Forum Moderators: martinibuster
On the bottom of every page of every customer site we place a highly visible promotion of all 3 plus links. Bingo.. all of our customers now link to us on every page of their sites (some unwittingly perhaps ;) ).
We now have a lovely big collection of links inbound to our 3 sites and Google loves us like like you wouldn't believe, and we have been up and running for quite some time. It seems that Google just sees a random collection of unrelated websites (our customers) all linking to these 3 sites and is not at all concerned (at least not to date) about this method of gathering links?
Am I:
a) very astute for seeing this opportunity
b) very silly to be building a link farm (is it?)
c) extremely stupid for thinking the honeymoon will last
d) putting our customer sites at risk (linking to bad neighbourhood etc)
e) any comment of your choosing
f) All of the above
:)
Brett has one link at the bottom of every page of this whole site, doesnt hurt him :)
Craig
It is probably not a risky practice, but it is advertising that you are getting from a client. I always sign over copyright of my work. I have no real problem with my customer turning their site into a template and selling it. They paid me for a service.
the only true way to copywrite your work is to "sign" each page.
In the US copyright is inherent with signing or not.
This creates a boost to both and a "reason" to be there.. adding value to your client and the clients visitors should they happen to be looking for the webmaster behind what they see.
i.e. locality, business or specialty area.
On the one hand the links are up front and nothing is hidden. Googlebot and the viewer see the same thing. I see no reason for that to be penalised. I can also see the argument for putting the links on every page because who knows what page the viewer will land on when they enter the site.
Yet I have this uneasy feeling that we still end up with a large number of links that are basically fabricated. They do not fit the logic that says incoming links are a seal of approval and an indicator of the worth of the receiving site.
Maybe the PR boost just flattens out beyond a certain number of duplicate links.
The more visably your supply chains and channels are, the more crediblity you have. Large corporations have large support networks and rarely does anyone question their reliabilty up front.
Small businesses have similar networks (although somewhat smaller) but if visible to the consumer - the consumer's preceived risk is that much less... you wouldn't advertise weak business relationships and neither would the associated companies of your supply chain/channels.
IMHO design, hosting, and any other support service falls into this as well.
the links are fine i don't think there would be a case for a penalty, but their value may not be much in the future
>>>It seems that Google just sees a random collection of unrelated websites (our customers) all linking to these 3 sites and is not at all concerned (at least not to date) about this method of gathering links?
hardly random if you are a hosting company! as the ip's will be associated very nicely. (if you are hosting the sites)
from a purely google pr viewpoint if/when full themeing of links comes in then the hosting and design links will be of little value although the trade assoc link would be good.
It really seems to me to be just a good healthy business practice, something you might do even if there were no such thing as PR.
It sure is about Page Rank to a degree, and why wouldn't it be legitimate? PR is a vote for a site, and a link from a client site gives a vote to the web designer for web design, or whatever other service is being rendered. If we look at a link as a recommendation, what about it is contrary to what PR is legitimately supposed to be for?
If there's link text it's also legitimate if it really represents what the designer's site is about - web design, consulting, "database by...", graphic design, promotion, marketing, etc.
If there's an abusive practice going on, that's a different story. Like putting hidden links on a whole network of sites all linking to each other.
I don't believe a link back from all pages is too much of an issue, though there was some anxiety last year when the big PR0 penalties hit, and some people took all off but the homepage link. From a business standpoint, that's counter-productive, but people got scared.
It certainly does add to credibility, but that can't be divorced from looking at the possible potential for risk. There's an SEO out there who promotes sites within a certain sector by arranging links. They link back and give their vote and lend the accompanying credibility, but the permanent PR0 on that SEO's site wipes out any credibility for anyone who knows anything, which most of their clients probably don't.
They continue to get business - and never touch or mention anything about what's on the client sites. They just arrange links and market in a couple other ways - networking within the sector.
What we probably should look at is when the developer has several sites that render different services. Is there risk in linking to all of them from all the pages on client sites? And how about whether the developer's sites are interlinked with each other as well? How much interlinking does it take to go over the edge into an area of risk?
It may not be "as good" but it seems a lot safer to me.
