Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
> Linking matters, we all know that!
> One-way links carry more weight than reciprocal links, we all know that!
What we donít know though is how search engines treat 3-way (AKA triangular) links. Do the SEís see them as legitimate one-way links or as spam links that exist on a linking network, even if each site that links to you boasts a unique IP?
3-way links are easier to source than absolute one-way links, if they are deemed white-hat by the SEís then surely this is the way forward for linking projects. On the other hand if they are seen as black-hat then surely they should be avoided.
You thoughts would be appreciated!
Many thanks, Lee
signal attempts to spam a search engine (to obtain a higher ranking and, thus, better placement in search results) by exchanging links, purchasing links, or gaining links from documents without editorial discretion on making links.
This tells me that google is not as concerned with the method of getting links as they are with the quality of those links.
You will get a much different story from members of Google's spam team if you should ever attend a PubCon and ask them about it. ;)
The way I see it is that although Google can identify 3-way links and although they will not penalise your site for this the value of the 3-way links would be signifigantly depreciated.
IMO true 1-way links are the way forward even though they are much more difficualt to source.
Many people will say that "3 way links can be detected", so what, so can reciprocal links.
Exactly. Almost any technique that gets posted here a lot Google either already has, or will shortly, try to program against. They are looking for natural link patterns to rank sites and in most cases do a pretty good job of it.
Spill the beans MB :) I might go pubcon next time and hunt one of the spam team down and inject them with some truth drug, well maybe a ton of vodka and get him/her to reveal all.
[edited by: jatar_k at 12:51 am (utc) on May 10, 2006]
I'm not convinced it's possible to detect this, or apply a penalty to it without harming a great many more innocent sites effected, most unwittingly.
Have you seen any examples of detection?
White Hat or Black Hat?
Don't want to stray off topic but, I don't believe any of us wear hats around here. If we do, it's to keep the blazing sun off of our balding scalps.
Can we keep the whole White Hat/Black Hat thing out of these discussions? I personally feel that those two terms cause more damage to our industry. Heck, the press is even using them now. :(
FWIW, I recently looked at a couple of sites that had been zapped by G, nothing particularly untoward struck me, but a common oddity was that while both had loads of obviously reciprocal links there was no sign of a links/resources/partners pages on either site.
With the present churn at G that may well just have been a coincidence, but.......
This can easily happen quite naturally, it can happen over an extended time period and may involve different webmasters who are completely unaware of the efforts of the others.... and most importantly, the links can be perfectly natural and add value to the viewer experience with all 3 sites.
It's hard to imagine any of the SE's specifically targeting ALL triangular links when there is so much potential for collateral damage to white hat sites.
As mentioned by other posters, it is probably a matter of scale.... if there are a few triangulars, no problem but if the links all appear at the same time and there are a lot of triangulars in the link mix, the sites may get flagged as being involved in artificial link creation. AKA... spam
Whitey, you may find this thread an interesting read... [webmasterworld.com...]
The automated version might catch out the clearly "abusive" forms of 2 and 3 way linking, but it's hard to imagine on the 3 way linking automation could cope with it, without effecting a lot of innocent sites.
I kinda think the most reliable detection is competition reporting SPAM links to Google.
The next level of detection i would speculate would be to flag URL's and networks that look suspicious and then have them weeded out by human editors at Google.
I guess the real worry is those guys that do serial spamming as a full time occupation, which must really irritate Google etc, and i think this is where Google focus' it's efforts. Quite how they identify these would be interesting to know, but I guess it's a combination of backlinks, content , C Blocks , whois , target sites and originating sites and perhaps theme.
JUST to be clear here is what is proposed for link
A links to BC
B links to AC
C links to AB
Anyway anyone else any views on whether i should put forward the argument for not linking?