CainIV
msg:4370421 | 3:36 am on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
The value of the link is directly attributable to the value of the source, and the inbound links to the post, two pieces of related content being considered equal.
To opt-in to NOT searching out high quality, aged websites that allow you to post content and get links back, then promote that content on their website to build some links and staying power would be missing out on some powerful and effective linking IMHO.
Because people are doing it alot doesn't mean its old news or isn't effective.
|
wheel
msg:4370529 | 11:41 am on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
No, that's not what I'm saying. I still take the link. I just don't do the '2-3 incontent links' from within each article. I take my link in the attribution, and that's it.
What looks more like a 'real' article? I'd say my method does.
|
mark_roach
msg:4370539 | 12:16 pm on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I would say 2-3 in content links to your site look natural as long as there are other links to other sites also in the content. If yours is the only site linked to in the article then I think it just looks like an advertorial.
Pretty easy for a SE to spot that and devalue those links in the future if they choose to do so. I bet they still work at the moment though.
Wheel from reading your posts you appear to be in it for the long haul so your strategy is probably the best in the long term. But I suspect you are missing out on the current (potentialy short term) benefits. Sometimes it is possible to be too far ahead of the curve.
|
wheel
msg:4370543 | 12:30 pm on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Well, it's like buying gold. You can sell now when it's real high. Or you can wait until the peak - at which point it's actually past it's peak and try and sell along with everyone else as the price crashes.
I can build backlinks like this now and when Google changes the dials I don't budge in the rankings. Or I can scramble for 3-6 months at some point in the future as my rankings drop.
|
mark_roach
msg:4370563 | 1:07 pm on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Wheel I agree your approach is likely to be the way to go, but I guess it is about having a balance.
If a method still works now then why not use it and at the same time future proof yourself by building some other links in a different fashion.
I first speculated that reciprocal links might be devalued in 2001 [webmasterworld.com] but I am not sure it did me any good as they continued to work for a signifcant length of time after that.
|
wheel
msg:4370571 | 1:58 pm on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Yeah, and that's the third choice. I can build backlinks like this now and miss out on all the fun in the meantime (and perhaps forever).
|
defanjos
msg:4370600 | 3:53 pm on Oct 4, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I like your method, and have been using something similar for a few months now.
What I do is, at the bottom of the content page, I do something like:
"References:" or "Resources:"
- My linked url
When I link from within content, I also avoid too many links - it looks unnatural, especially if they are all optimized.
|
linkbuildr
msg:4370845 | 12:40 am on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I'll just link once so that it looks editorial, non anchor specific as well as link to other but non competitive sources. Working fantastic!
|
CainIV
msg:4370913 | 6:09 am on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I would say your version looks more editorially natural to be sure.
|
linkbuildr
msg:4377398 | 12:37 am on Oct 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I still see an impressive ranking curve still with the in-content links. I just stopped caring about anchor text 91.4% of the time :)
|
lfgoal
msg:4390584 | 4:17 am on Nov 24, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Wheel, do you take the same position regarding in-content links that are on your own pages; in other words, in-content links that provide internal links?
|
|
