| 6:03 am on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would suggest placing links within content pages on your site, and only to a respectable degree.
Having links to another resource is fine as long as you dont overdo it. If possible, use semantic changes in the keywords you are using to link:
blue widget service
Service for owners of blue widgets
This will allow the links to be more natural in the content.
| 1:16 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have the same problem. Have three sites with different but related content and different target group. I don't want dup. content (also not with different text) so I link in between those three sites when I think it is usefull for the user.
Traffic was good till 22 september 'filter' and Jagger. I don't know the reason behind it yet but interlinking might be one of the causes. Removing links will cause problems as well because of disappearing links (problem Google) and less information (problem visitor). I don't know how to solve it yet.
I lessen links slowly but I am still doubting this is the right way.
| 1:46 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I link to my related sites in the content when I think the visitors would be interested.
Here lately, I link like the search engines don't even exist. I'm tired of modifying my site for the fickle search engines.
For instance, if I have a Dell Laptop site, and I bought a MS Streets and Trips for my laptop, and then built a site about how great Streets and Trips is, what's wrong with linking to it? It makes sense, because visitors may be interested in the programs I'm using with the laptop.
Goog wants you to link from one laptop site to another laptop site... the heck with that.
If it makes sense to link to it, then do it - but don't overdo it, that wouldn't make sense.
| 10:08 pm on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i have my sites linking to each other in the footer of each page.
so before the copyright notice, there's a link to four/five "partner sites" that keep on rotating on each page refresh (php rand() function).
| 3:59 am on Dec 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Interlinking your own sites shall not be an issue as far as your objective is to provide Supplementry information to the visitors. Don't link for the SE's but for the visitors and proper information flow.
Moreover, i do think that giving too many links to your site from another of your sites MIGHT raise a flag for google.
1. Host both of your sites on different IPs.
2. Link from content page to a relevant content rich page only (Don't focus too much on the anchor text. It should look like natural.)
| 3:04 am on Dec 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How about a web designer linking to and from designed sites?
I used to have the designer link on every page of client's sites but took the links off all inner pages--the reason being partly because of not wanting a penalty for site wide links but also Google was only listing one page (often an inner page with less PR than home page) and I want to decide which page Google credits for the link.
| 12:08 pm on Dec 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm experimenting with nofollows on a penalised domain network that insists on keeping the crosslinks, the G jury is still out though.
You might consider a two step approach, on site A create page(s) on topic(s) relevant and linking to site B, and link to those rather than directly to site B.
You'll probably get most of whatever traffic going, and though site B may only get a single link, it will have the "proper" anchor text from an topic page, and with little risk to either site....
| 1:33 pm on Dec 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|You might consider a two step approach, on site A create page(s) on topic(s) relevant and linking to site B, and link to those rather than directly to site B. |
glengara is very right; I have used the same approach to almost all of our sites and they have been helped a lot in Google without loosing any real traffic.
| 1:39 am on Dec 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Crosslinking between 2 of your sites are never going to hurt, Seeing sites doing pretty well crosslinking with 10 of their sites, It is better to make sure you dont over do it,
Dont get tempted to crosslink more sites but crosslinking 2 sites will not hurt either of your sites,
| 8:00 am on Dec 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Site wide links don't hurt you. It's really hard to explain what google is doing or trying to do but I'm gonna try?
Google is using your linking history to help rank you. By using a history they can use a percentage to show your websites popularity or the lack ther of.
If this month you get alot of links pointing to you, google asumes your site must be doing something good so they reward you with a better ranking and your site moves up.
Say this month you get 50% more links than you did last month. And the sites above you in the serps only did 20% more. You would move up above the ones that did less percentage than you.
But there is a line drawn that says that if your link growth percentage is higher than the average of 10% per month link growth across the entire internet then your site must be doing something spammy.
So your site drops in the rankings. Or gets a penalty or sandboxed etc...
If you have site wide links to your site, that is fine but if you take those site wides off, and you trigger your link growth percentage + or - that line that they draw that they consider average, your site will drop in the rankings. Or be penalized.
I have not seen a site become penalized for gaining links yet, but I have seen a site get completely banned from google from a decline in link popularity.
So I assume that a site that consistently gets new links pointing at it every month will continue to rise in the SERP's. But a site that gains alot of links and then loses some of those links within their percentage of what they consider the average + or - some percentage they have come up with, will be sandboxed or penalized.
This is just my theory but from reading their patent they have out, this is what I see coming in the near future if they're not allready trying it.