Forum Moderators: martinibuster
1. A 2 way reciprocal link. A links to B. B links to A.
OR
2. A 1 way link. B links to A.
In which option do you think Site A receives more link popularity, assuming both sites are the same PR? By how much?
I don’t think there is an either/or. I believe each link is evaluated on its individual merits. I additionally believe it’s good to have an element of links that go out yet don’t come back in. I think it’s also beneficial to have an element of links that come in that don’t go back out. Where that breaking point is, I don’t know.
please elaborate on the importance of outbound links, who they point to, the PR of said links and their importance.
obviously you would not want to point to a sketchy link farm or ill-advised doorway page, but i was not aware of the importance to my site of pointing to others outside of that context.
I'm including outbound links for many reasons really. There's the opportunity to manipulate the anchor text, doesn't matter to me where it's going when I’m thinking in terms of on-page optimization. I’m selfish with non-reciprocal outbound linking though and point to ‘authority’ sites, including universities and government sites (to name a few), non competitive.
It mixes the linking up, breaks patterns and reduces problems with closed loops. Sometimes linking out, if you have good content within will attract those you are linking out to link back. It’s really nice when you can genuinely link to someone because you actually like the site and see they have something to offer your visitors. If you can write to them and sincerely express that, all the better. Just because we’re working the web doesn’t mean there isn’t a real person on the other side. Real people make better opportunities.
In simple terms, it’s to mix it up. A friend used the term ‘organic’. I’ve always loved that term and in one way or another apply it to my linking strategies. We recreate or clone that which would appear to come naturally. Well, that’s if I was into manipulating, <wink and wink>
thanks for the knowledge.
When we obsess about PR then we allow the tool to control us. I would rather ‘use’ the tool. As long as Google has us believing that PR is the ‘be all’ to success, they do have us boxed in. Think about that.
Think about some of the other things that are occurring because we have handed our power over to PR. People are building sites, building into their success plan for their site, the selling of placement for PR. If we continue to limit our focus of our linking to PR, it won’t be long before we’ve locked ourselves into paying high PR sites for links.
When you limit your thinking to PR, you then limit your possibilities. PR is one aspect of analysis, not the answer.
When I caution restraint it’s because I see wacky ideas popping up all over the place. I don’t have the time to jump in for every one so if I keep my propaganda line going that cautions restraint combined with planning. Hopefully this will be enough to get people to think before they link. Then, while you are balancing the possible risks of a linking, think also about maximizing every potential from it. Google, as well as other search engines credit what happens with a link. They also put all kinds of restrictions, what sometimes feel like booby traps then to control the game.
I’ll just keep rapping my line, people will listen or not. The reason I’m sharing some of my game plan is with more people playing it makes the game more enjoyable. It also opens the door to another opportunity for success. Success built on detail, planning and analysis to develop unique strategies built around content and using the linking as a tool in the game. That’s my view.
It comes down to what kind of game do you want to play? Do we want the Google’s of the world to determine our game plan or will we use the tools the Google’s offer up to play our own game? I’m just spacing out in my head again on a Sat. morn. Coffee anyone?
im in seo and deal with people optimizing and their questions on a daily basis. you mentioned something in that last post that is always good to remember,
"building into their success plan for their site, the selling of placement for PR. If we continue to limit our focus of our linking to PR, it won’t be long before we’ve locked ourselves into paying high PR sites for links"
my point is related to that and other search engines. no less than 5 times a day i hear, "can you guarantee me #1 on google for widgets?" to which i reply with a laugh and try to explain the benefits of OTHER SEARCH ENGINES. of course google is responsible for approximately 1/2 of all search engine traffic (including affiliate relationships) and is very important to the success of any website, but what about the MSN's of the web and lycos, FAST/all the web?
by limiting thinking to google alone and what we can do to top their serps, i think many businesses are missing the boat on the other less used, but still very important search portals.
of course its different for each business depending on product, country of origin, and other demographics. but following the above advice... dont get trapped in the box of narrow-mindedness and focus too heavily on one aspect of marketing, whether it be particular engines, or certain points of certain engines.
<stepping off soapbox>
There are, at least in my niche, a handfull of authoritative and important sites that have plainly stated and highly resrtrictive outbound linking policies. Chances that they will ever link to my site are almost non existant.
But, these are important and informative sites, not linking to them would be a disservice to my visitors.
To me, such outbound links on my site or sites I visit add credibilty to the outbound linking site. They say the webmaster is aware of the importance of these sites to their visitors and is concerned with providing the visitor the highest possible level of credible information.
If doing that means I send a visitor off to another site, fine. In my mind, being willing to do so, only adds credibilty to the outbound linking site.
ken_b, I listen to comments people make like yours and I always want to push it to get as much as I can. Are we taking enough time to research what ‘the authority’ in our industry is doing to place them as such? What are the various components they’ve built or earned to reach that point where you feel without a link to them that your plan is somehow missing something? Once you figure it out, can you make it better?
Hey Clovis, if we’re talking the good stuff then it’s a triple almond latte’ for me. I am all about Google. Everything else rides shotgun to that. What I love about Google is to optimize well, to build a strong presence requires attracting a wide audience, baited by the various levels of what you have to offer.
Just don’t box yourself or your clients in. Yes, teach them about PR and let them know how this tool can work for or against them and then work it, don’t let it take control over you. Are you chasing the next update or getting ready for the next big crawl?
Every field has a list of important resources. Remember this works both ways and why it’s important to become in one mode or another one of these ‘crucial’ resources yourself.
Are we taking enough time to research what ‘the authority’ in our industry is doing to place them as such? What are the various components they’ve built or earned to reach that point where you feel without a link to them that your plan is somehow missing something? Once you figure it out, can you make it better?
I've added a bit of bolding to the quotes from Paynt's above.
"...It's important to become..." and "...What are the various components ..." are, in my mind inseperable.
Becoming an "authority", or crucial, site may well be a bit subjective, it is a goal I assume many would aspire to. Becoming such a site in a very general area might well be considerably more difficult than in a very narrow niche.
That said and as suggested, we may want to spend considerable time examining what those sites offer that makes them authority or crucial sites to link to.
In my mind, that examination needs to include looking at the organization behind the website as well as the website itself. Those are really two seperate sets of considerations.
Surf around the web a bit and it becomes painfully obvious that not all real world authorities are well represented by their websites. Since I'm working on the web, those sites get scratched off the "link to" list. I'm only interested in sending my visitors to sites that provide information or goods that my visitors are likely to want and that deliver those goods or the information in a easily usable, functional manner.
Now when you find a real world authority that also offers a well functioning, easily usable website that offers information, goods, or services that compliment your site, they move to the top of the "link to" candidate list.
At that point I think we need to consider, as Paynt suggests, if there is something the link candidate does that we can do better.
If you can, and are willing to, do a better or highly competitive job at part of what they link candidate offers, you may still want to link to them so that your visitors get the benefit of those aspects of the link candidate site where you do not compete directly.
This is where the real opportunity lies!
Even authority sites have weak areas, or areas they have chosen not to serve.
That doesn't mean these are unimportant areas. It just means thay are not a priority for the authority site for whatever reason.
Spot those areas, do a great job of developing and implementing the solution and you are off to the races.
Website users talk in real life. If you can't offer every answer to every question or need they have, you want them to tell their friends....
Go to mysite.com, if they don't have the answer, they will probably have a link to someone that does. :)
