CainIV
msg:4249256 | 6:59 am on Jan 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| What would you like to see in link building for 2011? |
|
Better ability for Google to understand relevancy and value of a link for the user.
| What would you like to see go away in link building for 2011? |
|
Anything else :)
|
martinibuster
msg:4249295 | 10:01 am on Jan 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I'd like to see less abuse of the no-follow tag.
|
cnvi
msg:4249540 | 9:15 pm on Jan 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I would like to see renewed acceptance of relevant link exchange. So much has been written on the topic which is FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) when its still one of the easiest ways to get a dofollow link.
|
CainIV
msg:4251676 | 6:27 am on Jan 11, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| I would like to see renewed acceptance of relevant link exchange. So much has been written on the topic which is FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) when its still one of the easiest ways to get a dofollow link. |
|
If you are in a competitive genre using reciprocal links to get rankings and most others shy away from them, and you have been successful, why on Earth would you want others to "accept" this. :)
|
Planet13
msg:4252177 | 1:59 am on Jan 12, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| If you are in a competitive genre using reciprocal links to get rankings and most others shy away from them, and you have been successful, why on Earth would you want others to "accept" this. :) |
|
I am just guessing at cnvi's meaning, but if I had to wager, I think he MIGHT be implying that he would wish that more sites that are relevant would be more accepting of link exchanges.
Just a guess :)
|
jeyKay
msg:4253037 | 9:31 pm on Jan 13, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| I'd like to see less abuse of the no-follow tag. |
|
I second that.
I would also like to see more significance given to semantics in anchor text usage.
|
jeyKay
msg:4253042 | 9:40 pm on Jan 13, 2011 (gmt 0) |
oh, i forgot. I would love to see Google be more transparent about what kind of links could harm your site. Maybe something in WMT that shows more of this, AND then create a tool for the site owner to disown these links if they choose to.
|
ken_b
msg:4253044 | 9:47 pm on Jan 13, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I wish Google would look at the best sites in my niche and impute a link from them to me if it doesn't already exist.
You know, "Hey! These guys must have just forgotten to link to ken_b, let's just give him PR credit for the link anyhow!"
And now in my old age, I'm also hoping the tooth fairy increases her payment rate based on increased age and inflation.
Am setting myself up for disappointment?
.
|
Cruxo
msg:4253086 | 12:17 am on Jan 14, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I want to see less weight given to anchor text and more to relevancy of the page/sites that are linking to the target site. Currently the way things are, it favors companies that happen to have the keyword in the domain/company name (eg. InsuranceCo.com vs AIG.com)
|
shnize
msg:4258109 | 10:44 pm on Jan 25, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@Cruxo - I kind of remember hearing something about less weight given to domains that rank just because they have the keyword in the domain.
This is because a lot of domainers have rankings with crappy parked sites.
But on the otherhand if a company has a exact match keyword domain and builds it out, I believe they should be rewarded for it. I think it should only be for the lazy bunch that parks the sites.
|
JohnRoy
msg:4268636 | 8:08 pm on Feb 17, 2011 (gmt 0) |
What would you like to see in link building for 2011?
Well, um, same as '01 or '21.
My inbound links shall be recognized :)
|
Cruxo
msg:4268716 | 10:38 pm on Feb 17, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Also would like to see Google penalizing sites with unnatural linking pattern, most notably those whose top 3 anchor texts are made up of target keywords instead of brand keywords or URL.
|
willq
msg:4315848 | 2:45 am on May 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I'd like to see Google crack down massively on bought links and advertorials that masquerade as editorials purely for a good anchor-text backlink.
Why should agencies with a lot of money behind them be able to dominate the SERPs?
|
pageoneresults
msg:4315897 | 12:12 pm on May 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| What would you like to see in link building for 2011? |
|
Absolutely nothing!
| What would you like to see go away in link building for 2011? |
|
Google's reliance on links. The use of White Hat and Black Hat terminology when discussing links. Crap ads selling 1,000 links for $9.99. The companies behind the crap ads.
|
Planet13
msg:4315945 | 4:30 pm on May 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
As mentioned above, would probably like to see less importance on anchor text in the link and more importance placed on the relevance of the material on the linking page.
|
wheel
msg:4315946 | 4:35 pm on May 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| As mentioned above, would probably like to see less importance on anchor text in the link and more importance placed on the relevance of the material on the linking page. |
|
This seems good. But in my niche, the only thing that's going to do is increase the rankings of my competitors using paid blog posts etc. Personally I'm all for some definition of authority counting for more (but I like getting links from authorities).
|
BenFox
msg:4316258 | 1:44 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I'd quite like to see a tool that graphs link acquisition by time but split by the commercial value of the anchor text.
I'm not 100% sure it would actually help me in my current role but it would impress/confuse the crap out of people in meetings.
|
martinibuster
msg:4316406 | 5:51 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| it would impress/confuse the crap out of people in meetings. |
|
LOL!
|
Cruxo
msg:4317294 | 6:06 am on May 25, 2011 (gmt 0) |
More emphasis on quality and less on quantity of links. Might be a cliche, but sheer amount of competitors' links often scare the s**t out of any marketing managers where it might not matter if they have loads of pee water links
|
|
