homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.99.131
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
Would these redirect links help with Google?
narsticle

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 11:53 am on Jun 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Quick question.

a client of mine is looking to buy a yellowpages online ad for the link. The links are redirects and look like this:

http://www.yellowpages.com/sp/yellowpages/ypout.jsp?linkType=6
&outURL=http%3A//example.com&impressionId=1
&listingId=1234567&searchId=1&id=9876543

I told the client that these wouldnt help him since they are not direct links, he insists they will. Although i probably shouldnt be questioning myself does anyone here have a definitive answer? Thanks in advance.

[edited by: tedster at 3:38 pm (utc) on June 20, 2007]
[edit reason] de-link the URL, fix side-scroll [/edit]

 

fishfinger

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 4:01 pm on Jun 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

The href tag is what Google looks in. If it isn't to the external site then it isn't seen as a link.

Yahoo used to cloak their directory listings to Google to pass clean links and PR but run their redirect script for everyone else.

Using an http checker with Googlebot as the user-agent will tell you if Yell do the same. My guess is not.

A Yell rep told me that their 'local' results (used in Google in the UK) were rotated so if I bought a listing I'd see some time in the top 3 slots that make it into Google above the 1st place listing. Lies! They are fixed - if you are 4th then you will only be seen in Google if someone above you doesn't renew.

Tell your friend not to trust what they say.

fatpeter

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 4:21 pm on Jun 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm assuming google wouldn't see the following as a link to follow but I may be wrong. Would anyone care to comment?

<a href="http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/links/jump.cgi?ID=1470" target="_blank">http://www.example2.com/</a>

example.com being my site and example2.com being the site I link to.

tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 9:11 pm on Jun 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

In my experience that will not be seen as a link to example2.com. The cgi function could do absolutely ANYTHING with that query string, so it only makes sense that Google would not give it credit as a backlink.

They may, however, try to spider the apparent URL - they will spider anything that looks remotely like a URL. That doesn't mean they give it backlink juice, however - just that they might chekc to see if it's a URL they haven't already got.

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 10:23 pm on Jun 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Of course if Googlebot arrives at a bad pace and spends about 699 seconds downloading the redirect script interesting things can happen.

I've seen such redirects ( /fakelink.cgi?suckerid=1234 ) in both Google and Yahoo first crawled, then their redirect count as backlinks, passing PR and relevance...

But as most of such redirect-URLs are robots.txt'd down from the face of the Earth, I wouldn't be holding my breath for it to pass anything.

It's the get relevant links from great directories syndrome. Many of the "great directories" are also obeying the don't sell links / get into suspicion of selling links doctrine as well and are offering these non-link links instead. ( In fear of being filtered out otherwise, which usually happends to directories. )

...

fishfinger

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 9:27 am on Jun 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are still PLENTY of good directories - both general and niche - that offer good clean links for a review fee.

Miamacs

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 10:20 am on Jun 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

...and usually a backlink.

...

I know, there's a lot of fine places, I have a list of OK directories myself.

But if I look at which of these rank for the keywords I target, it's usually the ones that have no OBLs and walk a tight line in between a PR sink and an "authority" site.

The ones that provide the best links usually don't really send much traffic, while the ones with such redirects are "popular" enough to actually send some interested people.

The SERPs aren't exactly in line with what I'd call editorial quality, but whatever. I just submit to both types... the only problem is that it takes twice as much effort. Soon enough there won't be such a thing as a "lazy SEO/SEM".

edited: although I'd need to check if that's still the case, for this update seems to prefer a list of related links better than the actual sites with content, so older, I mean old fashioned directories may have regained some of their glory.

[edited by: Miamacs at 10:30 am (utc) on June 22, 2007]

fishfinger

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3373362 posted 8:36 am on Jun 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

The ones that provide the best links usually don't really send much traffic, while the ones with such redirects are "popular" enough to actually send some interested people.

Usually seems to be the case.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved