homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.33.5
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 ( [1] 2 > >     
Three way linking
New ones, please
Geda




msg:3389684
 4:27 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

How many combination you know? Especially a ways wich involves feeds?

 

Quadrille




msg:3389742
 5:38 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Are you seeking advice on SEO suicide?

If not, maybe you should rephrase the question.

Three-way linking has been a fairly ineffective and high risk way to game the search engines for a couple of years now.

cnvi




msg:3389749
 5:43 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

if you google "three way linking suicide", you will find a number of articles written by various experts explaining why three way linking is not the best solution for link development.

Geda




msg:3389750
 5:44 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

It is your opinion => it means that you do not use it => I am asking people who use this tactic

Geda




msg:3389773
 6:01 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

BTW 3-way linking is much more effective than a reciprocal linking :)

TimmyMagic




msg:3389924
 9:01 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Even IF it is more effective, it must be much harder to get them. I constantly get such email requests, and I've yet to have one that benefits me. Usually it's a link from a completely rubbish site full of spammy links. They usually expect me to be grateful for this link and link to their site. I never do.

Geda




msg:3389985
 10:58 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Please if you don't know the answer - do not post about how it's bad - it is your opinion!
I heard about some new tecnique of 3 way linking feed.

Quadrille




msg:3389995
 11:09 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

We were just trying to help; the people using it are as doomed as you.

You'll thank me later ;)

Geda




msg:3390007
 11:29 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

O'k :)

[edited by: Geda at 11:49 pm (utc) on July 9, 2007]

JudgeJeffries




msg:3390029
 11:55 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Geda - the se's can easily detect three ways, hell you can do it yourself with the right script and the entire process really does smack of SEO.
There may be a few occasions when a three (or more) way might be right but industrial strength linking in this style is like waving a flag, a red rag to a bull. Don't be surprised if you pay the price.

Geda




msg:3390034
 11:58 pm on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I want to apologize for being a bit bitchie (see above), but could someone tell is LZZR 3 way linking tecnique deserves attention?

Quadrille




msg:3390203
 5:04 am on Jul 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm always a little suspicious of sites with a dark background, but that's just a personal preference.

As to the content, it's hard to work out what's so special; the latest fashion seems to be to link to authority sites (whether they link to you or not), and claim it as 'the last SEO secret'. I'm seeing that all over.

Nothing new, original or secret there, then!

This may be a variation of that, though I'm really not sure.

Geda




msg:3390583
 2:08 pm on Jul 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

"sites with a dark background" Black Hat SEO usually have them :)

[edited by: Geda at 2:56 pm (utc) on July 10, 2007]

[edited by: martinibuster at 4:45 pm (utc) on July 17, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed specifics. [/edit]

Quadrille




msg:3390601
 2:22 pm on Jul 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

That sounds like a plain vanilla link farm (seo suicide by subscription!); how does he propose to evade detection?

Most of the industrial link farms have already crumbled - or started to.

CainIV




msg:3394179
 8:50 pm on Jul 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Three-way linking has been a fairly ineffective and high risk way to game the search engines for a couple of years now.

Rubbish. Three way linking is alive and well in fact from the SERP's and sites I see.

What is a three way link afterall? Its a one way link from another site, giving a link back from another location. It happens all the time on the Internet unintentionally and intentionally.

JohnRoy




msg:3396575
 3:51 am on Jul 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

  • Jim's site is all about link building.
  • Jane has a site about html editing.
  • Joy manages a site on online marketing.
(Jerry suggests) the three of them do a circle link exchange (aka 3 way link).
Jim to Jane -> Jane to Joy -> Joy to Jim.

From a SE perspective what's irrelevant and/or not helpful for their visitors with this?

lakr




msg:3396751
 8:18 am on Jul 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am using three-way linking, and I may abandon it after reading your posts, is it too late? and How can Google detect this.

martinibuster




msg:3397203
 4:51 pm on Jul 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>>How can Google detect this.

The search engines create a map of linkage patterns. Clusters tend to form. They identify clusters that tend to resemble attempts to manipulate ranking. Those clusters can also be referred to as neighborhoods. Webmasters who end up in those clusters visit here asking how long it takes to get out of the sandbox. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Quadrille




msg:3397553
 11:06 pm on Jul 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

(Jerry suggests) the three of them do a circle link exchange (aka 3 way link).
Jim to Jane -> Jane to Joy -> Joy to Jim.
From a SE perspective what's irrelevant and/or not helpful for their visitors with this?

If the link is for the search engines, then it's silly. If it's for visitors, then why not do three lots of two-way links? SEs can tell the difference. Easily.

And three way links are very rarely for visitors, are they? Nor are six-way links, or 134-way links. And if I can spot 'em by eye, you can bet your sweet bippy that Google can with their algo at 500 paces.

There's rarely anything wrong with linking to a related site, even a reciprocal arrangement is OK - so long as both sites are OK. It's trying to game Google that's wrong; ethically, AND in SEO terms, AND practically; a simple risk assessment says the risks far outweigh any benefit. And that's been true for over a year now.

lakr




msg:3397760
 5:09 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

I do not know it is Three way link or not:

The company who conducts SEO for our company, they build link for our site though we do not have link page, so I guess that they have their own websites to exchange links.

A (my website)
B (Their website)
C (Websites link to us)

B link to C
C links to A
A not link to C

Is it three way link pattern? if so, how can we tell the SEO company to stop that?

Awaiting your help.

Lrk

lakr




msg:3397811
 6:42 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

If I tell them (SEO company) put the nofollow tags on their site (B)to all the sites that link to us (A) or use robot text to block those link page. Will it fix the problem?

martinibuster




msg:3397882
 7:48 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>>Will it fix the problem?

You mean the problem of having a sketchy SEO company working for you?

[edited by: martinibuster at 8:03 am (utc) on July 18, 2007]

lakr




msg:3397888
 7:52 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thank you, Martinibuster, no, the problem of three way linking.

I want to get rid of it (three way linking) by putting nofollow or use robot text on the link page (the SEO company website.

Any other ways?

Rgrds,

Lrk

lakr




msg:3397889
 7:55 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes, of course, what a crap SEO company, they are deploying bad or black hat technique for my sites. I will get rid of them too. But the matter now is how to get out of this three way linking?

Quadrille




msg:3397939
 9:20 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Tyhe best thing to do to protect your site is check the OUTGOING links, over which you have full control.

Remove any that you do not recommend; remove any that are not relevant to your visitors, remove any where the site is spammy-looking.

Remove any that - for any reason - you are not entirely 100% happy with.

Quality links are the best thing in the world for your site; poor links are the reverse, and can do real harm.

Whatever silly games the "SEO" is up to, cannot hurt you if you take care of ALL the outgoing links.

lakr




msg:3397941
 9:26 am on Jul 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thank you, Quadrille, however, you seem not to read my post, I am mentioning about the three way linking.

My website does not have link page, the SEO company build links for my websites using their own ones. (in other way, I am involving in three way linking and I really want to get out of it)

lakr




msg:3398816
 7:29 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

3 way links work for the short term. Two words about 3 way links that everyone should know and any good seo would know, its "black hat".

There is a lot of talk about the moment that G will penalize any site using 3 way links so you might want to research this further.

So how to fix it?

Quadrille




msg:3398851
 9:12 am on Jul 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thank you, Quadrille, however, you seem not to read my post, I am mentioning about the three way linking.

My website does not have link page, the SEO company build links for my websites using their own ones. (in other way, I am involving in three way linking and I really want to get out of it)

Nope, I can read, I did read, and I gave the appropriate advice.

If your site is involved in one way, two way, three way ... four thousand way linking, you protect your site by 'breaking the link' - you remove all links on YOUR site that have any connection with the linking scam; you are responsible for links you have to other sites; if these are part of a link exchange scheme (of any kind), you site is at risk.

Once you remove all suspect links (indeed, any non-quality link) FROM your site, you only have to worry about links TO your site.

But Google has made clear that in their view, you are NOT responsible for links TO your site ... unless such links are part of an exchange scheme.

So removing links FROM your site also protects you from 'suspect' links TO your site.

As I said above ;)

CainIV




msg:3399741
 5:36 am on Jul 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's trying to game Google that's wrong; ethically, AND in SEO terms, AND practically; a simple risk assessment says the risks far outweigh any benefit. And that's been true for over a year now.

I would disagree and am interested in why you would think this is unethical

A risk assessment shows me in my sectors that this is live and well and has been for over two years. Despite silly scare tactics from SEO newsletters, I would like a comment on whether anyone has proved this is detrimental to a website?

Quadrille




msg:3399813
 8:47 am on Jul 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you missed the wails and screams of the link farm brigade - over a year ago now - then lucky old you.

They didn't get them all on first sweep; a few smaller ones were still sliming along earlier this year.

But Google has stated several times that they don't like it; and scheme after scheme has collapsed.

Be warned; you'll thank me later.

On the ethics question, there's no point in debating it. You have your ethics, and I have mine. Words will not change that.

I suggest to you that you have overestimated the benefits, and underestimated the risks. Time will tell who's right.

This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 ( [1] 2 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved