Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Ten quality articles per month can do you a lot of good over time.
My team currently can produce upto 4 Good quality articles a day, but I am trying to actively promote one industry.
Questions:
1. Is it worth writing i.e 20 different articles and submitting them to all the sites I have in my database in the hopes that the variety could get far bigger distribution on some authority sites?
2. In terms of sumbitting, has anyone had good conversion wrto submitting vs. acceptance, I find that most sites are not that active.
When you say "sites in my database", do you mean article submission sites?
When you say "sites in my database", do you mean article submission sites?
Correctamundo.
These are sites that accept submissions etc...
Not a hundred percent sure. A lot of people have noticed that google seems to be getting better at catching duplicate article content and weeding out it out in the serps. So, if you submitted to 10 different sites and the article eventually wound up on 30 different sites due to syndication, you might still only wind up with the article appearing once on one of those sites for a given search.
However, none of that should matter from a backlinks perspective. As long as the pages on which those article copies appear are spidered and indexed, those backlinks should count. Just like dmoz clone backlinks. They're all identical and individually wortheless. Add them all together and they have an impact.
Hey Neuron, I read that you use a kind of similar link building strategy than I do. (writing reviews and asking for a link back).
My partner is very concerned that this strategy might be opening a door to SE penalties about recip links abuse.
Personally my links TO the sites are not on links pages, and I'd say that the sites that link back to me have human-edited links pages and not automated-made-for-link-exchanges pages.
I think that given these conditions and the fact that
1) the anchors and description are ALWAYS different
2) Not all sites I link to link back to me
3) We also build a Inbound One way link campaing (slowly)
I can safely continue this practice to get more traffic and increase serps presence.
What is your take on that recip penalty thing?
Other are also welcome to comment about this!
Thanks
Fourchette
What is your take on that recip penalty thing?
I'd say it's like Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, except that a much higher proportion of people seem to believe there is some penalty for recips. There's not.
I'm not saying that some sites that engage in RL have not suffered, because some have, but concluding that there's a penalty for reciprocal linking, in and for itself, is a case of false inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is the argument that all cats are tailless, based on the fact that all observations were of cats that had no tails. Sometimes inductive reasoning leads to truths and sometimes it does not, just as with tailless cats.
We may observe some sites that engage in reciprocal linking suffer a penalty, but such penalties are not based on reciprocal linking alone. It may have been their linking that got them in trouble, but that would b e because of who they were linking to. If you only link to quality sites (regardless of PR) that only link t o quality sites, then you are not going to get in trouble.
Reciprocal links are part of the form and function of the internet. Pages link to other pages to create a network of pages. I'll link to yours if you'll link to mine. Those links gave birth to link analysis, the fundamental building block of the major engines today, on top of which PR, hilltop, authorities and hubs, LSI, LocalRank, TrustRank, TimeRank, and all sorts of other super secret link analysis stuff we probably don't even know about.
One of the ways people have been abusing link analysis is to link spam. These spam scams have included link farms, Free-For-All (FFA), Run-Of-Site (ROS, sometimes called Site-Wide), guest book links, blog links, and all sorts of all other forms of links. If links can be abused, they will be abused, it's as simple as that.
Search Engines learn to identify methods of link abuse and curtail that activity by ceasing to reward it. But just because the search engines learn to spot blog spam does not mean there is a blog penalty. It's just a spam filter. Stay off the spam and you won't have to worry about it. (There are some people that ignore this at their own risk, but they know who they are and they don't expect to get away with it for long. It's just a part of the game in some situations, but do not try this at home.)
Some people think there is a Blog Link Penalty. There's not, but the reason for people thinking there is one is the same as with the Reciprocal Link Penalty, or the Guest Book Penalty, or the ROS penalty, or the FFA Penalty, or a Paid Link Penalty. It's just the tendency of people to abuse those things that give them an advantage. The search engine trim this tendency by taking the advantage away.
If you have ten billion backlinks come from just 3 domains, then you are not going to rank #1 for “real estate”. If that's all the proportion you can swing, then it's a spike that is a lot easier to calculate the closer it is to 3 than it is ten billion. Almost all of those ten billion links are going to be worthless. The engines may initially index all the links if the pages they are on are linked to strongly enough, but that's not even likely to last for long (because those links do not create enough value for the engine, they don't tell it much).
Guest book links, and forum signature links can all help you, but they can really only help you so much. In the end it all comes to some fairly simple practices to get good links, and that is get links on as many various domains (and various Class C IP's as well; 1000 links from 1000 domains on one or two Class C's is not likely to help a whole lot) as possible. There should also be as much originality in the links as possible. It may be that having lots of identical links will not be as helpful as it used to be, another collapsable vector. That doesn't necessarily mean there would be a Identical Anchor Penalty.
The trick to linking is that it takes a lot of effort to do it right. Knowing where to cut corners and where not to. There's no free or push-button solution for building links.
I don't know if that answers your question, but there is no 'reciprocal linking penalty' that I know of. It's all about how and why you do things. And it's all about not spamming. You can easily tank your site by linking to spammy sites, to other sites that link to spammy sites just like yours does, which in turn link to other spammy sites.
It does seem that the engines favor one-way links, generally, over recip links. Not ALL one-ways vs. ALL recips, but broadly speaking. IMHO, if you're a busy webmaster, spend like 95% of your time engaged in finding one-way link options and a tiny % on recips - and then only with other sites that meet a very high standard (closely related, high quality content, easy navigation, no overabundance of outbound links, etc.).
I don't think any "single" link can hurt a site, but I think it is 100 percent possible for group/pattern of links to hurt a site when the right circumstances are there.
>>>That would make it way too easy to take down a competitor's rankings through malicious linking.
People already do it.
1) people agree that all identical anchor text is bad
2) people also agree that spikes in links from bad sources is bad
3)Too much keyword density in all anchor link is also bad
You cannot control those things, if someone decides to buy 1 000 000 crappy links that point at your site...
Get the idea?
I think it'S risky though, because if the site attacked si strong and diversified enough in it's linking, this might actually help the site..
But I hate the idea that people don't have the energy to build quality sites themselves... but where you find money, you always find thieves and crooks.
The question was more about having a lot of recips in a site's linking mix, not about one way links.
I was wondering about the possibility of google detecting link patterns, that he could consider as a way to try to games SE's.
fourchette
IMO for such an absolute statement you'd perhaps need to add "single" between "any" and "inbound".
A linkage pattern obviously includes both incoming and outgoing links, and it's the linkage pattern that gets deemed a "links scheme designed to improve PR/rankings".
A linkage pattern obviously includes both incoming and outgoing links, and it's the linkage pattern that gets deemed a "links scheme designed to improve PR/rankings".
That's a worthy point. I was keeping my comments to the very narrow focus of inbound links penalizing a site's search engine rankings. But yes, I do believe the engines look at overall structure of inbound and outbound links in that part of the algo. A quick example: Site A has 20 outbound links, all of which are reciprocated by the sites being linked to. I believe (based on tests I've done) that this situation helps Site A in the rankings to a lesser degree than if Site A had 20 one-way (unreciprocated) inbound links from those same sites.
This is not to say that reciprocal linking doesn't help in the rankings. I still believe it does. It's just that it doesn't help as much as having the same number of inbound links from the same sites that are not reciprocated. No penalties here - just a varying degree of help.
