authoritive site links.

spikes from authoritive site links.

[danbot]

I have a pretty new site, (about a month old) and I am about to start advertising (text links) on what I believe to be an "authoritive site". This will put me on pretty much every page of their highly ranked site (tens of thousands of pages).
Firstly I am wondering if a multitude of links from one site is considered a spike (in anyones experiences).
Secondly does anyone have any particular definition of an "authoritive site"?
And thirdly, has anyone experienced positive or negative effects from such sudden advertising on an "authoritive site"?

Thanks
d

[Justilien]

If your site is only a month old I would not purchase a sitewide link on a major site. That is unnatural and will surely trigger a filter. Spend some time building up a variety of links from different sources. Let those links age. Once your site has decent rankings, then I would purchase an authority/expert site to help with rankings.

There are a few schools of though on what is an authority site. Some consider a college newspaper an authority site. Personally, I prefer authority/expert sites from your particular industry. If the link it is on “topic” with your site it will appear more natural to Search Engines. Plus, if it is industry related that site will have hundreds of backlinks from other sites in your industry and will put your site in the ideal neighborhood. These types of links also tend to deliver you some nice click-thrus.

[danbot]

The site that I am linking from already has a large amount of related content, which is one of the reasons I picked it. There are also a fair few simillarly related sites to mine that link from it that have decent rankings.
Going with the concept of letting your links age.. do you think that there is any argument in if i start advertising with this site now would mean that in 3-6 months time google will consider the relationship to be a valid one?
In the meantime maybe i can hopefully rely on the traffic received from this site to break even. :S

[willybfriendly]

If your purchased links will bring yo the kind of traffic that you are looking for, and it is a good ROI, then why not go for it?

WBF

[danbot]

Well hopefully the ROI is AOK. :P

Just a thought tho. If we forget about SEO for a second and look at my site advertising in terms of real world advertising. If I have a new product that no-one has even heard of and put a huge ad on a billboard where a large number of people of my target demographic etc will see it. Then how is this different to what i am doing above with my site? And why should google penalise me for this? obviously tho.. i am ultimately after a good ranking. :) But how can google regard this as spam if i COULD actually be doing this for click through purposes?

[Eltiti]

IMO, you should distinguish between two possible "negative" outcomes:

1) Google will punish you for spamming
2) Google will not reward you (in terms of PR/ranking)

I don't think 1) will happen, for (as you write) one may have very valid reasons for advertising (offline as well as online); but 2) may well happen...

After all, if you advertise on some billboard, you wouldn't expect to get some free TV exposure as a result; but you could reasonably expect not to be banned by the networks for it!

[danbot]

cool thanks..

when you say that point 2 may well happen. Do you believe that if i continue with my advertising on this site that in time the PR should be positively effected? Maybe just not imediately? or do you think that I may never have any positive PR gain from this relationship?

[Eltiti]

I guess only time can tell... From Google's POV, there doesn't seem to be any need to "reward" you with PR if they identify the links as "just" advertising.

Site-wide links are probably easy to identify; also, it is widely assumed that some sites "have PR but don't pass it".

The safest thing to do may be to assume that you won't get "PR benefits" (i.e., base your ROI calculations on the expected traffic), and be pleasantly surprised if it turns out that you do get additional benefits!

[Justilien]

Great to hear you are so focused on traffic! In my opinion links that deliver traffic are the best type. This is especially true if the traffic pays for the advertising and you reap the benefits of rankings as a side product. While it is not discussed much I have a theory that links that pass real traffic are given more value.

If you think it will deliver enough traffic to justify the cost of the advertising I would go for it. To play it safe, I would avoid sitewide links and especially avoid places other SEOs are buying links. This will help to keep you under the radar until your site is more established.

Also, if the publisher allows consider using an image with a text link under it. This will help to separate yourself from the traditional link buyer.

[econman]

I don't think it would be wise to purchase hundreds of links from a single site to a new site. Why not negotiate a lower price for a handful of links from those pages that are likely to bring you the most traffic?

You can always go back later to see if they will sell you some more links, once the original links have matured, and your site has become more established.

[alphacooler]

If you feel like getting your site instantly sandboxed then by all means have at it. But if you want to develop your site in a safe and effective way you should follow other suggestions here and get a steady stream of varied links with rich but unique anchor text.

Start off with ONE (1) good text link from the homepage of this site.

[danbot]

The way I understand it.. and correct me if I am wrong is that (going by the speculative theory of the sandbox) my site is already sandboxed as it is brand new.
I can understand how google would consider sitewide inbound links to be regarded as spam. But at the same time I am not going to be doing anything different from competitor websites that have reasonable PR.
From what I have read.. the sandbox is a probationary period for new sites to test their credibility, the length of the period may depend on many factors.
It seems all i can do is continue to gather quality links to my site bearing in mind that CTR is as important as potential PR. That way i can still justify the cost and this will also mean better relevance in googles eyes for these links for when my probabtionary period is over.
If I do not deviate too much from what successfull competitor sites have done.. then I don't see how such advertising methods can penalise my potential ranking.

[Tigrou]

danbot,

your initial post didn't say anything about Google specifically so I assume that you are also interested in traffic from MSN & Yahoo.

Sitewides work in MSN fairly well & Yahoo to a degree. Both can provide a nice stream of traffic all on their own.

As the other posters noted much better to get an array of 1way inbounds form relevant pages for first month or two tho.

[JoeHouse]

OK I keep hearing if you can afford the cost. However, I have not heard what the cost are for an "authoritive site"?

Lets take an example. Lets say there is "authoritive site" with a homepage of 7. And this site will link you thoughout its entire pages lets say 25,000 pages.

What is the expected cost per month for this. Has anybody had any experience with this type of advertising in regards to costs per month?

Thank You in advance for your responses.