| 11:50 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I doubt they'll ban you - unless many, many people dob you in for paidlinks.
But even if they do nothing, those links are worth close to zero - and if Google doesn't like them, and they won't - they'll move you even closer to zero. But a ban is very, very unlikely.
However, in stead of using 2004-style SEO, why not apply more recent methods; go for quality content that attracts natural links.
Oh, and don't go for site-wide linking - it stands out a mile. Thousands of little red-ish flags saying "I'm trying to game Google - and failing". And counts for very, very little.
| 1:07 pm on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, we also want go for quality content that attracts natural links.
We write many quality contents at our website over two years already but still not many links come back.
Or do you mean writing articles and submit the articles to many website and put the links (point to our site) inside the article?
| 5:58 pm on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Content ON your site is worth 100x content donated to other sites.
It helps you reach 'critical mass', it makes your site open to more searches, it gives visitors more to do before leaving - so conversions, bookmarking and links are all more likely.
Article farm links are 2006 ;) - but still of minimal value today. Except to the article farmer, who gets content AND links for free.
| 6:31 pm on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|So just only siteB.com and siteC.com has over 13,000 links to our site SiteA.com |
One of my core sites has several thousand pages and I link through my lhs navigation to associated widget authority sites precisely as you have described.
They get plenty of referrals from me and they do well in the SERPs plus I have many sites linking to me in the same way, one site has in excess of 50,000 links to me since I am in their main navigation as a trade widget authority site.
I can see where Quadrille is coming from however the Google algo is now so sophisticated that it recognises authority linking and certainly does not penalise, in my case!
| 7:02 pm on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
this kind of thing is pretty common so i don't think search engines mind too much anymore.
virtually all blogs have something called a 'blogroll' in the sidebar, which is a list of their favourite sites. if someone puts your site into that, then more often than not you'll end up on every single page of their blog -- which could be hundreds of pages.
| 1:06 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google will not ban you, we do it on relevant eccomerce sites all the time. Just make sure they are similar and the anchor supports the site
| 1:48 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
why we write so many unique contents and still not many links point to us?
Anyway to get more links?
Or we need advertise the unique contents and ask others to link to us?
| 6:48 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Right, there will be no way for such a crazy penalty.
| 8:08 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well, a -950 penalty is not a ban per se... but in practice the result is pretty similar.. for the duration of it anyway. I would go slow with site wide links, maybe one site a month max.. I know from experience.
| 9:18 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It's much more likely that the links are simply devalued; Google learned years ago that blog links and forum links are very largely pointless, rather than a genuine recommendation, and almost certainly such links count for very little; with blogs it may be a more complex calculation - but only the 'best' blogs (however they might be defined!), probably give a full strength link.
Also, I have never believed that Google is stupid enough to count a site wide link from 5000 pages as any more valubale than one link from the front page (Why would they?)
And these days, those 5000 tiny red flags probably means the link is worth LESS than one link from the front page (or one relevant link in the run of text.
In all my assesments of what Google does, I always assume there is intelligence at work. I heard a rumour that they've taken on a couple of college kids. ;)
| 10:02 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As to the college kids: there you go Quadrille, spouting wild-eyed theories again without any supporting evidence! B^>
[edited by: DamonHD at 10:03 am (utc) on July 19, 2007]
| 10:41 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This is a double edged sword to say the least.
So, does siteA have any links of quality as of yet? If not, and you get those sitewides in, let's say the footer of those 13,000 pages... it's over for that domain.
Others rightfully mentioned
- Authority sites
- Referral Links in sitewide navigation
and not the infamous
- site with 0 quality links
- trying to spam its way into the index
- with sitewides in the footer of irrelevant, low quality sites
Since I don't know neither siteA nor B or C, it's up to you to decide whether you're in the first group or not.
| 12:13 pm on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The links will have value zero!
Duplicate content is not counted.
Just get a link from the highest PR page possible and move on.