Exchanging Links should have been a piece of cake.

Why not?

[jimpoo]

If we had an alliance in this industry, all members who join this alliance will agree with exchanging links with other members as request, then, in order to get thousands links, what members need to do is just to get the list of relevant websites, CSV/TXT/XML or whatever formats, which contains website category, anchor text, description, webmaster email,
we should be very easy to get the link exchange job up and save tons of time (time = money).

Do you think it is possible to do this?

[Crush]

I have just done this with someone but not everyone would be willing to give away their hard work.

[HarryM]

Sounds exactly the sort of thing Google would (and should) frown on.

[edited by: martinibuster at 3:59 pm (utc) on Aug. 29, 2004]
[edit reason] edited for spelling [/edit]

[sean]

jimpoo,

First, why do search engines analyze links?

[jimbeetle]

jimpoo,

What you're suggesting has been done a few different ways some years ago and resulted in many, many bans by SEs. The are still a few similar programs out there, but you have to look at these with a very wary eye.

Best bet for link building is the old-fashioned way, one-by-one.

[jimpoo]

I don't think Google knows everything like god, so link alliance should works somehow.

[chrisnrae]

A "link alliance" like you have described is a ban waiting to happen. No, Google doesn't know all and people get away with things for a long time, but when they get caught, they'll go down, and so will almost everyone else connected to the "alliance". All it would take is one idiot to throw a red flag in their face. Not a risk I am willing to take with any of the sites I have poured a lot of effort into.

[JohnieWalker]

With what will this "link alliance" differ from "link farm"

[jaffstar]

Long Live the Alliance:P

Great Idea, NOT!

Look at:

[touchgraph.com...]

Thats how google will figure out what you are wanting to do, and then everyone in a ten mile radius will go down with you.

[g1smd]

TouchGraph :-)

Oh my!

[jimpoo]

TouchGraph is just an other view of the network.

We know there are some kind of 'link alliance' on the net, for example, linkpartners, I don't know how many websites in its network, anyway, let's say 10,000, well, these 10,000 websites can trade links with each others easily. I believe that the network of this 10,000 websites is a more compact network than others.
Did anybody know any of them are down in google? No, I didn't see. Nobody knows what google's measure is to trigger to kill/ban a compact-linked network.
Everybody know keyword density, has anyone heard about link density? It's just my abstract anyway.

Link alliance is not FFA, FFA is a patten.
If the number of sites in the 'link alliance' is small, for example 10, that will be a problem, but if the number is big enough, I don't think it has problem, depends on google's measure.

[nalin]

Me likes touchgraph!

Everybody know keyword density, has anyone heard about link density?

Yes some 5000 pages contain the phrase. Though google methods and criteria of determining heavily linked sites are confidential google surly measures a number of other densities just as abstract if not more so (for instance adwords click density mapped by timeframe and by ip address to find patterns in fraudulent clicks). I rest assured that whatever the method it

If the number of sites in the 'link alliance' is small, for example 10, that will be a problem, but if the number is big enough, I don't think it has problem, depends on google's measure.

I disagree. With the above example if I click five times off a single impression it will likly not be flagged as fraud. If I ask 100 friends to do the same in a short amount of time - it will likly be scrutinized. If anything increasing a sample size will make abnormalities more unlikly and thus easier to spot.

Site participating in link networks like the one you mention have yet to be banned specifically because they are linked "stronger" as opposed to "strongly". They are specifically not a list of sites to which one must to become a member but rather a framework for linking more efficintly. They may never be banned but are at the mercy of googles "strongly" bar by their very nature.

Jimpoo - you gather any medium to large alliance of competitors and share (some large percentage of) links you will go well above and beyond that bar. What would be better - if both you and your competitors rank well and they are so eagre to cooperate - would be to exchange links in a single prominent location a page or two off the one that ranks highest. Trade with a handful of top contendors and youll make a one pony show.

[jimbeetle]

jimpoo,

You might not want to hear it, but I've been there, I've done that, and I have the t-shirt that says...

I've been banned by Google.

Thank you MSN/Ink, you paid my rent for a year and a half.

Yeah, a year and a half ban by Google for exactly the type of link scheme you're proposing.

Do a search on Google for Webmaster World occurences of "Linktopics," a very popular linking program from a few years ago, very similar to what you are now suggesting:

Webmaster World + Linktopics [google.com]

The guy who ran it put a lot of work into it. Many of the folks on WW at the time thought it was a good program. And, if I remember correctly, Google said it was "okay."

Sure. And a month or two later every site involved was wiped out, across the board. Hey, live and learn.

All linking schemes sound good, but basically there aren't any shortcuts.

[g1smd]

....and how does LinkTopics relate to the LinkMaps scheme that a well known SEO-er promotes nowadays?

That looks like spam to me too. Do you think Google will whack that for six soon, as well?

[jimbeetle]

From the little I know about it LinkMaps isn't a linking scheme, though it has an 'add url' component. Isn't it more of a tool to find where your site is linked from?

Not really familiar enough with how it works, but now that I look at it a bit more I'm not sure what the heck to make of it. That 'add url' is kind of Zeus-like, something I'd stay away from. Might be an accident waiting to happen.

[jimpoo]

How many link exchanges is too many in google's eye?
For example, a network has 100 sites, the maximum links between these 100 sites is 9900, well, how many percentage of links generated in the network would cause google ban it?
10%? That would be 990 links.
Can we estimate it?

Webmasters offen say don't link to the 'bad-neighbor', what is 'bad-neighbor'? In my point, the bad-neighbor is the one that participating in the banned network.

[synergy]

And, if I remember correctly, Google said it was "okay."

Sure. And a month or two later every site involved was wiped out, across the board.

So what about LinkPartners? Same thing? Gooooooogle has supposedly said "okay" while keeping a close eye.

I used the service last year when I was new to the SEO game to get #2-4 ranking for a very competitive keyword for several months. After PubCon, I canceled my account and removed all links from my site that came from their directory. Finally, I removed my site from their directory for fear of this service being banned and all sites associated being punished.

Guess what? My rankings dropped as fast as I had dropped the service. 8 months later, it doesn't seem to matter how many themed one-way links I get or how much fresh and useful content I publish. 3 competitors who continue to use this recipricol link service are flourishing and I'm floundering. Talk about frustrating...

[jimpoo]

synergy, I'm with you.
Siting at hell feels like being fool by Google.