| This 160 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 160 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) || |
|Something different - Revenue model of the Future?|
| 3:29 am on Feb 7, 2013 (gmt 0)|
While most of you are begging for, and heavens forbid, even paying for links (rofl), I get so many unsolicited links every day that my page rank is off the chart.
Now, I am more used to lurking in shadows, than being under the spotlight and I am feeling a bit uncomfortable.
Sure I get a kick at looking at the green bar, and it's something to tell and impress my friends, but as Donkey says" I aint got no friends".
And the thing is, these links aren't making me rich.
So I am trying to come up with a angle so something is in it for me.
And I have come up with a idea of charging the websites that link to my websites $5 each for the privilege.
What do You think?
A cool Million would be nice.
So while you are begging them, I am fighting them and making them pay or I will threaten to disavow their links!
This should be the revenue model of the future and Google should encourage it.
What could be a better recommendation that someone actually pays to link to you!
Page Rank, will become Paid Rank and the site with the most number of paid links to it wins!
As well as the attribute of No follow, we will have "Paid for" which Google will credit both the site paying and the site receiving.
So guys start expecting a email from me soon asking you to pay me 5 bucks or else.
| 10:18 pm on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Very amusing thread and thanks to cabbie for posting it. Had to check my diary to check that wasn't April Fools Day.
| 10:45 pm on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|With Google being such a driver of traffic and income for online business, and also playing games with backlink related penalties, the idea of restricting who can link to your site certainly has some appeal, doesn't it? |
Seems like either Google should either stop this BS, or websites should get the legal right to stop unwanted links.
:: racking brains ::
:: searching for correct wording ::
Has everyone gone stark staring bonkers?
Given entities A, B and C.
Entity B engages in an activity involving entity C. Knowledge and/or consent of Entity C is not deducible from available evidence. Entity A disapproves of entity B's behavior, and responds by taking action which is intended to be detrimental to entity C.
Solution: Enact legislation which makes entity C responsible for policing the behavior of entity B.
| 10:48 pm on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe I live on the other side of the web. Because I don't get how linking to authority website can make one's article better. Anyone? Please explain. |
It doesn't necessarily make an article better, other than academic reasons like citing your sources, or recommending further reading.
But, for an SEO reason, there is one. Can't remember if I've ever seen this as part of the official Google SEO guide or not, but I think the hypothesis behind it is that Google doesn't like people hoarding their link juice. That they prefer people link to related articles where there is more information on the topic.
So they reward websites that do this at some level. It's a very minor ranking factor at best. But it is also very possible that this is an SEO myth that's been propagated over the years.
As for me, I will link to other websites as I see fit, as that's the entire reason the web was created in the first place: to link between online documents with hypertext. As an added philosophy in the age of Google, we link to documents that we think provide good value to others.
As an added note, the disavow tool wasn't meant for this purpose. If something like this takes off, I can only imagine it'll be pulled from Webmaster Tools in short order for widespread abuse. Then what are people supposed to do in situations where black hats actually are trying to employ a negative SEO campaign? Its use for Goog TOS violations notwithstanding.
| 3:00 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
This is for anyone who imagines themselves to be part of it:
The Missing Link
I've come up with a cunning plan
That's radical and new
I'm going to charge for inbound links
I've really thought it through
The forums and the chatrooms all
Are full of URLs
And I can charge directories
In any barren spells
There's links in Word and PDFs
In Messenger and Mail
Those vile link-violaters
Should all be put in jail
They may have found a loophole but
I will not be defeated
I'll charge for links on Twitter next
And hope they get re-tweeted
And "Bitly" links from Libya
I must get paid for those
And private Facebook pages too
See how my profit grows
And don't forget the ODP
An invoice on the way
It all seemed so inviting 'til
I started work today
Like candy from a baby was
How it was meant to go
"Pay up or else" I'd say to them
But people just said "No"
I tried to write to Google too
They can afford to cough
But I just got a canned response
That told me to "F*** off"
My dream became a nightmare
I tell you man, it sucks
My business model was a joke
Can you lend me five bucks?
| 4:17 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
| 4:36 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
<Standing Ovation> Bravo !..</Standing Ovation>
| 5:05 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
| 6:08 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
And there we have it, the opposition "jumping the shark", fighting so vehemently to defeat an idea that if it were as bad as led to believe wouldn't need any opposition at all.
I'm sure the early map makers who could only draw maps of a flat world were as vigorous in their protest of the idea that the world is round...
| 6:45 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
And early human-likes thought they could fly like birds. I bet there was an opposition for that too...
| 7:25 pm on Feb 16, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I think this thread has run its course.
| This 160 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 160 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) |