| 6:08 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think the best way to describe the multi link penalty is that the particular penalty is based on the "normalized" rate of new inbound links.
Where cnn.com would get on average 1000 new links per day from all the sites linking to different news stories. As long as that rate is normal, then everything is ok.
A new site that gets like 20 links per day, then all of a sudden gets 2000 in one day, well then there's tom foolery going on there and the penalty gets slapped. Once that penalty is slapped, over time it will go away.
Try to avoid any anomalies. Slowly ramp up your linking strategy.
| 6:10 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Here it is, check out this thread:
| 3:36 am on May 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Not sure if we're allowed to post 1 liner "thank you" responses, but thank you! That was a great read.
| 6:53 pm on May 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I have found that if you have an older site that has been related to the topic for some time you can slam a page pretty hard with the right types of links and rocket up the serps.
Of course, many links come from blogs/news sites/social networks and the very nature of these links is to build rather fast. Typically a decent amount of links from these sources in a short period of time signals quality/importance or at least interest. Of course, some are gaming this like anything else, but it wouldn't make sense for google to throw out sites that attract attention when those are often the very sites that are the most relevant and "important"....look at the domain you are using first always
| 11:08 pm on May 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
All excellent points mfishy, thanks.
| 2:06 am on May 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Very good point also.
The lesson i learned from the post [webmasterworld.com...] is that you can get a very large amount of incoming links from news sites, even if your domain is new.
| 6:56 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You sound like someone who's ignoring the FUD.
Older sites, IMO, can still be affected by link growth so I'd say flow might be a better word than slam, but ultimately "right types of links" defines what makes the internet better.
| 3:53 pm on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>>>Older sites, IMO
You are entitled to your opinion, but I wanted to point out that mfishy is discussing his experience. In my experience, when mfishy makes a post, it's usually beneficial to pay close attention. ;)
>>>defines what makes the internet better.
We'll leave that for Matt to worry about. ;)
| 7:12 pm on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Allow me to rephrase.
In my experience with my older site, I have noticed that too many new links in a short period of time tend to produce a short term negative effect on ranking. I still noticed the same results with news sites, but did not utilize blogs or social networks. Given a bit of time, rankings would generally improve. I have also noticed other sites that have rocketed into my niche only to have a slow decline over a period of months. Thus, my opinion that flow might be a better word than slam, although individual results will certainly vary.
I've recently implemented a blog on my main page with one of the main reasons behind implementation being a desire to tap into/share information and links with similarly themed blogs. Those would be what I would consider the right types of links.
Certainly not disagreeing with mfishy, just providing a slightly differing viewpoint based on my perspective. Matt who?
| 7:45 pm on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>>> Matt who?
THAT's the attitude! :)
In case you're serious, he means Matt Cutts. Chief spam killer at Google.
| 8:02 am on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Just a bit of humor, I know who Matt is, but I'm sure your reference will help some who are reading and learning. I do think Matt does a pretty good job of outlining what Google would like to see webmasters doing, but practicality often trumps ideals.
There's a huge difference between 1 month old MFA sites and an older established site with well established backlinks. mfishy alluded to that with the post stating you can rocket up the serps if you have those established site fundamentals. My personal preference is a slower build, but we all have to make our choices.
What I find very interesting is digitalghost's aging post in the supporter's forum regarding site quality and the benefits of links. It's probably one of the most significant things I've read/followed in the last year or so. If you haven't read it through, I'd recommend you spend some time doing so, it certainly helped reduce my fear of FUD.
| 8:03 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
In the past I’ve seen this question asked and one of the most logical answers given was that if your site gets a thousand new links or 50 new links in the course of a month that it would make sense that the traffic to the site getting all of the links should increase as well.
So it is completely ok if your site is getting a ton of links on a regular basis or even if your site goes from 20 a day to a one or two day shot of 2,000 links so long as traffic spikes along with those links.
I’d actually venture a guess that the links upon being detected by Google in conjunction with a traffic spike actually speaks volumes to the quality of those links.
| 3:15 am on May 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I’d actually venture a guess that the links upon being detected by Google in conjunction with a traffic spike actually speaks volumes to the quality of those links. |
I think so too, especially if the pages on which the links are hosted retain the visitor long enough for Google to determine that it's a quality page.
What's FUD and MFA sites?
| 3:19 am on May 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
MFA=Made For AdSense.