Forum Moderators: martinibuster
My question is basically in poll format. Assuming the pricing/ quality of a site is up to standards... Would you:
A. Purchase ROS links for any site at any time
B. Purchase ROS links only for established sites with Lots of existing quality inbound links.
C. Purchase ROS links from "on-topic" sites only with anchor text that is "on theme", but not necessarily the target keyphrase.
D. Purchase ROS links only if they have alternating anchor text.
E. Never purchase ROS text links.
The difference being ...
The "text links" being one of who knows how many listed at the bottom of the page and placed only for link pop.
Text ads would be placed mainly for the traffic potential. Sure there might be a link pop benefit, but that wouldn't be reason enough to place the links.
If any of my clients could afford it, I might suggest the inter! .*** network, but I think even their day is numbered..
Read a few on [webmasterworld.com...]
I think that if Google were looking for a simple indication of a linking pattern trying artificially to boost rankings, ROS links would stand out pretty clearly... but... I've had a discussion with one site owner I respect a fair amount who sells ROS ads not for PR, but because he has a large site with infrequent page views, and he feels that putting ads on a lot of pages is the only way to assure that the ad will be effective. In this case, he sells Run of Section links. I'd rather not take the chance, though.
As in some other recent examples, they were getting away with quite a successful interlinked network until those RoS' were added to the mix.
<added>
Jut to clarify, the directory was a new addition to their network, so though RoS, these weren't bought links.
Seems nearly like receiving them brought the beady eye of G down on their own linkage pattern.
C. Purchase ROS links from "on-topic" sites only with anchor text that is "on theme", but not necessarily the target keyphrase.
Have seen minimal problems here...even if the target keyphrase is used, but it seems to me that it depends on just how on-topic and how on-theme the linking site is....
Note to TheContractor: The link does not seem to work in your post above, and I was curious to go there. FYI.
I know for a fact that a ROS doesn't hurt a website. Perhaps certain websites may gain notoriety and attract scrutiny. In that case it seems that the worst that has been happening is the PR flow has been shut off.
Can't recall having heard of a website along with their ROS links all having their lights turned off by Google. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just haven't seen it happen.
I've also seen examples where the aquisition of RoS links seems to have triggered a fall in the SERPs, but those sites' linkage was already suspect before that.
What I haven't yet seen is an otherwise "clean" site fall or be penalised for receiving RoS links.
Note to TheContractor: The link does not seem to work in your post above, and I was curious to go there. FYI.
It was a thread where several were complaining of dropping out of the serps and several of them had ROS links they had obtained/purchased. The sites were supposedly stable until Google picked up the links.
As far as web designers/developers requesting a link from every page of a clients site - I laugh at them.
First - I wouldn't want that if I designed/developed a site.
Second - the client already paid you.
Third - It looks cheap/low class to me seeing the same outbound link on every page whether you are the site with the link or you are the one getting linked to.
But if you want to it they can still work if your on-topic, anchor text is on the same theme as the website. The website must has good quality 'content' with stable inbounds.
Then it would be a good thing, but these are 'few and far between'
No penalty. And definitely seeing some boost. But this is not something I would normally recommend unless you are confident Google has a lot of "faith" in the two sites.
There is no attempt to hide the relationship. Both sites are with the same hosting company, have the same WHOIS info etc. FWIW, the old site has about 6000 organic links and the new one has about the same (but obviously from different places)
And here is one other thought - we have a site that uses link advertising as real advertising and has some ROS links that generate a good deal of business. G loves to say that sites should be built and managed for users, but there are many glaring contradictions to this in practice of which this is just one.
1. I will create a really spammy site with lots and lots of pages.
2. I'll get just enough PR to it to make Google spider it.
3. I put a text ad link to my competitors on every page of that site.
4. I'll be number one.
I think the rule of thumb is the same as for any incoming links: They can't hurt you, but they may not necessarily help.
I bought 400 PR3-5 links on one domain to one of my internal pages for a reasonably competitive keyword, and it hardly made a dent. I now have more incoming links than most of the pages that are still ranked higher. (I've had the links for about 5 months now.) I think Google simply discounts multiple links from the same domain. It would make sense.
Christian
Nah, that is spammy, forget I said it.
It would be interesting to try something along the lines of what Macro nearly suggested ;-)
I have my doubts though, rather than individual RoS links, I think they're blocking the linking site from passing on link values.
