Makaveli2007 - 5:14 pm on Nov 6, 2010 (gmt 0)
"the choice of sites to approach"...this is something Ive thought of (a bit more in-depth) recently. I (finally ;)) noticed that google is basically just another website...which receives most of their traffic from type-ins (I envy them!), and tries to monetize it through ads (adwords)...... and us webmasters, we want nothing but a link from google's website to get some of their traffic (on the first page for a certain keyword).
How do we do that? we try to create a win-win situation with google. Basically, like we'd try to create a win-win situation with any other website. by creating content they want to show to their visitors.
The big difference I see between google and every other webmaster out there, is that google cares about the quality of their site a ton (and thus edits it extremely frequently), as their business model depends on it. Most people if you e-mailed them with "better content than the next guy" (for a page they created 2 years ago), cant be bothered to replace it. many cant even be bothered to replace broken links.
Obviously if I could find enough sites in my niche that care a ton about the quality of their site & thus edit it frequently....that would make it a lot easier to get links from them (with the right content). "hey here's content that's clearly better than the other content you link to (, you might want to add it/replace it)", the webmaster might actually appreciate it.
In a thread on here where you suggested how to have a competitor's link replaced with your own link (if you have a better site), I brought up a similar point and i think you agreed with it and ended up saying that hobbyists were those kind of folks (who care about the quality of their sites).
I guess another obviously good idea is to ask what id call altruistic webmasters..who arent in it for the $, but seriously just want to help people (webmaster who have repeatedly linked out to useful stuff for their visitors....teachers who care about their students+love their subject...etc.).
Is this sort of how you approach the "choice of sites"-thing to get a decent success rate?
I hear everyone saying how important great content is, but few people mention that asking the right kind of webmaster (who cares about the quality of his site) might actually be just as important as the "great content"-part. Mail s.o. with great content for his website, but he doesnt really care a ton about his website, and he might not be bothered to put your "great content" on his site, as it costs him time, and he simply doesnt care......mail s.o. who obsesses about the quality of his website with just better content than the next guy or additional good content, and it might turn into a link.
Do you consider this "choice of site"-thing just as important as the quality of your content? or not really...if I may ask :-)
@piatkow: What are your criteria for it being a qualifying site (in case you can share that..if not sorry for asking)?
it seems that the reason most of you guys dont (ever) link to sites you got a link request from...isnt really because you would never do it, but simply because the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of them are simply #*$!. Is that right?
but if someone got in front of you with content that makes you feel like "okay, if I dont link to this...I'd do my visitors a disservice"/"it truly would make my site better"....either on the phone or in a link request that you actually read....then would you have inhibitions to link to that site?
@wheel: Here's another idea I had - in case it has to do something with link building in your niche simply having gotten so much more difficult - do you really need any new links? Keep in mind the competition might have the same problems as you! Have they been getting any new links?