Forum Moderators: open
Now that the engines are wise to this, the common philosophy seems to be to swap only with sites of a similar theme.
Does anyone know (I.e. you GoogleGuy if you are watching!) if google feels this practice is ok? Or is there a time coming when google will 'cancel out' a link from site A to site B if there is a link from sites B to site A?
Im trying to build a new site here and i want to be sure i set off about promoting it correctly.
Do i swap links with other widget sites or do i swap with sites that people who might want widgets, even if the sites isnt directly about widgets?
Or do i just not swap links at all!
We'll see though.
If the answers are "Yes" and the other site isn't a competitor, link! If not ... I can't see it doing all that much good.
Yes, PR is an issue ... but the test above is a sure-fire way to avoid link-farm temptation.
From the people who request a link back- they still get it on your site.
GoogleBot never sees it though. People will still be happy to get traffic and very few would know how to check your robots.txt file.
AW
Well, if you want a links page why not put it in a directory that you disallow?
Also a lot of the sites you trade links with may have a good PR and be popular but the amount of traffic they may generate for you would be hardly anything.
Basically, I believe, the primary aim of exchanging links is to boost your rankings on SE's. So why would I bother exchanging links with a site that has its robots.txt blocking the spiders from visiting and following its links page?
Vishal.
Basically, I believe, the primary aim of exchanging links is to boost your rankings on SE's.
So why would I bother exchanging links with a site that has its robots.txt blocking the spiders from visiting and following its links page?
While it's true that most of us would not check for a robots.txt file disallowing the links page, I will certainly check to see if links from a page show up as backlinks for the linkedto site (just to make sure i will get my allotted traffic;)).
To be THAT heavy-handed is to completely shoot themselves in the foot, and makes no fiscal sense. When your revenues are hitting the $750 million mark, you watch every twitch of that income stream, especially in today's dot.compost corporate minefield. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It's not just engineers approving those algorythms and schemas - its beancounters in Armani suits and a fleet of marketing sharks.
People, don't forget it's not a wild west, "us-against-them" shootout. Although it might feel like it at times, Google and other engines and directories are not in business to be capricious and powermad. Honest practices such as reciprocal linking benefit everyone - the websites, Google, and the thing both are reaching for, the surfer. Google will not be spanking the good kids along with the bad, it can't afford to. Too many competitors would love to see Google stumble right now.
Damn, it's late ;)
Chris
Damn, it's late
Yeah, but you're crankin :)
Your post was right on though. Welcome to WW.
So why would I bother exchanging links with a site that has its robots.txt blocking the spiders from visiting and following its links page?
You wouldn't...if you checked. I'm not referring to folks wise enough/lucky enough to have found our wonderful resource here.
Most website owners won't even know how to check backlinks.
Usually, when requesting a link or signing up for a link they ask for you to supply your URl to the link you give them.
No problem. They'll see a nice links page. But Google won't. :)
No worries about linking to bad neighbourhoods or PR bleeding.
I only feel this way about PR3 and below sites that get all haughty when you request a link...some even asking for money. Yeah. OK. You're a PR1 but you have 100's of thousands of unique visitors per month. That's what one site owner told my client.
I made an e-mail for the client requesting access to their logfile and we'd gladly pay what they asked and maybe even the most expensive banner ad they had.
They never replied. ;)
See- for those folks you make a link page, stick it in the site NOINDEX it and don't link it interally at all. Or DISALLOW it.
Vast majority of the time the person will just click the link you send them via e-mail to the link you gave them. They see they got a link on the site and never check again.
TO QUALIFY MYSELF:
If there's a good site visitors could benefit from, I'd have no problems linking to them from actual indexed pages. :)
But if my client's competitors have dozens of low PR site links that look cheesy and really don't benefit vistors at all I DISALLOW / NOINDEX / No internal linkage to the links page.
Sometimes clients don't want to have links on their site especially to silly looking pages. I solve that issue and in the process protect even the possibility of any of those links 'from' my client site becoming a damaging factor if the site is deemed bad by Google.
AW
So, I ask you for a link trade and you scam me with a trick? Doesn't seem like an ethical or savvy strategy, but rather a childish act.
The algo is rewarding quality, in context links, from relavant and authoritative sites.
If you had a link on your site back to Y!, Dmoz etc., do you really think your PR would be devalued because of reciprication? Hardly. It is a matter that Gbot finds our link in context on these authoritative directories that is the valuable proposition. Not whether you link back to Y! or Dmoz on your site.
Reciprication (quid pro quo) is natural and cannot be de-valued by the G PR algo. Whether your backlink is quality and in context is the only question worth answering by G (sans duplicate content- cross linking penalty considerations).
I was just commenting on the bad practice of trying to rip off your business partners
In this client's case the top ranking sites had all been around a long while. They had many backlinks of low PR sites.
BUT..._none_ of those sites linked back to those sites that linked to them. Perhaps they did at one point, but no longer.
Most of these sites only existed as a resource to get to sites like my clients.
Over time I'm sure my clients competition caught on that linking to sites that linked to dozens of your competitor's was not a smart thing.
SO...none link back to these low cheesy PR sites anymore.
In going to get links these sites would state they'd give a link, but only if my client reciprocated (in some cases).
When it was brought up that all the other sites they linked to did not link back they stated they were going to start dropping people if they didn't link back.
That never happened. :)
So- I have the scenerio I described put in place if many sites simply had to have a reciprocal link.
We waited a while and I them them to #3 on a SERP that clearly shows my client would be a valuable resource to those low PR sites.
Most just gave a link and we concentrated on better links focused towards their industry.
So, the links page is ready to go- but it's not in use. I don't think we'll need to ever use it.
My duty is to my client and his competitors were getting PR from sites that they were not reciprocating to. My client should not have to either.
Like I mentioned _IF_ the site that requested a reciprocal link was a quality site that would benefit my client's users by all means it would be a valid linkback.
It's sometimes tough to explain things here without specifics.
As to a BAN on a site that disallowed their links...why?
Google hates PR trading which is what link swapping is- TO US.
Links should be about traffic and useful links for website users.
We just happen to know otherwise.
AW
I realize that most webmasters wouldn't fall for the trick Alphawolf was talking about- most won't even swap with low PR sites at all.
That's true. I was talking about sites hosted mostly on free servers and personal web pages and the like.
I was just commenting on the bad practice of trying to rip off your business partners
Well, if that's the impression I gave- my bad.
There is/was no ripping of of business partners. My client I am referring to provides a service and people have personal websites that point to companies like thiers.
There would be no money involved at all in this case.
No affiliate programs or anything of that nature. Just people with an ego who want a link to their hobby sites.
Regards,
AW
I did not want to start a flame and I apologize if it seemed like a personla attack.
It's just that this is a webmaster community where we try to help each other and this is the Google topic area. So, to speak about link exchanges where one site benefits in Google and the other is tricked just doesn't fit with, what I believe, we are trying to accomplish here.
It's still VERY unethical.
IMO people apply far too much ethics on something like SEO strategy. The general nature of this entire forum is to extract and exploit knowledge in order to manipulate a formula to get closer to the top of the rankings.
It's unethical of those sites to require a linkback from my client when they still link to other companies that do not link back.
It is unethical to get links purely for PageRank.
Or is it? That is for each individual to decide.
As others stated if someone employed the techniques I mentioned it would be very easy to catch and you can then drop the link.
AW
I did not want to start a flame and I apologize if it seemed like a personla attack.
Nope- didn't feel that way to me.
It's just that this is a webmaster community where we try to help each other and this is the Google topic area.
Well, yes. It is also to share opinions and relate experiences.
So, to speak about link exchanges where one site benefits in Google and the other is tricked just doesn't fit with, what I believe, we are trying to accomplish here.
While I understand your intent to a degree I disagree with your statement. Unless the mods pull a post we are free to share ideas.
I think at heart what this site accomplishes is the sharing of ideas..."ethical" or not.
There is a forum dedicated to Cloaking here.
Aside from that- it's not the case that one site benefits and the other doesn't. If the links page is within the navigation system, but the page is NOINDEX and DISALLOWED...
The links would still serve traffic to the sites.
That's what links are for, right?
There's no inherent right to PR, particularly when the link is free and there's no money involved or affiliate/partner agreements.
I'd like to know what you would do if:
1) You created the best looking site in a niche industry.
2) Your job is to boost the sites rankings in Google
3) You determined the deciding factor is backlinks
4) You see your client already has most of the same high PR links, but only lacks multiple low PR links
5) NONE of those sites link back to those low PR sites because it looks very unprofessional and it's stupid to link back to a listing of your competitors.
What would your strategy be?
NOTE: Of course I would never advocate the methods I mentioned as a general linking strategy. It's a method I'd only utilize in certain situation like the above.
AW
Carma...... what comes around goes around my friend. You practice that, you'll get what you deserve.
Considering that Google has characterized SEOs as the sort of people who would push a button that would kill a random peasant in China without batting an eye, ethics has nothing to do with SEO in their eyes. ;)
Considering that Google has characterized SEOs as the sort of people who would push a button that would kill a random peasant in China without batting an eye, ethics has nothing to do with SEO in their eyes. :)
LOL! :)
Actually, I tend to think of my SEO services as 'white hat' considering what could be done with all the knowledge I've gained here.
There'd probably be a difference of opinion if you happen to own a website and are here to learn and boost your own rankings OR if you offer SEO services.
AW
