Link Timing - Google Patent

Is it too early to link to a page

[is300]

After reading the google patent, I'd like to get some talk going on when one should setup links to newly created pages.

The patent says it looks at new pages and how soon links are pointed to them. My thought is that if a new page pops up on examample.com, and then 10 links are pointed to it immediately from external domains, google may interpret this as spam content and demote the page.

However, we all know you need content relevant links pointing to optimized pages to rank well. So, I'm curious to learn how long I need to wait before pointing links to my seo pages. Usually I wait for my optimized pages to get indexed before pointing links, but I'm wondering if I should wait for two indexes before linking.

Has anyone else done any research in this area?

[trimmer80]

Google wants to see natural linking. A quallity site does not get 10 links in the first few week then none for the next year.
Instead of pointing your links in one go, spread it over a period of time. Put 1 link up a week for ten weeks and I think the result will be much better.

[Nuttakorn]

If you got the link in natural method, Will Google still sandbox and take a while to pass that link value to your website? If your website is new but your brand of company is not new so that many website link to your site? How does Google declare on this?

[buckworks]

If you're serious about link development it's a lot more than just a one or two week project, so just settle in and work at cultivating links whenever you have time.

Focus on relevant links that will make good sense to human users, and let Google make of them whatever it will. Above all, don't let Google make you afraid of a link that would send quality human traffic.

[netmeg]

Am I correct in assuming I should take Google's link:www.blahblahblah.com results with a grain of salt?

Here's a f'rinstance.

I own four websites -

www.blah1.com
www.blah2.com
www.blah3.com
www.blah4.com

These are NOT duplicate content websites in any sense - they are for four completely different musical performers - the only thing they have in common is the region in which they perform.

I recently did a major update to www.blah4.com, and once I was finished, I placed links TO www.blah4.com on the blah1, blah2 and blah3 sites.

All of the sites have been spidered, with latest versions showing in the results - and I know the links have been picked up, because under some circumstances, when the description for www.blah1.com is displayed in Google, it shows the anchor text for the link to www.blah4.com.

However, if I do a link:www.blah4.com, none of the new links show. It's been almost a month.

Is this normal?

(this was rather hard to describe)

[netmeg]

Oh yea - to add insult to injury (so to speak), there was an article written about me on the website of the major newspaper in Detroit in which the writer included a link to my www.blah4.com site - I don't normally pay attention to PR, but it's a PR7 page, the article was in Google's index the day it was published (4/22/05) and the link: command STILL doesn't show the back link to www.blah4.com.

[buckworks]

Google never reports more than a sample of the links it has found. Some links might never show up in the link: command but they'll still carry weight in the algo.

Yahoo's link: command gives a much better picture of a site's links.