| 5:45 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi, Nex. I don't think it got "downed" seriously, but there were a few of us who were questioning the wisdom. I wanted to go back to the original description of the program to see what I might have misunderstood, but couldn't find it.
Anyway, one thing I'm not understanding (maybe others). If I'm a part of this network I need to build a "link page" that has a pr of at least five. Are you thinking that there are a lot of solid content based sites that have "link pages" with high PR?
I'm asking because I have content pages with pr of 5 or above, but I don't believe I have any "link pages" with high pr. Perhaps others do, and I'd be curious about whether that's the case.
Also, maybe you could clarify what would go on the links page. My reading of what you wrote is that it might contain links to my own site (like a site map), and it would also contain 99 links to the other link pages in the network? Am I understanding that right?
So, in effect one has a very long link page, with (I'm presuming) no requirement for any content), and with a lot of cross-linking within the network? How does this take into account the desireablity of "relevant" links, and their value?
How is that advantageous to search engine users? How is this different than a "link farm"?
| 5:51 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Most likely you'll get banned or at least have all PR stripped as soon as Google is tipped off. Do a search for SearchKing and Google [google.com...] and see what happened.
| 6:02 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Networks are fine, just be sure to also have unique outbounds/inbounds on all the different link pages so as to avoid becoming a closed network. Use variety. Of course, this will dilute your outbounds, but it's better than the alternative: getting banned by Google.
There are more effective strategies for rapidly increasing your PR to as high as 8, but I'm not going to propogate PR gaming strategies out here.
Link gaming has an expiry date so you'll have to work with multiple throwaway domains (.us are cheap) and commit yourself to rolling these websites out on a template basis. When one batch is shot down you have to be ready with another batch. There's a lot of profit in this, but I'm not that hungry, so I don't go there.
If you really really really want to compete, I heard cloaking is the thing to do, again, with throwaway domains.
But I'm not recommending you do that either- I don't engage in that kind of furious money making endeavour, just throwing it out there as food for thought.
| 6:26 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think the original "program" idea involved a portal, with each pr5+ site linked in to a portal run by an SEO person. Nexdog would have to clarify.
I read the method as something that WOULD help the portal site, but would not help those sites in the network over the long term. In essence, each network site would link to the portal, which would benefit by the increased PR. The portal would then link back to the member sites, but with diluted PR allocation.
This would end up with the portal site with a high PR (because the inbound links to the portal would be more "legitmate", since they would be coming from high PR sites. The portal would be the "hub" for the network.
Then the portal owner simply monetizes the traffic without having to have any significant content, probably through Adsense. I also read this as a technique that might have been much more useful 3-5 years ago.
Again, I could have this wrong, or my logic could be wrong, but clearly, if this method worked over the long haul without potential for banning, then I would think that we'd all be doing it?
Or am I out in left field with this?
| 11:46 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My explanation of how the network would work is what I said in the first post of this thread. Doesn't get any clearer than that. Each portal page (link page) would have a link to the hypothetical 99 other member's link page and also contain links to your own sites and any others you wish to help "help".
So far one person has said it would result in getting banned and someone else said it was fine as long as there were other outbound links on the links page......
I definitely don't want to engage in anything that is against Google's guidelines as our main site does very well (PR 7 too) so if there were penalties, we'd have a lot to lose.
| 4:23 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>...we'd have a lot to lose.
Then be sure of what you're doing before you do it.
Beware of the advice you receive because some folks don't know the difference between what is appropriate for those who "have a lot to lose," and techniques that are appropriate for the short term players.
| 4:50 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is only my opinion and is not fact. but..
I would link that the google algo would be smart enough to detect clustering sites. i.e. sites that link within themselves but have few links outsite of the group.
If you imagine a diagram of the linking strategy described it would be a cluster of linked sites that would be easy to visually spot in the big picture. Thus I would make the assumption that google could easily detect it.
| 5:37 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If there are 100 websites with 100 links pages all linking to the same 100 websites, how is that not a link-farm?
| 5:46 am on Mar 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Linking to each other's link pages seems like it would be easy for google to detect, and be of very little value to the user.
I'm sorry, but the whole effort seems lame to me. Why not just put in the same amount of effort into an activity that is safe and will probably give you an even bigger boost?