Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
After some research I'd done considering google and its way of finding and valuating inbound links, I learnt it doesn't like so much reciprocal link trading, and schemes like you link me, I link you.
I've learnt also, that google loves more organic and NATURAL links found in the exact content on certian website.
My question here is, does google give a little bit more *points* to domains linking to other (related) domains, but don't get link back from the domain they link to but from the other domain. So I, with my site A link website B and I don't get link back from site B, but from site C (which is kinda the part of network where site B is hosted, perhaps both domains share same IP, or same domain owner).
What do you think whether this linking structure is good or bad?! I think it's definitely better than standard reciprocal linking, but still not that good as all natural way of getting links point to your website...
A website is very new to get any quality link from other website unless it is not having any PR, and if it is not having PR, who will link, either you from your other website, or somebody else who will get the link against this. And here you says, the same owner, same IP it is now much easier to track the whole network.
Natural linking is something that link coming on regular basis 1 a day not 5-15 links a day.
What do you think whether this linking structure is good or bad?!
structure is little good as far as the indexing is concern, but i do not think this whole network will work for long. better you stop this 3 way or linking, go for reciprocal with theme based sites, with different c class IP, and little slow speed of links. get high quality link, bcoz each quality links counts high in compare of the same IP, owner type of links.
The point I was trying to make here with my question is whether using A-B-C linking trades is better than standard recip linking, as far as links are on different hosts and different owners, but also very related one to another.
I think it's still better than standard recip. linking, correct me if I am wrong? I think that's why you don't send your PR to other sites from the site you want to rank high, but from your other sites which are not that important.
Again, I may be wrong, that's why I asked.
Google, with some of the most sophisticated software (not to mention a bunch of 386s), can detect most link scams.
In recent month, some of the biggest and 'best' link farms have disintegrated.
The best approach to linking is same as it ever was - if a site is useful to your visitors, then link. Submit to Quality Directories ... and that's it for most sites.
Better if you are trying to get penalized or hurt the reputation of your domain.
It is at least the easiest way to detect someone sending an email with no clue. Once you see the word "3 way" or "three way" I can happily delete the email without reading further.
We ran an experiment for a 3 way linking system on a site and the pages on which we placed the outbound links were stripped to "0". We did this with a well known link exchange network, which we thought was exchanging quality on topic links with the same theme.
Sadly their system has introduced SPAM links to try and make their networks larger and more undetectable, but Google also probably matches the theme of the pages to links, so if you have a building construction site and you have lingerie advertised on it, Google kinda seems to understand the irrelevance as well.
Google can identify the "scheme" and it can potentially spread havoc for any pages that hold links in the network, by stripping their PR.
What about exchanging links WITH ONLY RELEVANT websites? I mean if you have ringtones website you get links and link to ringtones websites ONLY!
I think that's ok, as far as you do not trade with scamming networks of many sites....but let's say you trade with 10ish webmasters with 2-3 sites in their net, all relevant one to another.
Do you think this is still bad?
a links to b, b links to c, c links to d, index all a,b,c,d and all sites linking to/from them and you can find a pattern, at the very least enough to raise a flag.
Even easier? Those that send out link requests for 3 way links. its a direct violation of googles tos, and I am sure plenty of people send them straight through to google as a spam report.
hmmmmmmmmmm ... Anyone can detect than A links to B and C links to A. But as far as I know it is impossible for a human or a machine to know that it is links trading BUT NOT natural linking. To know that it is a links exchange, you have to analyse the sites much further (check if B is on the same server as C, check if C has the same theme as A, etc. etc. etc. and then you can only make suppositions).
On the other hand, "A-B B-A" is pure links exchange (unless A links to site B without knowing that B links to him lol).
So in my opinion A-B-C linking is always better than A-B-A. However it's better to make a quality site in order to get natural and quality backlinks without having to trade anything! :-)
[edited by: Frederic1 at 11:09 am (utc) on Sep. 27, 2006]
a-b b-a links may happen between sites of similar topics recommedning each other.
a-b b-c links only occur to game google, there is no other purpose.
You straight away raise a red flag of linking for the purpose of gaming google. A hand test adding links to your site will show that you are doing 3 ways links, manual ban.
Do so at your own risk, if ever a competitor overakes one of my sites, and I see they are doing 3ways?
spam report, bye bye their rankings.
if ever a competitor overakes one of my sites, and I see they are doing 3ways?
spam report, bye bye their rankings.
I can't stand scrapers and scammers, but tattletales are the worst, especially when the person being tattled on is not doing something blatantly wrong that is clearly hurting someone else.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that the world is filled with the kinds of people you refer to as tattletales and that an appreciable amount of unsolicited link scheme email request get forwarded on to the search engine spam control groups.
Um, you are joking right? A spammer gaming google, knocks one of my sites off from no.1 position, halves my income, and I should pretend I am in a school yard and not say a thing, not tattletale?
Honestly, you are kidding yourself. If I did not do it, another will anyway.
I am not going to sit back with a white hat site, and have spammer above me. Bugger that!
As for how complicated the link structure has to be before Google notices it: two words, "partitionable matrix."
For the non-mathematically inclined, it's conceptually a very simple algorithm: coding it (for small networks, of course) is a standard week's assignment in CS classes.
And the algorithm neither knows nor cares how many steps it takes to go from any member of the cabal to any other member, nor where the routes cross. All that matters is that there IS a route.
You have a page that has numerous outbound links, but this page has no inbound links.
You have pages that link to you with many outbound links, these page have no inbound links.
You check to see if these "link orphan" pages are in the google index and . . . . bad recip
Let's say I am selling art, but I don't do picture framing. I strike up a relationship with someone that does framing and I link to him as a resource from one of my main pages. They link to me from one of their main pages as a resource.
All is good, the customers have more helpfull data, and we both make more money.
I am sure plenty of people send them straight through to google as a spam report.
It's doubtful they are addressed unless the issue is ridiculously out of hand. Even at best, the requests are sent from differing emails than the business itself and therefore cannot be rasied back to a penalty on any business.
It's fairly obviously linking schemes are detectable period.
Someone said it best when they mentioned to get quality links from quality sites including directories that you think will be there in 5 years. Link only with others when their site offering great quality for your visitors and augments what you do.
Of every 1000 sites, possible 3 are quality. The rest are simply selling the same thing, or offer the same information.