| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > || |
|New Link Building Strategies Needed|
| 10:05 am on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Getting those first links required to kick-start a site to the far reaches of the web is tough. Looking at the web, I've often felt at times we are doing this all wrong, and thus paying for it dearly compared to the larger web companies.
These companies have incredible power, massive hoards of cash, networks, affiliates, branding and reach - while the poor ole webmaster has naff all in real terms. I mean let's admit it to ourselves, we are small time in comparison and it will take us years to make a dent in cyberspace compared to major brands out there, so our problem isn't about getting links - more the speed at which those links are obtained, indexed by the engines and out there working for us - and yes, the ease of how links are working.
Having now got 2 websites in cyberspace, I now realise a little of what's involved, but seems I haven't really won very much or made any significant headway at all. Yeah, yeah, I've developed some content, submitted to engines, directories, a few articles, done the many targeted link swaps, got few high PR links, been good and not spammed anybody blah blah - yet this tidal wave of links that everyone raves on about, hasn't happened, which says to me this isn't as easy like everyone makes out.
Ok, I've hung around the forums, read articles done this and that, and you know what I've discovered? The techniques may be free, but it's too slow and at this rate I'll be drawing my pension before I make it - how frightening reality can be. So what's the answer, hanging about the forums, hoping for that magical grain of info that suddenly ignites my linking knowledge that it propels my site to unbeatable heights? Probably not and can't see anybody divulging that info, and that's if they actually know anyway, which I seriously doubt.
I feel that as perhaps many do, a fresh linking perspective is needed to speed up this link building, and as the web is full of what shall we say 'bad signposting'?, then maybe it's time we stopped wasting valuable time on listening to folks that clearly send us in the wrong direction, and slowly at that, - and just step back to think about why methods fail and why we haven't 'made it'. Er, start again with a fresh, clean and lightening fast linking approach, feels right - after all the old ways are, well - old hat.
Now, it's going to seem tough to just stop using old linking methods, but if the results aren't there, then why continue. So, I guess you guys and gals want some kind of proof or reasoning before you welcome, anything new right?
Ok, I worked out some statistics based on my link building campaign, and this is just to show that I've done everything and covered all the basics, before anyone jumps in and suggests otherwise. I realise that many devote their lives to link swaps alone, which I found to be most unhealthy and time zapping, which is just plain nuts in my opinion.
K, mt site is established 5 years, has a PR6 homepage, most other pages PR of 4. Starting off I managed to get 700 links in various directories, also submitted to search engines as well as contacting various site owners and trading links.
Now, I suppose I could have gotten more links - way more, but that would involve linking to anything and anybody thus being untargeted for my needs and possibly inviting a ton of trouble in the process. So I deliberately kept my linking to my website's country and not ventured beyond that.
Despite those first 700ish links gained, all these links haven't produced squat - I repeat, they haven't produced, delivered any significant traffic, or enticed any new major linking partners or forced any type of major link surge. So, the question has to be why.
Have I linked to the wrong sites - no, as I've done what everyone else has done, eg: obtained first links so I get spidered, sent out link swap invitations, and this has helped a bit, but it's just not fast enough or produced this magic that so many brag about that's happened to their sites, which has made me think that this advice floating about the web ain't worth squat.
I get about oh, maybe 10 link requests per day from desperate webmasters - that's 50 a week, 200 hundred per month and 2400 each year. But I'd say 50% of these requests are unworthy, untargeted and not worth the results, so I delete them.
Maybe I should swap with junk sites, as that would speed up my link results. Ah, but hang on Mr forum member said NO, it's bad for me, and Mr Google says NO too, and that's just a wee bit controlling, wouldn't you agree?
And why do folks suggest this, why does Google not want me to engage in huge linking campaigns so I gain an advantage for my site? Excuse me, but it's my site - our sites yes or no?
Is this to do with Mr Google keeping it's index cleaner, stopping the spam websites?, constructing a better search experience for users? (thoughts on this would be welcome folks!), - I say nope, I say Google wants to control us for whatever reason, and that's just not right guys - right?. How does this 'link restricting' help webmasters - it doesn't, does it.
We need masses of links to truly make a difference yes - I think this is the truth and why we have to stop being afraid and allowing the search engines to control us, and do something for ourselves. Or we will be follwing the tired, old hat way of link building forever - you know it's true guys, so admit it.
Lets drop the old worthless ways, speed up the entire link building process and do some good for ourselves, which hopefully helps out others too. I see know reason why new link methods can't be introduced and actually beat the search engines grip on us.
I've never understood why folks are so afraid of Google, and infact isn't the entire web larger than Google - ofcourse it is, so stop being controlled by them then.
I see the way forward as viral, and any other link technique will always be inferior to that.
| 11:33 am on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just as you can do what you like with your site, so Google can with theirs; no point in agonising about it.
It's increasingly true that Google looks for quality links; relevant, natural, organic, call them what you will.
Your 700 directory links may get you a pretty green bar, but probably do very little for the serps. You'd have done as well in the green bar - and much better in the serps - with three links from three quality directories.
I agree viral is a good way to go - but to make it work, you need a quality site with quality content ... that does its own viral, organic, [insert favored term here], promotion of your site.
On the bigger issue of competing with the big guys, why bother? Much better to exploit a small niche, and do what the big guys cannot - provide a personal, interested, enthusiatic and quality service. That's the way forward for the little guy.
And if you do that, you needn't worry overmuch about Google; they just love that kind of thing - as much as they hate all those thousands and thousands of worthless directories, giving links that can never amount to a hill of beans.
Finally, never forget that the top ten sites for a key phrase can only ever include ten sites; that's not Google's fault, it's fact; and 'you cannae break the laws of physics'*
*copyright Scottie, Star Tek ;)
| 3:34 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My point and major problem is Google are in-charge of linking habits. They have no right to decide how others link, nor penalize because Mr Jackets site wants to swap with Mr Mop site, in order to get extra traffic flow.
Now Mr Mop, isn't targeted, but Mr Mop is a UK and can deliver UK visitors and thus both sites should pass uk traffic, and this is what they want. What is so bad about that type of exchange, it isn't the most perfect deal in Google's eyes, but it's not bad either.
But my position in the serps is somehow decided and not a random event, that keeps the serps fairer. In other words, Goog hasn't created a totally fair service, but instead created major problems for itself with sites the world over, break the linking rules to gain an edge, while honest websites are paying for it in terms of profit and all just based on link count.
Question is, will searchers navigate beyond a certain page, and keep navigating until they find what they want - or is Google and others so controlling that they force users to just prefer the top 20 or 30 results for any search?
I once viewed a engine/site with every single result on one page only, and I find that interesting and it cuts out all that chasing for links stuff. All this desperation over links can't be good for site owners, as it uses up much time for so little advantage - cannot be good for potential clients me thinks.
| 4:04 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>>> honest websites
I think what you mean to say is 'uncompetitive websites that don't rank'. There's nothing dishonest about buying links, nor is there anything dishonest about buying links strictly for the purpose of ranking. Google might try to suggest differently, but who put them in charge of ethics?
>>>Goog hasn't created a totally fair service,
Actually, Google is the great equalizer. With some decent marketing and SEO skills, anyone in the world can now take on huge corporations.
[edited by: wheel at 4:06 pm (utc) on May 1, 2007]
| 4:05 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|My point and major problem is Google are in-charge of linking habits. They have no right to decide how others link, nor penalize because Mr Jackets site wants to swap with Mr Mop site, in order to get extra traffic flow. |
But Google are not in charge of anything; they merely suggest how to behave if you want to do well in their index.
They do not decide how others link, and do not penalize outside of their own web site. On their own site, they choose what to display and how to display it, just as you do and I do.
If a restaurant demanded a jacket and tie, you make a decision - I wear jacket and tie / I dine elsewhere. No way is that restaurant in charge of your life. You are.
Google is really no different. And lest you tell me that Google has a 'monolopoly' on search, let me reassure you that they don't; they are the favorite search engine. Why? Because their jacket and tie rules allow them to provide a service that the majority prefer.
You still have an absolute choice; join that majority and share success, or go your own way.
But don't blame Google if you choose wrong.
Take responsibility for your own dress code. :)
| 4:12 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|but who put them in charge of ethics? |
Nobody; and they aren't.
They have their own standrads for their web site, just as (I assume) you have on yours.
Though those codes may be very different, you are each as entitled to have them. Google doesn't control your ethical standards any more than you control Google's.
Google cannot and does not propose to stop anyone buying and selling links. Why would they? How would they?
They have no control over you or your business practices; only their own. And their index.
| 4:20 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I know there's a minority that will disagree but new methods have been called for since the advent of link analysis and the likely application of statistical analyses of links several years ago.
|These companies have incredible power, massive hoards of cash, networks, affiliates, branding and reach - while the poor ole webmaster has naff all in real terms. |
With few exceptions, the larger the company the more their marketing efforts are constrained by the need to be professional/corporate/etc. This means they cannot link out except to professional partners, they cannot even sprinkle a few keywords here and there.
The benefit in being a "poor ole webmaster" is the lack of constraints and the ability to apply a greater variety of link building strategies.
| 5:33 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|they merely suggest how to behave if you want to do well in their index. |
So websites aren't forced to gain insane amounts of links to get on the first page in Google's results then? Yet Google say this is how to improve rankings.
But if they don't, then they don't get higher positioning.
|They do not decide how others link, and do not penalize outside of their own web site. |
So why do members here constantly complain about being dropped in this sandbox thing then? You quite sure Google doesn't penalize. But we have no choice, we have to use Google index on the basis they are big, and being big matters because of the traffic Goog sends, and so many use them to search for us.
|You still have an absolute choice; join that majority and share success, or go your own way. |
If only it was that simple. I don't use Google myself as a search tool, but they own adwords, which is so good, unless someone else matches that, it's really the best thing out there at this time. So maybe not much choice but to use them.
Pagerank isn't a form of control then? Forcing webmasters to trade links in return for what - improving Google's index. And what does the website get in return - a green pixel. Green pixels don't make sales or deliver traffic.
So Google has given zero value and fooled many into thinking otherwise. But what has Google given us really.... The only thing I can see is they invented a way to fight for status, and the status is a green bar, that many say is worthless anyway. The serps are a joke, which forces people into buying advertising, that advertising must have a link, and thus we are buying links which seems Google now frowns upon.
And now Google devalues links too. How can you win by linking now!
| 6:04 pm on May 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google are not forcing you to do anything; and links work the same way they always did, since hypertext was invented.
Don't BLAME Google; USE Google. That's if you wish to reach rhe 'jacket and tie' folk that choose to use Google's search. But don't ever say you have no choice; you do.
Don the tie and eat in style; or use 'spammerwear' - shorts and 15 year old T-shirt, I understand - and ignore Google's guidelines.
You'd be insane to exercise that choice, however.
| 10:34 pm on May 2, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It doesn't seem like there is any free advertising apart from 'line listings' in directories and SE's. But line entries are not effective, you can't get a weblink in a paper directory and online directory operators like Touch and Yell just want to sell overpriced links.
Thing is - the search engine results may give a freebie, except your site/link is hidden and competing with thousands of sites - so what chance is there of standing out. Never mind the problem of getting insane amounts of sites willing to link for nothing.
So the problem for webmasters is simple - 'How to get lot's of links fast'. I know, many say this is bad, Google doesn't like it, but do many really and truly love Google that much to allow them to dictate what they can do, who they link with and amount of links they can buy.
Eg: "I want to buy 300 links today, and trade 1000 in 1 week because this will get me more links and help me"
"Oh, but Google suggests this is bad, and will sandbox me if I look too good or get very popular quickly, and I'm so scared of Google, I better not do it"
The terrible stories about Mr webmaster site that gained 5000 links and was immediately punished for it. BUT, is this the real truth? Does Google really punish, and what happens if a site, like say youtube, goes on the web tonight and by next week has 1000'000 links pointing to it.
Many sites have gotten away with thousands of inbounds based on generousity, so why not every other site on the web? I don't see a problem, apart from affecting Googles results pages, which I doubt will make much difference to folks search experiences anyway. Information helps Google become a better resource, and will list practically anything all-purpose, so why punish.
I think it's necessary to get round this problem once and for all, before discussing how to drive massive amounts of traffic and links to a site. Or I can see folks getting it wrong and thus getting penalised - if this penalty thing is true that is.
So to recap - Does Google punish, and how to generate a ton of links quickly, so we don't need Google at all.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 10:40 pm (utc) on May 2, 2007]
| 11:06 pm on May 2, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>>I think it's necessary to get round this problem once and for all, before discussing how to drive massive amounts of traffic
Discuss that in the Google Search forum, please. We discuss link dev here, not Google's algo. Once you've gotten around it "once and for all," we'll still be here discussing link building strategies.
| 11:14 pm on May 2, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google cannot punish you in any way, though they can (of course) exclude your site from their listings.
|So to recap - Does Google punish, and how to generate a ton of links quickly, so we don't need Google at all. |
You generate whatever links you wish, and only you can decide if you "need" Google.
HINT: I'd look at your referrals before guessing the answer; if Google has served you well in sending you visitors, you may decide it's in your interest to keep your site acceptable to Google, rather than risk exclusion.
But the choice is yours, not Google's.
| 2:05 am on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've seen some great portals, I mean real works of art here. Good content, clean looking, 1000's of one-ways and high PR - ahhhhhh. No wonder people would kill and are desperate to get their link on something great, just think of the traffic it would bring.
Portals of this kind are quality, but just won't give out links for free, and there are few sites that allow free anything. Do we need free links? Ofcourse, except with 3 billion web pages out there, I feel webmasters are fearful of the damage the 'excrement' web sites can do to 'their' rankings and their offerings to visitors has to be considered also.
So they aren't going to link to scumwads, illegal sites or spammers for fear of ruining their reputations, and rightly charge for links. These charges are for very good reasons:
1. The site has costs which have to be met
2. Charges keep the scum away
I know it's a pain in the butt 'finding' half decent sites that want to link, but this is just going to get harder and harder to do. As I see it, there are 3 ways to gain links without the effort:
2. Viral Methods
3. Pray for Critical Mass
Ofcourse you could rely on luck - you might get lucky and pick up a whole load of links. I did obtain 20'000ish links inside of 4 years - but that was just jammy. Then again.......... But my point is that many liked what I had to offer, so perhaps my sudden surge of one-ways wasn't just out of kindness - I'm suggesting something I missed, the reason why those sites linked to me, without asking for a return link.
A Hidden factor that we all probably do, but neglected to recall the exact things we did that led to all those free links.
Imagine, that one of those things could be duplicated - we would be able to generate hundreds of links anytime we chose.
What factors were involved:
1. PR, mmmm, couldn't have been as my site back then was just a PR3.
2. My service was good, maybe not enough to attract all those one-ways.
So I'm thinking the site itself was quality, had enough quality feel about it to get sites to link to me. But cannot be sure.
Maybe this link surge thing just took hold at the right time, although it's certainly much harder to get freebies now.
Anyone else care to add some ideas to why people just link out for no reason.
| 7:28 am on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Taking it VERY broadly, there's two reasons you might get a surge of one way links with no discussion:
1. Your site's content has attracted them; something viral is happening; people are talking about your site, visiting in droves from blogs or forums, and a few are linking.
2. Some idiot rival is trying (and failing) to get your site associated with a bad neighborhood. This can ONLY work if your linking practice is negligent.
It'll be a variation on one of them; if it's a good site, a variation of (1). Well Done :)
| 8:03 am on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>>Anyone else care to add some ideas to why people just link out for no reason.
Nobody links for no reason.
| 3:26 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Nobody links for no reason. |
They link for themselves and nobody else. When I link, I give a link because that link helps my visitors in some way, so I'm not thinking "Oh I'll just help out this guy who I don't even know"
Now we have folks selling PR for profit, which has turned this web from a educational resource to a commercial marketplace, with education and help being ignored in favour of greed.
Linking isn't about kindness, it's about profit and greed. So it will be harder to get free links and the web eventually must become a 'link trading' place if it hasn't already.
A new approach to linking is needed, but I doubt this will solve anything longterm as links for profits is too advanced in it's motivations for anyone to give up such easy financial rewards.
This is why we have webmasters begging for links, reason: they can't afford £3000 to buy a decent link, and this is the webs own fault. So we have webpages built to sell links, to make enough profit to buy more links - the expensive link sellers make less profits because the link selling competition has grown, so they put up their prices etc etc.
The web's kind linking process will die out, and the sellers before that. It will be difficult if not nearly impossible to restore the free linking vision the web once had, and many will suffer that don't deserve to suffer, and it's a shame. But it's interesting to see what the link market place has now become.
This may open doors for folks of goodwill, to step in and do something great, but I just don't know. The problem is what to do when free links have vanished from the web.
| 3:50 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The web's kind linking process will die out, and the sellers before that. It will be difficult if not nearly impossible to restore the free linking vision the web once had, and many will suffer that don't deserve to suffer, and it's a shame. But it's interesting to see what the link market place has now become. |
This may open doors for folks of goodwill, to step in and do something great, but I just don't know. The problem is what to do when free links have vanished from the web.
Even if people are as selfish as you suggest, that does not mean that free linking will die out. Yes, free linking in response to requests may well die out, but that's probably a good thing.
Good sites will always link out, as providing links makes for a better site - and that has not changed, and no reason why it should.
As sensible webmasters will choose to link out to other good sites (in order to impress their visitors, if you need a selfish motive), then those Good sites will be benefiting from free links.
So now - as always - the best way to get free links, is to build a better site.
So what has changed?
[edited by: Quadrille at 3:51 pm (utc) on May 4, 2007]
| 4:11 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|When I link, I give a link because that link helps my visitors in some way... |
That's a reason. Nobody links for no reason.
|The problem is what to do when free links have vanished from the web. |
Will never happen. Those who can't figure out the free links are doomed to limp through the rest of their lives. This is something you have to work out for yourself. It's not going to be handed to you.
| 4:34 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|the best way to get free links, is to build a better site. |
This will not work without the missing igniter, which is Public relations. PR is the best way to promote, and there is nothing faster.
| 5:02 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Those who can't figure out the free links are doomed to limp through the rest of their lives |
There's nothing to figure out and it's not the issue here.
The issue is the only ones trading free links are webmasters - and even that is diminishing fast!
Businesses get enough spam and now get hassled by websites looking to gain some advantage, and really think some million pound company is going to hand them a link.
You won't believe the emails I get from some worthless webpage (mostly) begging me for a link. I get 200 a month mate, and it's worthless junk from scamsters or 15 yr old working from their bedroom. I wouldn't mind so much if the site approaching me was targeted, but they aren't, and the mind boggles why they bother in the first place.
This example will not get any better, and can see all companies becoming so peeved off, that they create a no linking policy.
Once they do it - that will be that. Spam will decide the fate of links, free or otherwise - you wait and see. I already have a policy and now hardly link out and many link requests are binned or told to get lost.
Using email to get links is over, it's old hat and people hate getting it. Why people use email when it has such a poor response rate I don't know, but I do chuckle when this form of 'marketing' is used.
I and others treat Direct mail in the same manner, so like I say, email laws will stamp out link swaps for good at some point, so a new way is needed for contacting.
A non-intrusive way would be good.
| 5:11 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The issue is the only ones trading free links are webmasters - and even that is diminishing fast! |
Nothing is diminishing. Those who can't figure out how to get free one-way links are going to limp through the rest of their internet lives.
| 9:43 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Step back and try a wider perspective. The success of Google has turned links into the currency of the internet.
Nobody gives away their currency for nothing. They want something in return. What do you have to offer that will entice others to share their currency with you?
Also.... as a previous poster said, a small number of links from good quality sites will do you far more good than hundreds of links from low quality sites.
Plus.... one very underrated and often misunderstood concept is LINK OUT to authority sites. Try it... you might be pleasantly surprised at the results.
| 1:42 am on May 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Search engines are really for sloppy and lazy people. Our laziness has encouraged them to overpower you. As we all know, everything appears smaller from a roof top. Google is popular; that's why some view that this is nothing but "Information Monopoly". Just change the situation! Some other search engine like MSN or Ask gets the top position, then I'm sure it will start its monopoly. Actually, we need to change our mind set. World Wide Web is not the private property of any search engines. It's ours and we can make this one better than any body else. Why should we let them earn millions->billions->trillions from our resource.
Let's get together!
I'm always with you
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:08 pm (utc) on May 5, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed foul language. See TOS. [/edit]
| 2:57 am on May 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|links from good quality sites will do you far more good than hundreds of links from low quality sites. |
Quality can mean many things, I prefer to have a load of links 'out there' than a few quality ones - unless, 1 single link delivers significant traffic, I have yet to experience that.
I assume by quality, you mean targeted traffic from an established site? Since I'm keen to find out new, faster ways to get links, you can assume this is less about quality and more about mass. Obviously, the more links gained quickly, is reasonable to accept the quality side of things will be much less, than 'hand-picked' links.
It's interesting the quality links are now highly sought after, and I'm wondering if this really has to do with 'PR ' and little else. Surely links are about delivering traffic over PR.
| 6:47 pm on May 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|This may open doors for folks of goodwill, to step in and do something great, but I just don't know. The problem is what to do when free links have vanished from the web. |
Free links won't vanish from the Web, but free "commodity links" from sites that aren't trusted by the search engines will become even less valuable than they are now. Think about it--if you were a search engine, which would you trust more:
- An e-commerce or affiliate site with 1,000 links from other e-commerce and affiliate sites, or...
- An e-commerce or affiliate with half a dozen links from major media or reference sites, or from other sites that have earned credibility by attracting such links?
Earlier, someone mentioned public relations. That's what you should be thinking about if you're running an e-commerce site. But to succeed with public relations, you need to offer something--whether it's a product or a unique way of selling products--that will interest an editor.
I run an editorial travel site, and I have no interest in featuring or linking to "me-too" hotel-booking sites, travel agencies, tour organizers, etc. BUT, if I run across a business that's doing something really interesting, I'll often link to it and--in some casess--I might even write an article about it.
For example, I recently wrote about a business in [big European city] that offers inexpensive behind-the-scenes tours of artisans' workshops, bakeries, etc. in partnership with the local tourist office. Those tours compete with tours marketed by one of my affiliate partners, but I've written about them (and linked to the business) because the tours are of interest to my readers and the coverage makes my own site more valuable as a travel-planning resource.
Here's another example: A long-established mail-order vendor of travel accessories has earned a lot of publicity by offering travel products for the paranoid (sleep sacks to protect hotel guests from bedbugs), oddball but entertaining accessories (activated-carbon seat cushions to absorb passengers' flatulence odors in airplanes), and products that tie in with travel journalism's cause du jour (airborne germs, TSA-approved locks and liquid carriers, etc.). Its Web site also has a useful wizard to help travelers choose the right plug adapters and voltage converters for the countries they'll be visiting. Such efforts pay off in publicity and links from major media.
Some of you may object, "I can't do that--it's too much work" or "I can't do that--it requires spending money." Maybe you're right. But don't blame the search engines for favoring sites that have acquired legitimate one-way, inbound links from trusted sites by offering great content, great tools, unique products, or something else that goes beyond the ordinary.
| 8:42 pm on May 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It's interesting the quality links are now highly sought after, and I'm wondering if this really has to do with 'PR ' and little else. Surely links are about delivering traffic over PR. |
I have sites with a fairly small number of quality links; they seem to deliver both, since you ask.
When people have hundreds of links from - for example - cr*p directories, they get NEITHER traffic NOR PR - they either get nothing (usually), or if they've been careless with reciprocals, they get a ban.
You show me someone with a cr*p site who has paid $50 for 5000 cr*p links, and I'll show you someone who (a) never expected - or got - any traffic at all, and (b) someone who expected PR and got zilch.
It took a while, but Google is REALLY learning to recognise qulaity; 'bout time more SEOs did, too. And, believe me, no decent SEO cares about PR; they rarely look at it, and NEVER sell their services on that basis; it's so 2004!
| 9:36 pm on May 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So we are talking purely quality links then. That's good.
But quality means many things, and to steer people in the right direction they need to know what a quality link is.
Are we talking about the link itself, having highly targeted links pointing to it. Or are we talking about the actual website the link resides on, being quality?
| 10:14 pm on May 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
An interesting question - and I think it might be worth exploring the detail - but in general, a quality link is a link from a quality site.
I really believe it's 'pull the ladder up' time - those with high standards should be sticking together, and none should be encouraging, mixing with, or supporting the thousands of sites that exist to plagiarize, display ads and give nothing to the web.
Dont get me wrong; I have nothing against - for example - affiliate sites. PROVIDED that they are not ONLY affiliate sites. At it's most basic, an Amazon reseller can have an interesting, unique, and useful site; one that displays an Amazon niche better than Amazon does. (not difficult!).
The key is UNIQUE content, and ADDING to the Internet experience.
By a vast coincidence, that's the hymn sheet that Google sings from; weirdly, while far from perfect, they are MUCH better, in general, at identifying such sites than the average link-seeking webmaster. Go figure!
And, of course, there are specialist quality sites, like quality directories. And while several threads discuss what THEY are, if you put yourself in the place of a directory user, it's all rather obvious ;)
| 9:21 pm on May 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Can anyone spell "B L O G S" - if you operate your own weblogs, they're much easier to get links from other bloggers, much easier to get toolbar PR and a great way to target pages deeper in your sites with your choice of anchor text. My experience anyway.
| 9:50 pm on May 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Blogs being used just to get links could be a very bad idea.
People will just be linking to the blog, and not to the site. The blog will need to be on the theme of the site, and not a seperate theme.
Expecting other bloggers to link to some unrelated blog may work, but then you'll end up with unfocussed links eg: Fishing blog links to boating blog. Yes, the blogs might be linking to other blogs, but one of the blogs is part of
a different site, and thus not seen as targeted.
Are blogs 'the best' way to go about generating links or is this actually about desperation and 'lets try the anything approach' because it's just easier and the easy route requires less effort or thought?
Better to play safe and be specialised in your linking, than take the general approach. But general is faster hmmmm - tricky one. Decisions, decisions
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |