|No crosslinking, says Webmaster Central|
... but every blog network survives on that.
| 3:45 am on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
New from Google Webmaster Central
|I have many different sites. Can I cross-link between them? |
Before you begin cross-linking sites, consider the user's perspective and whether the crosslinks provide value. If the sites are related in business -- e.g., an auto manual site linking to an auto parts retail site, then it could make sense -- the links are organic and useful. Cross-linking between dozens or hundreds of sites, however, probably doesn't provide value, and I would not recommend it.
But this is the strategy for every big blog network. Start new blog, link from every blog in your list, and get instant rankings.
And nwo google reaffirms this, which many of us have been debating for years.
There is no evidence of a penalty for cross-linking. Though I used to see soem examples years back.
[edited by: encyclo at 10:43 am (utc) on Aug. 3, 2007]
[edit reason] fixed link [/edit]
| 7:47 am on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Most of the blogs I see and visit do not benefit from great rankings, in sectors I work in.
Most survive on cross traffic and after talking with some they mention they do not care much about watching their rankings (although there are many I am sure that do)
| 8:14 am on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What about free blog networks that are used in a scheme to link back to the main site? I'd like to see those penalized as well.
For some reason it seems like google does not penalize subdomain, blogs or any websites used to inflate popularity by linking all to 1 main site as much as they probably should.
well my c.02 but I am still dreaming of perfect SERPS where truth comes out along with quality.
| 10:18 am on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it's about penalties; simply google realistically assessing link value.
As you say, every new blog instantly crosslinks with many others, regardless of race, color, creed, quality or relevance. So, if we're honest, the value of each link to a visitor is close to zero - it's a lottery, frankly, rather than a recommendation.
Why should Google assign any value to such links, compared with an authority site linking to (for example) a new, unique, useful resource?
Time to recognise that SEO has got much more complex; it isn't about 'penalties', avoiding them or 'getting away with it' - it's about quality content, and quality links. That's where the value lies on the Internet, and it's interesting that SEs, these days, are so far ahead of many webmasters.
| 10:25 am on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
... or 'relevance' for short.
Google can recognize generic themes now.
A site not relevant to the anchor text it links out with, doesn't pass much power. You can crosslink sites which aren't relevant to each other, but... there's no point.
| 12:15 pm on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Penalizing a site for having backlinks from blogs or forums seems unrealistic for me. No one can say definitely if a backlink from a blog or a forum is genuine or not.
I have two sites that acquires some 15-20 backlinks each month from blogs and forums. And each has at least +250 such backlinks. All are spontaneously acquired (i.e., natural), because my sites offer some really useful (and unique) content to visitors. But the net effect of these backlinks seems minimal, unfortunately.
I know that blogs and forums are open to manipulation. But spontaneous backlinks from such blogs and forum posts are a real vote. Seen from this perspective, they should have more weight. But due to the inability to discriminate manipulative backlinks from real votes, google seems downweighing them alltogether.
| 12:26 pm on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But due to the inability to discriminate manipulative backlinks from real votes, google seems downweighing them altogether. |
Google can discriminate to some extent; it's about context. Focused blogs / forums with relevant backlinks do seem to get significant benefit, while purely 'social' ones - however entertaining - probably lose out. And the rest somewhere in between.
| 12:35 pm on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is nothing there in writing about penalizing a site.
This is all that is stated...
|Cross-linking between dozens or hundreds of sites, however, probably doesn't provide value, and I would not recommend it. |
| 12:56 pm on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If the sites are related in business -- e.g., an auto manual site linking to an auto parts retail site, then it could make sense -- the links are organic and useful. |
Thanks wanderingmind for providing that quote -- I find it reassuring and am very glad to see a Google rep actually putting in writing what many of us have been wondering about. Now I hope they'll add it to their Webmaster Guidelines -- in a similar clearly written explanation -- to make it really official.
| 2:29 pm on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"...then it could make sense -- the links are organic and useful.."
Bit odd don't you think? They may be useful but hardly organic/natural, not as I understood the term anyway...