Forum Moderators: martinibuster
has anyone read any real proof? can you point me to some research before i spend a lot of time looking into this?
gracias
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.
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.
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.
Cheers,
CaboWabo
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.
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.
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.
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?
a -> x1 -> b
a -> x2 -> b
a -> x3 -> b
a -> x4 -> b
a -> x5 -> b
a -> x6 -> b
