Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Over and done with?
All done all through?
Too me my 'best' links are from the top quality sites in my field. They will bring visitors that are interested in my site and also the fact they have linked to me indicates my site is a quality one.
My impression was that Google measured 'best' by PR from the linking site and how related that site's topic was to mine.
Matt's comment implies traded or bought links also have less weight. If someone pays me to put their ad on my site is that a paid link?
It's not the method, it's the meaning.
Steve, can you explain this a little more? Can meaning be measured?
People must keep in mind that there is absolutely no news in Matt or anyone else from G suggesting that one way quality inbounds are the best sorts of links to get.From Matt Cutt's Blog
The best links are not paid, or exchanged after out-of-the-blue emails–the best links are earned and given by choice.
Powdork I am perhaps not making my point clear.
Does anyone think it's *news* that G favors natural one way inbounds over paid links, exchanged links, or other more manipulative kinds of links? I hope not. G now and always has preferred links given in good faith, as true "votes." There is *nothing* new about that.
Matt could post about G's dislike of too much kw repetition in titles and that wouldn't be news either.
The only thing that is new at all is that they keep getting better and better at identifying, dampening and at times perhaps even penalizing sites involved in what they view as manipulative link schemes.
Since at least as far back as the Florida Update, there was pretty clear evidence that G was exploring all sorts of ways to go after 'artificial' links. Everything from too-common backlink text to IP related issues to speed of accumulation has been on their radar for a long time now.
Jane_Doe and I think others in this mega thread have noted the fact that there are plenty of sites out there with substantial amounts of recips that are doing just fine. There are all sorts of different kinds of recips, both in terms of the sites doing the recip-ing and the way it's being done. ;-)
If highly regarded "Site A" exchanges links with highly regarded "Site B," is that as good for "Site B" as a simple one way inbound from "Site A"? I dunno; probably not. Should "Site B" not link back to "Site A" then? If there is good reason to, then of course they should, and without fear. Karma works.
Another way to look at this all is that if there's news, it's that G is doing a better job all the time of trying to sort out what some of us might refer to as "intent". ;-)
Reciprocal
Good- A page with links to their preferred vendors, many of whom link back because they share a common ground.
Bad- A link directory with several hundred or thousand links and descriptions, many to places like istanbul hotels. The descriptions are all easily found on hundreds of other link pages.
Paid Links
Good- A long running campaign on modern bride or the knot
Bad- A number of links randomly appearing on many unrelated pages. Obvious high inbound link churn.
One Way
Good- Long lasting. Related is better but not necessary.
Bad- High link churn, non unique description, poor reputation of linking site.
These are just general guidelines and probably have some hole as well. And no, none of this is news, but....
You would be surprised how many times this happens
1. I get a request for a link exchange, or just a link.
2. I see the site, like it and decide to add a link. I always create my own title and description rather than what they give me. Uniqueness of content is paramount on my sites.
3. I get an email thanking me for the link, "but could I please use the description given to me."
I returned one of those emails with a note saying they had just lost the link. I was told she is just doing her job, she is given a quota of titles and descriptions she must get in order to get paid. You would think a firm that specializes in hunting down links would recognize the futility of this method.
A week ago I totalled my 5 year old site in favour of new handmade content, no links, no sales and absolutely no affiliate schemes and msn has already cleaned the deleted files (over 2000 pages) and replaced with entire site (471 new pages). Not only that they have given me top listings for pretty much everything that I'm targeting (not too competitive).
How long do you think it would take google ... if they ever get round to it.
p.s. anyone who uses links for anything other than just honest and informative purposes is a SPAMMER and deserves the SLAMMER. There is no place on google for anyone who use their links in or links out as part of a marketing plan ... you are everything that is wrong with the Internet today.
Although not as drastic an update, Yahoo has got me top of my local information listing (1/10'000'000).
Things are starting to look up again.
I wish everyone good luck for todays google madness :-)
There is no place on google for anyone who use their links in or links out as part of a marketing plan ... you are everything that is wrong with the Internet today.
And why is this? Businesses dont use newspaper, T.V. and media listings to help push their product? How should search engines be any different?
If you use <DIV> tags to compress and hide text ... You are a liar and a cheat
If you use a carefully planned network of target keyword links ... You are a liar and a cheat
If you use repeated phrases in order to artificially raise your relevancy ... You are a liar and a cheat
In fact ... if you at all stray from the original content in order to attract an artificially high PR on google ... Guess what you are.
Spam is bad and you will get caught
Thats the funniest thing I've read all week. LOL
