
We do have some sites that provide a link to our site from a few different relevant pages which show up in the back links - Is this potentially a problem?

thoughts?

elklabone




msg:87923
 4:30 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea.

I would have to disagree with this...

We've been running a reciprocal link campaign for two years. Reciprocal links moved us from nowhere to #3 for our most coveted term. I would characterize this is a competitive term for our industry.

We moved to #2 right before Florida... post-Florida we dropped to #3. We've worked hard to shake up our links to make them more "natural", and we're now back to #2. I think MOST of the ones who took a big dive after Florida had 100 identical incoming links.

rshandy




msg:87924
 4:51 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do you have more than 1 link coming from any particular site(s)? Is there a limit?

webdude




msg:87925
 4:57 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, exactly. Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea. Due to the high deviousness of link farms Google couldn't tell which was genuine reciprocal linking and which was a link farm spam.

I also disagree with this statement. I have 3 sites that are ranked in the top 5 for very competative keyphrases and I have actively sought recips on all three. Granted the recips are closely related, but that is the key. Related links do help.

HarryM




msg:87926
 5:37 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea

This statement is too broad. No doubt Google is concerned about spamming where the links have no real significance except to increase PR. But I am sure that Google would not apply a blanket penalty.

This would hit a lot of innocent sites, especially information and 'authoriity' sites who one would expect to see interlinked. The interlinking need not even be due to a reciprocal arrangement. Site A might link to site B as a service to its users, and site B might link to A for the same reasons, all without a single email being exchanged. I doubt that Google would want to penalize that.

webcenter




msg:87927
 5:42 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thank you for all answers.

How about making a link ring. For example: Site a and B have PR of 4, Site u,v,w,x,y don't have a PR.
Now i will link A,B -> U-> V -> W -> X -> Y -> back to A,B . Is it ok?

Kirby




msg:87928
 5:44 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, exactly. Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea. Due to the high deviousness of link farms Google couldn't tell which was genuine reciprocal linking and which was a link farm spam. Now, I've found with my sites that any that have a link to each other, the link is either discounted or penalized.

Disagree as well. Google is not penalizing crosslinking at the moment, but I suspect they devalue or ignore them. The guiding question should be, "Will this help my visitors?"

internetheaven




msg:87929
 6:13 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think a couple of you have mis-understood what I meant be reciprocal linking. I did not mean sites that link to each other, this would be a flawed argument as Google themselves interlink between their various sites. Indeed I was alluding to the reciprocal links farms/software/programs that generate a reciprocal links page on a site. This is a page full of links to other sites that link back.

My statement was not that Google will ban you for linking to a site that links back to you, but that the importance Google gives that link is minimal. A rise from #2-#3 in listings in mot really indicative of a succesful reciprocal links program unless the sites around you changed nothing at all on their pages when you made that jump. Is this the case?

ciml




msg:87930
 6:13 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

There's a big difference between what we would normally call 'heavy crosslinking' and reciprocal linking.

There's a big difference between what we would normally call 'heavy crosslinking' and reciprocal linking.

If you have ten domains, each linking their home pages together then expect a penalty (remember December 2001?). Two sites swapping links isn't an issue.

We can read into this that if everyone among a group of related sites all reciprocate, then they create heavy crosslinking. This is not how things tend to work on the Web though, so the risk of reciprocal linking is IMO incredibly small.

rshandy




msg:87931
 6:32 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Great stuff guys! to reiterate another aspect of this question/subject, if site A has related but different subject matter on internal pages, and each or some of those pages each have a link to site B - is that okay?!

webdude




msg:87932
 6:37 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

internetheaven

First you say...

Yes, exactly. Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea. Due to the high deviousness of link farms Google couldn't tell which was genuine reciprocal linking and which was a link farm spam. Now, I've found with my sites that any that have a link to each other, the link is either discounted or penalized.
I do feel it's a fair rule of thumb though. Why should Google pay attention to link popularity if you only got it because you asked for it and gave something in return. To create relevant search results only links that were created without coercion should recieve attention. Sites that are linked to because they are of good content, not just because they link to you.

It seems to me that what you stated at first was that the G cannot tell the difference between "genuine reciprocal linking" and "farm spam", then you go on the explain why G should not pay attention to it strictly because it was asked for.

Then you state...

I think a couple of you have mis-understood what I meant be reciprocal linking. I did not mean sites that link to each other, this would be a flawed argument as Google themselves interlink between their various sites. Indeed I was alluding to the reciprocal links farms/software/programs that generate a reciprocal links page on a site. This is a page full of links to other sites that link back.

So which is it? Link farms are bad? Or do you think that recips in general are bad?

and I couldn't agree more with ciml...

There's a big difference between what we would normally call 'heavy crosslinking' and reciprocal linking.

internetheaven




msg:87933
 7:44 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

"So which is it?"

I didn't change anything from my first statement to the next. Please could you clarify what you think is the confilicting statement, thankyou.

Kirby




msg:87934
 8:17 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

internet, I wasnt very clear.

I disagree with the statement that reciprocal linking is bad. I also dont think google is treating reciprocal links or extensive crosslinking the same way they treat link farms. In fact I dont believe they are even doing a very good job of weeding out link farms (no pun intended).

I also dont believe, as I have seen no consistent evidence, that Google is penalizing crosslinking. I doubt google even devalues crosslinking at the moment, but I think that is what they would do in lieu of a penalty. A penalty is to harsh and leads to unintended consequences. Many links do serve a purpose other than for PR.

It is because of all this that I think Google's page rank is becoming functionally obsolete, they know it and as a result we got Florida. Until Google can devine intent (perhaps with AS), then links will continue to be used and abused.

I know Google's guidelines, but I think they depend alot on the honor system or an implied fear that they can do more than they really can.

webdude




msg:87935
 8:21 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

first statement
"Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea"

second statement
"Google couldn't tell which was genuine reciprocal linking and which was a link farm spam"

third statement
"I did not mean sites that link to each other"

seems pretty clear to me I guess

Marcia




msg:87936
 8:29 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

First
Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea.
...
Why should Google pay attention to link popularity if you only got it because you asked for it and gave something in return.

And then
I think a couple of you have mis-understood what I meant be reciprocal linking. I did not mean sites that link to each other,

That is exactly what was derived from your first post, internetheaven. Reciprocal linking.

I'd like to stress that we're not exactly here to be doing scholarly biblical exegesis on your posts internetheaven, but linking to each other is exactly what you alluded to in your first post, quite clearly.

Now let's turn it around.

Please could you clarify what you think is the confilicting statement, thankyou.

No. Let's do it the other way around. Instead of asking that our members explain how they've comprehended and interpreted your posts, how about if we do the reverse of that.

How about if you simplify it for us and give us a clear explanation of exactly what it is that you you mean, clarifying it for us so we can all understand precisely what you're trying to say.

webdude




msg:87937
 8:58 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks Marcia,

I was having a hard time understanding the difference between
reciprocal linking
and
reciprocal linking

:)

internetheaven




msg:87938
 9:10 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Aye, aye, captain.

Reciprocal linking I personally deem to be a term describing a person's intent to request links from another site in exchange for a link back to theirs. This results in a complete section of their site devoted to links to other sites that link back to them. This is why I deemed my statement "I did not mean sites that link to each other" as not contradicting that idea. Sites that simply link to each other I do not class as 'reciprocal linking' sites.

Please look at the context in which the original statement:

"Reciprocal linking is now a very bad idea"

that has now been sorely criticised was made. This was said after rshandy stated:

"Why would a backlink from the other sites cause problems? Wouldn't it be similar to creating reciprocal links from other related sites?"

My response began with 'Yes, exactly'. I was responding to a specific statement - 'from other related sites.' Not once had the idea been mentioned about the site's relevant content until rshandy introduced it. I then proceeded to state that reciprocal linking (which I have described my understanding of above) was a bad idea. It is.

Gaining a number of links for the sole purpose of increasing link popularity is a bad idea as you are being linked to by a site that has no relevant content and who will probably place your link on a page with one hundred other links.

webcenter had also failed to ask about the linking text when linking one site to the other which is another flaw in these reciprocal links programs. Everyday I get emails stating that a link has been placed to my site and that it would be 'polite' of me to create a 'reciprocal link' to theirs. The link they have normally placed is on some deep hidden directory where I am amongst 300 other links and my linking text is a printout of my web address with 'Please click me next to it'.

As every one of these emails refers to itself as reciprocal linking, this is what I deem reciprocal linking to be. Therefore I stand by my statement that reciprocal linking is a bad idea as Google does already ignore the majority of these links. I do apologise for the use of the word penalize as I'm sure this suggested to people that I believed Google used it ultimate penalty of banning in reciprocal link situations. This is obviously a rather silly notion as competitors would simply create huge link farm pointing to their enemies to have them removed. By penalized I simply meant that Google attributes the bad linking text to my site and I find myself listed under keywords I didn't want to be listed under.

I certainly hope that's clear. In future I'll know not to expect people to check the context of a discussion before jumping on the band wagon to criticise.

rshandy




msg:87939
 9:41 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

While you guys are fighting over semantics, could I get a response/feedback...

Ciml, you stated -

"If you have ten domains, each linking their home pages together then expect a penalty (remember December 2001?). Two sites swapping links isn't an issue."

Can these two sites swap more than 1 link? The multiple links will help the users as the links are in different but related subjects within that same site. will it hurt my site rankings?

internetheaven




msg:87940
 10:34 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

[...] one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is IP addresses. One thing I've found is that Google will dilute the importance of a link that, although comes from a different web address, comes from the same IP address. I believe this was introduced to stop companies that were purchasing hundreds of domain names just to point them to one site to boost link popularity. If they hosted the hundred web sites on one server, this would identify them as spammers. If you have your own server you could do to invest in separate IP addresses for each domain, their only about 2 a month but they do wonders for crawling, link popularity and avoiding spam filters. If you are on shared hosting, ask your hosting firm to put your various web sites on different shared servers so the IP address is different. If they say they can't they're lying! One of my businesses is a hosting company. It doesn't cost them anything and they shouldn't charge you.

[edited by: ciml at 10:59 pm (utc) on Jan. 21, 2004]
[edit reason] Please see Sticky. [/edit]

ciml




msg:87941
 11:00 pm on Jan 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

rshandy, we're still on webcenter's question about PR and in that context the multiple links between two domains would all pass PR as normal - assuming no penalty. Even with many links between two domains, I don't see a problem with automatic penalties. Otherwise, there would be a problem for universities, corp's, large publishing companies, etc.

I have to hold one reservation, if Google identify a link manipulation excercise (and I think this is the area of human-assigned penalties), then you may find that a domain won't pass PR any more. This is the case for some high profile, high PR link sellers and not relevant in most situations.

internetheaven, I do not believe that using separate IPs avoids Google penalties. I'd be surprised if splitting to different IPs even reduces the likelihood of a penalty.

steveb




msg:87942
 12:16 am on Jan 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Therefore I stand by my statement that reciprocal linking is a bad idea as Google does already ignore the majority of these links."

You should not create your own definitions for commonly used words. It just creates confusion.

Google certainly does not ignore most reciprocal links. That's plain anti-reality.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with reciprocal linking. It's a fundamental value to users for quality sites to agree to link together, even if they are competitors.

What Google doesn't like are link schemes designed to fool the algorithm. While reciprocal links can be part of a naughty scheme, they are not neceassirly so. You can't look at this simplisticly. There is nothing wrong with having a hammer. There is a lot wrong with walking down a street and breaking windows with the hammer.

cpnmm




msg:87943
 12:48 am on Jan 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I can't believe google would actually penalize people for cross linking or link exchanges. I'm sure they will pick up sites that are blatantly using a link farm but many sites use reciprocal links for traffic rather than PR. I have template/homepage links with another large site I am associated with. We both cover the same niche for different countries so it makes sense for us to send the relevant traffic to each other.

Another of my sites has links to other similar sites with articles covering topics I don't have. I want my users to read their articles and send them their via a link. As we are friendly with each other other websites will do the same - ie refer to my articles (e.g. read <this article> at <widgets.com>).

I think PR is supposed to be a representation of traffic moving from one website to another and if google messes with links that are intended to do this then their algo will lose it's usefulness and their search results will suffer. Not everyone uses links just for PR purposes - if fact I think the majority of informational, personal and academic websites use links to deliberately send traffic to another site (even other site's in their network - there is nothing wrong with doing this).

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved