Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
<sarcasm>You aren't exchanging links just to boost PR are you? </sarcasm>
No, but if someone is sneaky enough to consciously attempt to block PR webmasters may not want to deal with him. What will he do tomorrow? Wait till you are not monitoring and then remove the link so he ends up with a one-way?
I don't do link exchanges anymore, there's just too much of cr*p going on in this "market"
Basically, it shows microsoft on page, but actually links to google (in this example), and also if you mouseover it, in IE (dpending on the version of IE), when you mouseover the link, it will show microsoft in the status bar.
(It's an old Phisher scam, that no browser has fully fixed, so we can't just growl at M$ for not dealing with it.)
"Yes, if you want to link to my site, by all means go ahead. If I independently decide to link to your site I will do so."
That's what I do about 2 percent of the time.
The other 98 percent of the time I delete the email.
Why would you link to a site just because it links to yours? What's the point?* Given the amount of deceptive practices employed, is it worth the hassle?
* Yes, I know, but apart from the obvious excuse, what's the REAL point?
I like this thread for many reasons. It greatly assists webmasters in such that I have created a laminated check list for my link guys/gals. It helps speed up their process and aids in weeding out the none preferred partners. Hey its a part of linking, some of my girls can spot the nastiness just from the way the page sits.
There is a fine line that is walked in this biz and we all have tried something "grey", if you have not then who are you?
While we hate the result of what was done by tricky linkers we need to chalk it up as something to look out for and buy um a beer and thank them for the lesson.
GranPops - I like that technique wherein you wait 30 days to see whats doing with the requests.
its worth the hassle if it improves the ranking of your site isnt it?
Aha. But does it improve the ranking of your site as much as spending an equivalent amount of time doing something else - like making the site more extensive, more useful, easier to navigate, more expert, more individual?
There was a time for link exchange. I think we could see the beginning of the end of that time in early 2003, if not then certainly by the time that Florida happened.
Reciprocal links have been abused in a similar manner to the way in which meta tags were abused. They will, I suspect, go the same way (if they haven't done so already).
If I was going to do something shady with links, I'd use a script disguised as an HTML page. If a search engine spider hit the page, I'd spit out some other content instead of the links. It'd be near-impossible for those linking to me to detect.
To detect this method just check the cached page in Google, or use a search engine simulator.
This is the trickiest:
Use a cgi counter script.
Use onmouseover to look like their link is there.
Disable right clicking, so they can't check source.
Everything looks legit and they don't suspect anything because the page still has PR.
What I use to get rid of automated linking spam is to use a form on my site. If they can't find the "add resource" link on my main page and just send some canned email, then to the trash bin it goes. I say on my "add a resource" page that I have the right to link back or not link back depending on the quality and usefulness of their site.
I provide them with three variations of anchor text and description to link to my site. Of course, I vary the anchor text on a monthly basis so I can mix it up a bit and not overoptimize for a specific keyword.
The great thing is that, even though I link back to many sites, I don't link back to probably 50% of them because they're off-topic or bad quality. The result? They usually don't check back to see if I've linked back to them and I gain some one-way links. Another trick? When changing my anchor text of my links for potential linkers to use, I sometimes insert a common spelling mistake and target misspellings that way.
My solution has simply been to ignore all link requests and to only link to sites that offer solid content that benefits users.
Me, too, but sometimes even that backfires. I remember linking to one interesting site that later morphed into a cookie-cutter affiliate site with no original content.
Checking link partners takes time, and who has the time to thoroughly check them all once again two months later to weed out the ones who have deleted or otherwise obscured your link?
This is where the concept of high quality vs. low quality comes into play. It is much easier to maintain 20, 30 or 40 high quality links than it is for 200, 300 or 400 low quality links. Think long-term instead of short-term. ;)
I came across your web site recently [mysite.com...]
and I am intrigued by its contents. I was particularly fascinated by
your site. I thought our web site might interest you and be of help
to your web site visitors.
Or in other words - this email can be applied to any site on any subject as it uses such vague language. Sure they were fascinated - by my SERPS and PR!
In this case, my site was for personal finance, and theirs for light switch plates. Yeah, really relevant!
It appears a new software is needed to detect bogus reciprocated links.
An automated backlink checker? Shut my mouth! :o
This tool would have to check the html, robots.txt, be able to detect JS hijinks, and tell if it's being framed. I'd buy it in a heartbeat. What's a reasonable price for such a tool?
I get about 9 requests a day from other webmasters who wanna share links. I don't think they understand that I like my PR7 and I don't wanna share any with their PR3 site unless they have some content worth linking to. That is why people link to my site, that is why I have a high PR and why people link to me without my having to spam them or otherwise ask them to.
When will web development go back to adding information to the internet or preforming services instead of pathetic attempts at outwitting a search engine?
Am I just angry or does anyone else share these feelings?
Am I just angry or does anyone else share these feelings?
Oh, I'm sure there are many of us who share your feelings. Google started all of this, now it is up to them to reverse the damage if they can. A little filter here, another there and eventually most of the junk will get weeded out. Unfortunately there will be many innocent bystanders who get caught in the nets.
A little filter here, another there and eventually most of the junk will get weeded out...
Not to disagree entirely, but Google has been doing this for a while. And every time they come up with a new filter, the blackhats figure out a way around it.
The annoying part is that now to get any kind of decent result, on a new legitimate page, you have to get some grey on your white hat.