homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.33.96
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

    
How to create a new links page
How to make a new links page
amythepoet




msg:3055526
 11:19 am on Aug 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Right now, I have five pages of links, each one has approx. 50 links

I would like to change the format and want to know what is best.

Now, they are all in categories, which is clear, but I thought perhaps I should streamline them somehow

any ideas?

Thanks

 

Quadrille




msg:3056101
 6:35 pm on Aug 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

There's nothing wrong with links; the more the merrier.

But from a purely SEO point of view, links pages are not a good idea; if they are not related to your site's content, they are often a bad idea and if they are links you have exchanged, then it's a very bad idea.

Links that occur 'as and when' and are related to the content of your pages is 'good practice'. Links pages may be entirely clean and innocent, but they can be risky if Google misinterprets their intention. And if you have many exchanges, thats more than probable.

But as with so much else, it aways depends on your site as whole. But worth thinking carefully about it.

DomainDrivers




msg:3058130
 1:35 am on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>and if they are links you have exchanged, then it's a very bad idea.

What proof is there of that?

Exchanged links, as long as they are relevant to your site, are all good

Anish




msg:3058249
 4:43 am on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

What proof is there of that?

I completely agree. As long as the link exchanges are relevant nothings wrong. Plus, infact our compitetor has overtaklen us in SE rankings just by same means. his number of inbound links has increased from 3500 + to 9000 + in a time span of just 4-5 mnths.
Has a whole list of links in a form of directories plus certain links are not relevant at all.

whats other peoples take, pls recommend...

toothake




msg:3058252
 4:53 am on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

"What proof is there of that? "
unfortunately agree ,people with thousands od recip links have overtaken the top spots.

Quadrille




msg:3058435
 9:04 am on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

I agree that a 'related' link exchange is not necessarily a bad thing; but one you start doing it on a large scale - pages full of the things, which is what we're discussing here, rather than a few here and there - then sooner or later you are going to tangle with a bad beighborhood; in fact, these days, sooner rather than later.

Reciprocal links here and there, so long as they are related, are just fine - once you exceed that, there are risks. That's my point.

amythepoet




msg:3060365
 3:56 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks Quadrille

something to ponder

DomainDrivers




msg:3061390
 4:12 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am not trying to be contentious here. I am trying to advance this disucssuion by bringing to the table some real experience at this work.

First, when people start using "scare tactics" about bad neighborhoods and such, my first question is always:

- How much reciprocal linking work have you actually done?

In working with hundreds of sites, I have yet to see anything that resembles a "bad neighborhood" penalty coming from geniune, relevant reciprocal linking. Not a single instance. The threshold is extremely high. You have to try hard to get it.

I have seen the effect of people joining a reciprcal link network, in which every site in the network posts the same link data. That is a bad neighborhood, and it can get you clobbered. Maybe. I have also seen people get away with it, for years.

One way to get away with it is to seriously dilute the effect of the network. That is, go beyond it wth other links. The dilution brings the site under the radar.

Real estate is ripe with these cooked-up link networks. If that's the only thing a site is doing for links, I'd watch out.

Genuine reciprocal linking is not an inter-linked network of the same sites. Everyone you link to is linking to a whole range of other people, but most of them are also in the same realm of interest. You are actually participating in a cluster of sites in the same realm, but all of them only associated loosely

Second, large directoires are just fine, as long as they are relevant. That's called working harder in this business. Again, every site we work with has large directories, and when we first start, they are 100% unreciprocated.

It has never been a problem.

It's one thing to speculate about what happens with reciropcal linking. It's quite another to see what really happens, as a result of actually doing a lot of it, properly.

When that's done, the scare tactics and other myths that are spread around these forums vanish.

People can take advice from people who don't have real experience, or they can listen to people who do. I am just here to provide some perspective from the someone who has worked on hundreds of sites, over the period of 1997 to 2006.

With that experience, I can state unequivocally that proper reciprocal linking is valid, and it works. And the sites who do more of it than others tend to have an advantage, for a lot of reasons.

But people can decide whatever they like.

Finally, I don't often encounter sites with thousands of reciprocal links. Getting 1000 reciprocated links is a monumental task, and it's actually rare.

I do see sites that have those 1000 links often get a whole lot more links that are one way, since other sites link to these magnets. A lot of the one way links they get are also quite good, from forum postings, product references, content citations, etc. but the magnet site is not linking back to them. That is called "link expansion", and it is certainly a big reason why sites at the top stay at the top.

But if they got there properly, it's all good.

amythepoet




msg:3062483
 12:15 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks again DomainDrivers.

Now, I've been told that I should somehow redo my links pages and am not quite sure how to go about this task.

I have 5 pages of links, broken down into categories that are very nice.

But in your opinion, should there only be one main page for links and then have that broken off into separate pages?

I'm confused., as you can tell...

Thank you

martinibuster




msg:3062792
 7:19 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

In working with hundreds of sites, I have yet to see anything that resembles a "bad neighborhood" penalty coming from geniune, relevant reciprocal linking.

Uhm... could it be because genuine sites tend not be in bad neighborhoods?

Quadrille




msg:3062822
 8:50 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am not trying to be contentious here. I am trying to advance this disucssuion by bringing to the table some real experience at this work.

First, when people start using "scare tactics" about bad neighborhoods and such, my first question is always:

- How much reciprocal linking work have you actually done?

In working with hundreds of sites, I have yet to see anything that resembles a "bad neighborhood" penalty coming from geniune, relevant reciprocal linking. Not a single instance. The threshold is extremely high. You have to try hard to get it.

It isn't about scare tactics; it's simply recognising that many do not necessarily have the skills you do in recognising a spam/scam link request; they are extremely common, and many people get caught.

I spend a fair bit of my forum time at a forum where we do site reviews, and innocent linking to bad neighborhoods, including 'spam' directories, is a major cause of Google problems; in fact, it tends to be in the top three things we look for when someone says 'Google doesn't like my site'.

I've said before, and I'll say again, reciprocal linking is not necessarily bad - but it is a risk for the unwary, and those who know no better than to assume a polite request for a reciprocal link is what it says.

In practice, it may be

1. Exactly what it looks like - a polite request
2. A spam request from someone who wants to sell your email address
3. A scam request from someone who wants a 'good link' and will return no link, a nofollow link, a javascript link, or a link from a deep page in return for a front page.
4. A sad request from someone who doesn't even know they are in a bad neighborhood
5. A request from a MFA directory that will disappear from Google within 3 months
6. A request from a link farm that accidently forgets to say "by the way, this is a link farm"

... and I could go on. These people prey on those who just do not yet have the experience to assess a request that maybe you could assess in 10 seconds!

There is software promoted all over, enabling people to create 'reciprocal link requests' that are no more than spam, and yet appear personalised.

We were all learning once!

Reciprocal links need relevance, and care, then they can be very useful.

[edited by: Quadrille at 8:53 am (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

DomainDrivers




msg:3063059
 2:26 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>But in your opinion, should there only be one main page for links and then have that broken off into separate pages?

Amythepoet,

Every link directory we have ever created has a main categories page, and a separte page for the site in each respective category.

That way, you present both your readers andyour link partners with a decent directory. As for the link partners, people really don't like to see their link on randomized page system.

DomainDrivers




msg:3063061
 2:29 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>Uhm... could it be because genuine sites tend not be in bad neighborhoods?

martinibuster....yes, exactly.

DomainDrivers




msg:3063068
 2:39 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Quadrille,

Not dounbt that there are abusers out there in reciprocal linking. Just like with almost every other aspect of linking.

All kinds of people come along and propose a shortcut, be it "press releases", link networks, article distribution, paid text ads, etc. etc. There is garbage everywhere.

I am just here to state that reciprocal linking, done correctly (which can inlcude considerable quantities), is a huge benefit to a site. It always has been, and it has stood up well to every algorithm change.

We know this from direct participation in the process, across hundreds of sites, and more, if you count the sites that we link with.

Can people do it improperly, either out of ignorance or out of a false sense of gaming? Certainly. People can also buy some really crappy text link ads, and waste time and money, etc.

Its a bg world out here in web marketing. Money must be spent wisely. Decisions must be made. The unwitting will make bad ones.

I can't save the world from itself. That's not my job. I can only say that, if this work is done properly, there is nothing to fear from reciprocal linking.

amythepoet




msg:3063686
 10:46 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Domain Drivers, thank you again

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
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