Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.147.190

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

triangle links

is there any documented proof that this is better than recip

     

warthog

10:19 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I have read a lot about triangle linksing - but I have yet to see any real proof or actual demonstration that this is any better than recipricol links.

has anyone read any real proof? can you point me to some research before i spend a lot of time looking into this?

gracias

toma

12:11 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Engines will include filter for that in the algorithm soon enough.

Philosopher

12:37 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The idea is that a triangle links looks to the engines as if both sites are receiving a one-way link instead reciprocal links.

If Site A links to Site B and Site B links to Site C instead of back to Site A, then in theory, both site B and Site C now have a one way link which is often thought of as having more impact these days than a reciprocal.

The problem is that for this to truly work, then site A and Site C cannot be seen as affiliated in any way. If Site A and Site C are completely separate (meaning no linking between Site A and Site C, hosted different places, different IPs etc.), then it can work. Otherwise, the engines can detect it pretty easily.

rytis

1:08 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



If engines wanted to detect triangle linking, they would look for significant number (or maybe just a trickle) of similar links from site A to any-site-X, that also contains link to site C.

Reciprocal links exist on the web in their majority for reasons other than SEO, while systematic triangle-linking can only be treated as plain SE gaming IMO.

webweasel

12:42 am on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Let me ask, if A links to B and C links to A; and C and B are on the same server, I've got a problem?

markbaa

5:41 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



No one knows for sure weasel, but the question I always ask is:

If you were google, do you think you would reward or punish that behaviour?

Me, I'd say punish. Doesn't mean they do, but means they might at some point.

cabowabo

4:22 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Just another spammy methodology that will soon be crushed if it isn't already.

Cheers,

CaboWabo

webweasel

5:06 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Per-chance I have not been clear in my earlier posting.

If a a site about Toledo Ohio restaurant "A" wishes to link to another site about Toledo Ohio gas stations "B" this is clearly relevant linking. The point of relevance being Toledo Ohio. Now if that Toledo Ohio gas station site "B" wants to link to Toledo Ohio Hotels "C-1" or a different Toledo Ohio restaurant "C-2" it should not fear that they have some how crossed the line into the badlands of a G--- penalty.

In fact It seems to me that - that is what good linking is all about - relevant links that might be if interest to your visitors and it seems only wise to avoid links to competing websites.

Robert Charlton

6:16 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator robert_charlton is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



If Site A links to Site B and Site B links to Site C instead of back to Site A, then in theory, both site B and Site C now have a one way link which is often thought of as having more impact these days than a reciprocal.

The problem is that for this to truly work, then site A and Site C cannot be seen as affiliated in any way. If Site A and Site C are completely separate (meaning no linking between Site A and Site C, hosted different places, different IPs etc.), then it can work. Otherwise, the engines can detect it pretty easily.

I think that if all, or even a large number, of Site C's inbounds can be traced back in one hop to Site A, you've got a problem.

neuron

6:29 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Well, what if I have 20 sites, and I offer a link from any of the 20 sites for a link to site 21? Will that be detected? How about 40? How many do I need?

econman

7:42 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I don't think anyone knows how many sites it would take to make elaborate interlinking patterns "safe" and perhaps there is no number which assures a degree of safety.

From what I've read, the consensus appears to be that the SEs don't like nepotistic linking patterns (amongst affiliated sites, and/or sites owned by a small number of webmasters). The SEs are likely to view these patterns as "link spam" if the interlinks represent a substantial percentage of the total links into any given site, regardless of the actual motivation for the link patterns.

Provided the interlinks are a very small percentage of the total links going into any given site, you might be OK. If the interlinks represent more than some unknown fraction (perhaps 10%?), you run the risk of having all of the interlinked sites penalized for possibly being guilty of a "link spam" scheme.

Langers

11:40 am on Jul 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I have started looking into something similar to this. But instead of a triangle I am simply linking a -> x1 -> b where b is the most important site to me.

so it looks like:

a -> x1 -> b
a -> x2 -> b
a -> x2 -> b
a -> x2 -> b
a -> x2 -> b
a -> x2 -> b

Where the x sites are all on the same server and a and b are on unique servers.

I wonder if this would be counted as a spammy technique?

cabowabo

6:03 am on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Yes it would, because of your intent. That was one of the major themes in New Orleans: intent.

Langers

8:22 am on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Sorry, That should have been:

a -> x1 -> b
a -> x2 -> b
a -> x3 -> b
a -> x4 -> b
a -> x5 -> b
a -> x6 -> b

Langers

8:23 am on Jul 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Surely any type of SEO is intent...
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month