|Best Possible Way to Start Up New Site and Gain Ranks in Google|
| 3:14 pm on May 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Till last year, all my projects were launched with an aggressive online marketing campaigns, such as a press release, followed by a viral and social media campaign to create a buzz and gain natural. Right now, since a lot has changed at google, i'm not sure if the previous technique shall be equally good?
Lets say if you have taken care of every possible aspect of offpage SEO, what are the best possible ways to go about launching your site? Would an instant aggressive marketing campaign shall raise any filters at google? a friend has suggested to keep it low and gradual. However, i think the initial buzz is important to get people talking about, it can be slowed down with time. Need your suggestions..
| 10:15 pm on May 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
A marketing campaign at launch makes sense to me - it's what many offline businesses would do and there is sense to it. There is also some sense to waiting for a bit to make sure the corre website is really debugged and converting as intended. In the offline world, a restaurant might do something like this for their first month or so.
Whether your initial marketing gets the site filtered by Google depends on what you mean by "aggressive". If your actions do not generate a real and genuine response from the public, then the footprint of whatever you are doing might well cause some trouble.
| 8:15 pm on Jun 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
By aggressive i mean a successful social media capmpaign, which includes some front page stories at sites like digg, reddit etc and getting some famous relevant blogs talk about the site. I am pretty sure that users will appreciate the content, a lot of effort has been put into gathering and putting the content together. My only concern is whether Google shall drop me for going too fast? or treat me just like anyother new startup and wait for sometime before giving me any authority?
| 8:49 pm on Jun 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think the new Matt Cutts video addresses your concerns rather well: [youtube.com...]
| 9:00 pm on Jun 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|My only concern is whether Google shall drop me for going too fast? |
This is speculation, but I would assume that Google is aware of social media traffic and, if need be, could correlate it with link growth. If your inbound links start growing faster than traffic to your site would warrant, then Google might be inclined to look upon those links suspiciously.
Additionally, as blog stories go off the front pages, links from them are likely to diminish in value. So it will help if you content is valuable enough over the long term to continue to attract inbounds.
But Google understands the kinds of linking blips that popular stories can bring, and likes links that come via "natural" promotion.
| 9:11 pm on Jun 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
PS to the above... I hadn't seen tedster's link or Matt's video at the time I posted. My comments address more the rate of link growth... which is how Google might detect gaming the system under this social media scenario... rather than just the quantity. What underlies Google's philosophy of course relates to both.
Again, build good content for the long run. That produces the kinds of links that Google likes.
| 10:25 pm on Jun 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Ted: that all makes a lot of sense. Robert, thanks for your input and yea i agree if the content is not good enough and people do not stick to the site or come back for more, then the influx of link might not help in the long run.
| 6:46 am on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Increase sight weight age with good and useful content continuesly is inversely proportional for becoming spam under Google for doing aggressive promotions.
| 12:03 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Matt Cutts says “get as many links as you can” and maybe he has a news, entertainment, or some 'hot' blog in mind. Maybe he answered to the specific homepage of the questioner that was submitted to Google's Q&A.
Robert Carlton says promote in proportion to website traffic growth. These are probably for the niches that are more likely to be “sandboxed.”
I wonder how Matt Cutts would have answered the question if he knew the website was sandbox destined?
How many links do you think is acceptable initially for first 30 days of promotion of niches that are more likely to be sandboxed?
Note: By sandbox I don't mean the 30-90 days duration but rather the 6+ months variety.
| 1:06 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Matt Cutts says “get as many links as you can” |
I think that Matt Cutts was talking about natural links when he said this. He may have used the word "get" in a misleading way.
| 1:30 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Robert Charlton says promote in proportion to website traffic growth. |
That's not exactly what I said. I was talking about natural vs artificial link patterns, and it's natural that freely given inbound links would come from people who've seen your site and liked it. Promote all you want... just don't try to fool Mother Nature.
| 1:47 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I think that Matt Cutts was talking about natural links when he said this. He may have used the word "get" in a misleading way. |
I understood exactly what MC meant e.g. tweeting/digg/reddit and then hundreds/thousands of individual sites link to the source after reading the tweet/digg/etc. This is fine for certain sites but there are niches that no matter how much you tweet/digg/reddit will simply not generate links. A niche about Barak Obama is one thing a niche about certain nuts and bolts is another thing. The possibility/probability of such sites getting natural links is zilch. What then?
| 2:26 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|That's not exactly what I said. I was talking about natural vs artificial link patterns, and it's natural that freely given inbound links would come from people who've seen your site and liked it. Promote all you want... just don't try to fool Mother Nature. |
Hey didn't mean to misinterpret your post. It's what I got from it. I'm trying to understand what is acceptable and what is not. I despise links and look forward to the day when Google is brilliant enough to rank sites on actual content merit and true freshness (not scrapped). I never believed that 'Mother Nature' could be fooled. I just thought that there was a tangible number of acceptable self promoting links. Is there a number to say how many article marketing, guest posting, begging higher PR websites, links you can go after initially?
| 2:40 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I would say whatever you do to try and make it sustainable... I wouldn't go get all the links you can the first month, then leave yourself struggling to find links in 2 or 3 months and 'stuck' in 6, but I usually build on a longer-term model than most so I don't often try to 'take off out of the gate' but plan on it taking some time and building into traffic, so what I recommend may not apply to you and your specific situation.
| 3:10 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks MadScientist – I'm a bit anxious because I recently launched my second biggest project, based on the model of my first successful website. The first one to describe in your own words “took off out the gate”.
This latest website which was made according to webmasterworld classic website (minimum 100 pages (no BS) + 1 page everyday) seems very haggard. So I am thinking of abandoning my plan and going after more links (more article marketing + more guest posting).
This is why I wanted to know if there was a threshold, a tangible # of links we could safely self-promote per month. I know my new niche could be in sandbox affect, I wouldn't want to prolong it though by over doing my promotion of my site. A tangible # of links per month is or a rough estimate would be cool.
| 4:41 am on Jun 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Alright, I'll answer more specifically, generally, because IMO the total number of quality links changes from niche to niche, and in some it's natural to have more links than others as noted previously...
One of the biggest things I try to think about and I think is often not discussed enough are some of the points made in those old patent applications, which are specifically vague, but IMO give some insight to the thought process behind the methodology... Patterns are IMO one of the keys moving forward, so I would say the max number of links you can add is the total number of quality links / the time you want to build links before you hope pure natural growth replaces your need to build links.
One of the applications talked about two sites, each with 10 links and one being linked a year ago at the time of it's creation and one being linked now and the difference in the timing of the links added being a 'signal' of what's going on with each site right now. Link churn is another one, which talks about the rate of links added compared to the rate of links deleted being another signal.
Where everything gets a bit complicated and difficult to say a specific pattern of 'correct' for is when you throw QDF (query determines freshness) into the mix, because 'freshness' cascades much like PageRank, so a fresh link from a fresh page increases the freshness of 'older' content. Many people seem to think 'freshness' is always better and 'freshness' means 'new' WRT content, but that's not the case.
One example would be oiling a hinge... There are only a certain number of ways to do it, and a page with 'old' content presenting all the different possible ways may be an authority on the subject and receive links because of the 'inclusiveness' it has, which keeps the 'old' content fresh, so even someone publishing a new page about an 'old' subject does not necessarily make the content 'fresh' for the results generated.
Also, sometimes 'stale' is preferred in the results, so the aged, old, static links on pages that never change may be more of a benefit by keeping the page 'staler' than a brand new page with brand new links from new pages that are always changing...
If you go get a bunch of 'super fresh' links from Digg, Reddit, Tweeting, you will generate 'super fresh' which could be exactly what you need, but, in order to maintain the level of freshness over time, manage your link churn, and present 'still a hot topic' you have to maintain the inbound link pattern, otherwise the pattern is peaks and valleys until you build links again.
I had one page's traffic double from Diggs, but they were unsustained and the traffic only lasted about a week... The rankings of the page for certain terms increase in a similar pattern. The links weren't something I did, but had a huge effect on traffic right away, but it was a back-burner site, so as soon as the links were 'not the top thing' the rankings dropped back and the traffic went away.
Anyway, I would say figure out what you need, 'fresh', 'super fresh', 'relatively stale and stable', then figure out how many links you could build if you needed to, divide by the amount of time you want (or need) to build links before you think 'natural' growth will kickin and keep you at the level you need to be at to continue to rank and go from there.
It's a really complicated situational question for me to try and answer too much more specifically, because IMO to do it right, you have to do it in a sustainable, niche specific, search type specific way...
If it's a 'hot topic' type site, then press releases monthly and continuing quarterly while tweeting daily might be the answer, but if it's a content and information site to compete with something like WebmasterWorld, then solid, consistent, quality, 'trusted', aging, 'long-term-growth' oriented links are probably the best for you to build along with some tweets or something. If it's a 'how to oil a hinge' type site, then IMO tweeting daily would look pretty spammy and might do you more harm than good? IDK, don't have one of those, but it's an idea of how something might work well for one site and totally backfire on another.
I think there's a different 'method of madness' I would try to apply in different situations and a different type of link I would try to 'control' or 'grow' or 'focus on' personally while letting some of the other things 'take care of themselves' a bit more, but whatever I did I would try to make it sustainable, because if your natural link growth isn't enough to cover the lack of links you personally supply as soon as you stop building the pattern of links indicates 'less exciting' and that could be reflected in the rankings, maybe not today, but in 6 months or a year.
An example would be if you build 10 links a month yourself and pick up 10 links a month naturally... Your growth rate is 20 links per month until you stop building, then it's only 10, so the pattern is 'less interesting' over time, but if the natural link growth picks up and you go from 10 natural links a month to 100, then stopping your 10 link a month building campaign has much less impact.
I think that's about the best answer I can give, because I think it really depends on the specifics of the site, niche, situation, and even time you have to spend on it consistently.
Hope I make a bit of sense and give you an idea or two from my non-answer to your specific number question...
| 3:13 am on Jun 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks again MadScientist for a very insightful post. You relieved some of the pressure I was putting on myself. I am going with the long term sustainable approach that you recommended. I never looked at in terms of links that are stable and in for the long haul. Google is always devaluing certain types of links but you are absolutely right there are some links in website link profiles that have been around forever.
Bookmarked this piece.
| 7:13 am on Jun 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
15-25 links per month is safe compare to 50 or more a month.