| 11:20 pm on Oct 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
11. Devise some unique tools or interactive gimicks to be used as link bait. I'm not talking content for your site, but content which can you can offer other sites to use, and within this would be a free link back to your site. For example, one of my websites is based in the gambling industry and I often get a couple of sites ask if I want a calculator tool for my site. They're usually done in flash and all they ask is for a link back. Obviously this is going to be different for each niche, and you probably have to think 'outside the box'. It has to be something that offers added value to other sites but something that can't easily be replicated.
| 3:33 am on Oct 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'll go with Timmy's method anyway, because it's win-win.
| 12:26 am on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Very interesting. I like the link bait technique too. I'm still kind of new in this SEO thing but I managed to get several links to my site now.
Hopefully I'll get better. :)
| 11:49 pm on Oct 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I was about to do a link campaign with technique 3. Does anyone here think it that likely that I penalized?
I guess Google will see that I have 100 or so particular links pointing to my site, and see another site giving links to these exact 100 sites, that would obviously be no coincidence.
| 1:26 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Whatson, I think the point is, if Google is not doing this already, surely they may very well do so in the future. Do you value your domain name? Is it a throw-away domain that you can affor to lose should Google knock you down? If you value your domain and all the work you have in it already, it probably would be too risky. If you have many sites and don't mind losing one, it may be worth it to give it a shot.
It doesn't matter if this is black hat, white hat, or grey hat. After all, what kind of hat does Google wear? It is a matter of risk. I know what it is like to have a top-ranking site beating many large corporations only to get hit by Google and never to recover. Are you willing to take a chance? You could try your luck in Los Vegas too.
| 7:46 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You are right, its just such easy strategy to build links, but after everything i have put into this site, I cant even begin to afford any risks with serps.
| 9:47 am on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The problem is, if you don't do anything, you won't get anywhere either. It is an uncomfortable situation for everyone. I wish it were a different game with a different set of rules.
| 2:26 pm on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|3. Does anyone here think it that likely that I penalized? |
I think a solid few percent of the people you send the email to will forward it on to the Google spam team.
| 3:18 pm on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think a solid few percent of the people you send the email to will forward it on to the Google spam team. |
Yes, there is always a risk of that. There are plenty of people who think they are wearing white hats. When sending emails asking for links, be careful what you write. Never mention subjects such as search engine rankings. Years ago, webmasters used to say things like, linking will improve ranking. Some foolish webmasters are still doing that. It is better to mention why you feel your content would be of interest to their site visitors.
| 9:13 pm on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So unless your site creates a new revolution like Digg or Facebook, you cant rely on good content and people eventually linking to your site.
There must be a proactive stand you can take without risking your SERPs.
I guess thats why some of the SEOs do casinos and things, because you only need to be ranked for a month to make it all worth while.
| 11:34 pm on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have a new site out there but I've been very careful in attempting any link strategies. Spooked really. So I'm taking my time. In reality I only need a half dozen good inbounds to capture a good local market.
What's the view on blogs today? I just started one and placed one link to the new site. It's topic related.
| 11:45 pm on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So what is the linking strategy using blogs? In a white hat manner of course.
| 12:38 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Effort free and make others do the linking to you. Ofcourse one has to give something for the link, but heck, there's always some price to pay for great rewards.
But the way to go isn't to do with recip links, 3 ways or other link hunting, forget all that rubbish as I guarantee you will waste your time.
Some would argue the way is only held back by your imagination and creative ability, but it isn't enough to think of an idea, throw it onto a site and hope it works - even the best linking idea will fail if it's attached to a bad business idea. As with all things, the site must be fantastic and wanted by everybody, far beyond the webmaster community. Then when you have that idea, then and only then can a linking plan work - but you will have to give up something pretty useful for untrusting to bite.
Link Hunting is small time and websites are wise to it. It will soon be a worthless activity, as so many now charge quite hefty fees for placement.
I hardly swap links anymore because of the hassle involved and so little gain. Okay, I got a boost in the serps of my fave engine, but this placement hasn't exactly boosted my profits, which is the main aim I believe.
| 1:22 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|after everything i have put into this site, I cant even begin to afford any risks with serps |
That's it exactly. You have to evaluate the risk based on what you have put into your site.
| 3:12 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I can tell you that #3 and #4 work like a CHAMP. Google may spread fear by claiming they can detect those methods, but I'm seeing lots of top rankings that prove they either can't, or aren't, detecting them.
| 3:48 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You may be right but it would surprize me if Google can't figure out a way to do it. Google is nothing more than a database with billions of records. They know who is linking to who so how is it that they cannot detect clusters of links? Are there any database programers on the board who could write a program to do just this? I am really curious to know.
| 4:06 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm a database programmer. I can tell you that the answer is: yes, it's possible. But "possible" and "practical" are not the same thing.
Some of the sites I'm seeing that use these methods have ranked very well for years now. So apparently, for whatever reason, Google has not worked this detection into their algorithm. Perhaps it's much more difficult to apply this kind of detection across billions of pages than people seem to realize?
| 6:41 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The best possible campaign I think you can have is natural links, and a combination of non-forced / setup links to websites.
I have always found that a natural profile of diverse linking is what helps me, and not so much any 'one' method.
Some of my links are paid links in content on topically related websites.
Some links are links where a website suggested I list a different resource but gave me a great link in return.
Some are from articles, some are high ranking reciprocal websites.
My sense is that a natural grade and diverse link profile works best.
| 7:57 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
jonathanleger, I am not suggesting that three-way links are the way to go but you brought up an interesting point I had been thinking about 3 hours before you even posted it. Possible but not practical. Perhaps in order to determine a cluster, you would have to query an inbound link to site A from site B against every inbound link to site B. Then do the same with site C which is also linking to site A. If site A had 2,000 inbounds and each inbound linking site had an average of say 500 inbounds, that is a lot of checking. If Google had to go through all that for every site in its database, it probably would not be practical.
However, it might be possible for Google to do that in special cases whereby a red flag was raised regarding a suspected site.
Another problem with 3-way linking is that in most cases an seo makes a three-way link proposal in an email sent out to prospecitve linking partners. If it falls into the hands of a white hat samaritan who takes pleasure in reporting people, that could spell trouble for anyone taking this risky fork in the road.
| 10:30 am on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Strategies will vary according to market sector.
In entertainment there is a strong dependency on reciprocals and on my site they typically generate at least a third of the traffic.
| 12:00 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Perhaps in order to determine a cluster, you would have to query an inbound link to site A from site B against every inbound link to site B. Then do the same with site C which is also linking to site A. If site A had 2,000 inbounds and each inbound linking site had an average of say 500 inbounds, that is a lot of checking. If Google had to go through all that for every site in its database, it probably would not be practical. |
That's my point. To rerun that kind of checking on a dozen billion pages with enough frequency to keep the results fresh requires a lot of processing power. Now, Google has a lot of processing power, but is it enough to make this kind of check practical? Current search results indicate that Google doesn't think it is.
| 9:52 pm on Oct 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Best stratergy I find is to buy a domain with all the edu, govs, dmoz etc. That is the trust element taken care of. Throw up content and then blast the paid links. It costs 1000's to do but if you pick the right sector you can have it back in 10 days once your site is ranking and indexed.
| 12:11 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've been lucky to be in a field where I can attract occasional links from edu, govs, and such. But I must say it's a lot harder even for that now. In the old days I could write related sites just announcing my site or a new section. Now people get so many pleas for links my letters are ignored as just another person wanting to exchange links. And I don't even mention links.
| 1:58 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This is really the main strategy to achieving the top results for the most competitive terms.
You can only optimize a website's content so much, the rest has to be made up with links and Pagerank.
We all know of ways to build links, but the dilema is how much risk are you willing to take.
The major sites take very little risks. As they dont really need to, its quite easy for a major fortune 500 company to get a PR8 or even a 9. These days however you are seeing a lot of these major sites cross-linking all their other sites, perhaps 5-10 of them, all at the top, passing on PR. How the hell can we compete with 5 or so PR8s cross-linking every page?
The Internet industry has just become another capitalist industry, where the small man once again has no chance.
Is this how you really wanted it Google?
| 7:00 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The Internet industry has just become another capitalist industry, where the small man once again has no chance. |
Is this how you really wanted it Google?
Yes, the level playing field is no longer level. I have a feeling Google wants the big corporate types to rank high and might even have some prejudice in the algo.
| 7:17 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The internet is like real life. Survival of the biggest. If it mirrors us then the corps should have all the serps because that is how it is in the real world.
| 7:17 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Crush. Establish trust via authority domains like EDU's. LIB's, GOV's DMOZ and some trusted authority paid directories. If you are in the health sector, you might acquire some links from high quality Doctor or dermatology websites.
Once that trust is realized, it seems that almost any kind of properly researched paid link and one way 'type' link work
| 7:37 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The major sites take very little risks. As they dont really need to, its quite easy for a major fortune 500 company to get a PR8 or even a 9. These days however you are seeing a lot of these major sites cross-linking all their other sites, perhaps 5-10 of them, all at the top, passing on PR. How the hell can we compete with 5 or so PR8s cross-linking every page? |
They often (not always) mess up when it comes to optimising for specific searches. They do SEO with a broad brush, but can be beaten by good content, detailed SEO work and some risk taking on the link buying. I see an affiliate has made it into the top ten for the most competitive poker term. There's hope!
| 8:37 am on Oct 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, it is like a religion, isn't it?
| This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 (  2 3 ) > > |