Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
a) Go to Google and search on [statename Realtor]
b) Go to your local real estate agent's website (check your fridge for a magnet) and look in their reciprocal link directory.
Really, give it a try. Here's what I see:
Google: a bunch of big national real estate websites, some directories of Realtors, affiliate sites, MFA sites, scraper sites, and an occasional local Realtor site. Some decent links but also a ton of crap.
On my local real estate agent's website: there is a directory of states and in each state there are links to bunch of links to Realtor's websites. Each Realtor has a description of their location and specialty. That's exactly what I wanted, and it looks like a human has made sure these websites are for real. Nice.
Repeat this this exercise with dentists, bed and breakfasts, chiropractors, restaurants, auto repair, etc. I see similar results.
So, I ask Matt (and Google): how are reciprocal links not relevant? For many search terms they seem far more relevant than Google's own search results.
Finally I offer a little tip for those at Google and the other search engines: finding and using these **human edited** reciprocal link directories as part of the ranking algorithm for search terms like these will actually help improve the relevance of your search results. May the most relevant search engine win.
[edited by: sugarrae at 3:04 pm (utc) on June 24, 2006]
[edit reason] keep it civil please [/edit]
Mom & Pop are the last ones to have to worry if they just stick to providing good info about their place and some basic local info!
If those webmasters cannot comprehend this simplistic concept, then rekitty is right and they are screwed.
They should get ranked for those terms but it's become increasingly difficult for Mom & Pop to rank because the affiliate, MFA and scraper sites are taking more and more of the top spots. Try it in your town to see what I mean. This is a real issue for small businesses.
1.) small time national directory listing local salons
2.) citysearch
3.) citysearch again (indented listing)
4.) local hair salon
5.) small time directory site listing local salons
6.) local spa/hair salon
7.) local hair salon
8.) local hair salon
9.) local site listing local hair salons (me)
10.) local site listing local hair salons (my competitor)
100% of the results are on target (if you consider a "listings site" as being on target) and 60-80% are either one-person/ small time sites, or sites belonging to local businesses.
(mytown population=2.2 million)
I believe rekitty is referring to Mom & Pop DIY webmasters, not those who've hired a webmaster or seo services. And ascertains that Matt Cutts is scaring the bejesus out of them.
Exactly!
Marcia, I've described precisely how these Mom & Pop sites have thousands of legitimate reciprocal links in msg #:31. Believe it or not, it's highly likely these reciprocal links were painstakingly acquired over years by the sole proprietor of the business.
Few small businesses can afford the cost of SEO services. Check with your local B&B, Realtor or dentist that has decent ranking. There is a good chance they do link exchanges themselves. If they hire an SEO my point still applies. The SEO doesn't know the definition of "excessive reciprocal links," do you?
Does anyone disagree the thousands of reciprocal links detailed msg #:31 are legitimate and add value to the web? Unfortunately nobody knows if this is OK in Google's eyes because there are no guidelines, published or otherwise. This is wrong and Matt should right it, IMO.
Does anyone disagree the thousands of reciprocal links detailed msg #:31 are legitimate and add value to the web?
Yes, I disagree. A Mom & Pop B&B with thousands of reciprocal links to other B&B's on their site have likely done this for the sole purpose of ranking ... painstakingly collected or not!
In my opinion, what you have described is not a legitimate directory. A legitimate directory does not require a reciprocal link from anyone. Google will likely ignore these links and rightly so.
As for adding value to the web ... pffffft. You're kidding right? Don't you think there are more legitimate (and trusted) directories which contain this information?
You've helped make my point because every individual proprietor site that is able to rank is using reciprocal linking techniques just as I've described. Do you see the same? I see this in many lines of small business.
Reciprocal links are one of the few tools the small business has available to compete against the affiliate, MFA and other large national sites. Now this tool is in doubt and they are scared.
But posting a serps and claiming all the M/P sites are there because of recips makes me wonder. Did anyone check to see how many one way inbounds the sites had?
Is it possible that even if the recips were devalued they had enough one ways to keep their place on page 1?
As for adding value to the web ... pffffft. You're kidding right? Don't you think there are more legitimate (and trusted) directories which contain this information?
No, I'm not kidding.
Who's most qualified to maintain a directory of dentists? Um, maybe a dentist? Same goes with Realtors, B&B's, etc. Some of the very best local service directories (handymen, plumbers, landscapers) are maintained by Realtors. B&B's often have outstanding directories for local restaurants and attractions.
Exactly where are the more legitimate and trusted directories? DMOZ, a MFA dentist site, the affiliate Realtor site ... pfffft.
"a bunch of reciprocal links" = waste of badwidth
Move on...
Move on...
I agree. Rekitty can argue that Matt Cutts is unnecessarily scaring webmasters and mom & pop operators. The truth of the matter is that recip link farms have come to the end of the road in regards to manipulating search engine rankings ... and its about time!
If those same webmasters and Mom & Pop operators put nearly as much effort into "painstakingly" building content instead of link farms, they would soon realize the benefits ... but whatever.
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
rekitty, several people have given ideas and suggestions for your friends/clients which do not involve tricks. You are maintaining a very myopic view of search marketing.
In your realtor example:
*1. Our Realtor: Sets up a directory of all 50 US states and exchanges links with 20 Realtors in each state. *
When a customer enters this realtor's office, does he whip out a list of 20 realtors from 50 states? Of course not, because it is not useful or relevant to his customer, just as it is not useful or relevant to his web site visitors. Does this realtor even keep such a list handy just in case a customer asks for such a thing? I doubt it.
You say these webmasters did this in order to rank higher and that's the only option they have, and now you are trying to justify the usefulness for their visitors.
The B&B site linking to local restaurants is useful and a good example of appropriate linking. I'm not saying that all the other links you mentioned are inappropriate or not useful in some way. I suspect the webmasters in question don't really believe all those links are useful, otherwise they wouldn't be freaking out.
I think you fail to understand what - create pages for your users - actually means. If those webmasters truly believe those links are useful to their visitors, they should leave them and continue to improve their sites in other ways.
The MFA, affiliate and scraper sites got a bunch of natural links because they are such great sites. That's why they are beating Mom & Pop, sure.
Not really sure what your point is. This statement seems pretty unrelated to your original point about what Matt Cutts wrote about reciprocal links.
All those types of sites can be problem sites (though aff sites can be quite useful if done right) but the reason that google ia applying trust values to links is to try ina clear out sites like those. It is far from perfect, but Google should feel no guilt for discounting links gained through link exchanges. Hell, the reason they are going after excessive link exchanges is BECAUSE of those MFA, affiliate and scraper sites.
Real businesses with happy customers will gain real links over time. They will slowly improve their ranking, and they will be able to maintain that ranking over time.
There will always be crap in the SERPs. Are you suggesting that Google should accept those bad tactics used by those sites and just encourage legit sites to use them?
The guidelines are quite clear about link building schemes. Just because they did not discount those links in the past doea not mean that they shoud never discount them. It has been in the guidelines all along.
On the other hand thousands of links seems like a real waste of time and bandwidth and I can understand why it would look bad to Google. It doesn't take that many links! I suspect in the case of a site with this many recip links most are discounted and all that work has gone for nothing and maybe actually hurt the site.
If I go to google to look for ringtones, am I going to click through to by a house? Umm, I think not.
Vice Versa, if I was looking for a house, would I click through to get a ring tone?
A good relevant link would be to a bank that gives loans, may be an attorney to help with closing, things that would be relevant to buying a house....
But ringtones and fish oil? Think about it.... I see exactly what he is saying...
We feature links to our clients (that are absolutely off-topic) on our site because we are proud of what we did and want to showcase to potential customers what we are capabale of.
We publish ROS links to our site on clients sites simply because we consider it as a great way of marketing our company to people who are visiting these sites and might be interested in our services.
I'm afraid, that according to Matt, these links are not quite "right".
Move on...
Gladly. Thanks for the lively discussion. A few parting thoughts...
For any Mom & Pops out there reading this:
Be careful out there. Many of the business areas mentioned are very competitive and you need an gun for a gunfight. There are a number of other link building techniques to look into in addition the the couple kindly offered up in this discussion: article submission, relevant link buying for traffic/link popularity, comment posting on relevant blogs and forums, and press releases - to mention a few. Also consider continuing your reciprocal linking with others in your area of business. This is actually a tool you have available the bad guys don't since, for example, no Realtor or dentist is going to exchange links with an MFA, affiliate or scraper site. I'll argue below these reciprocal links actually provide a valuable signal to the search engines as to the real practitioners in your field as opposed to posers.
For any open minded webmasters and SEO's:
Don't give up on reciprocal linking - reports their demise may be much exaggerated. I previously believed the herd mentality and thought the days of useful reciprocal linking were numbered. Now I'm not sure. Hear out my theory...
I think the search engine engineers have long know what I suggested in my post starting this thread: there is useful signal in many reciprocal link directories. The search engines just need to pick out the signal from the noise. In the search engine algorithm arms race against spam and each other they can not ignore any useful signal. The search engines know there is no difference in the motivation of a webmaster seeking a link from a "legitimate" directory and a reciprocal link. The motivation is link popularity and traffic. The only difference is the price paid: dollars, sweat, or a reciprocal link. They are all bought and the search engines know it. But if the link provides useful signal to a search engine it will be used in the algorithm if possible. In many cases a reciprocal link is probably more carefully screened than a purchased directory listing. Webmasters are very picky about who they will link to these days after, rightfully, being scared silly by the search engines. I can buy more links in a day than I can trade and I bet the search engines know this and value them accordingly. Just a crazy theory...
Thanks all!
Well, at least Google doesn't care about reciprocal links anymore (unless they find some relevancy)
As far as I am concerned, personally, reciprocal linking on a large scale was succesful as a brute force method earlier and its gone now. The same time spent can easily be used to develop content on the site, and get a few quality inbound links. Just a few. Which are often more than enough. The reaction against Google is just anger at having to change the way we used to work, IMHO.
Vice Versa, if I was looking for a house, would I click through to get a ring tone?I agree these are not relevant links. I just wish someone would point out this thread to the adsense crew.
If there were NO search engines, I would still want my link on every single website I could get it on, no matter how "unrelated" they were.
Some Fortune 500 companies literally spend 90% of the entire budget on making sure their name/logo is found anywhere and everywhere, even in the most ridiculous places.
There's a reason why in blind taste tests, Pepsi beats Coke nearly 2 to 1 everytime and yet Coke dominates the market share.....
So tell me again why I wouldn't exchange links with everyone and anyone? Hypothetically of course.. ;)
------
edited to add.. Anyone watching the World Cup?
Why do 90% of the banners in the background have absolutely nothing to do with Football/Soccer?
How very odd, eh?
How very "spammy" of them. Trying to "manipulate" my enjoyment of watching Pontiac car commercials by talking about "search engines" <snickers>
However, Google also has the right to ignore (or even penalize for) linking patterns that it regards as "unnatural."
In other words, you get to run your business as you see fit, and Google gets to run its business as it sees fit. You're both winners. (Isn't freedom a wonderful thing?)
Not to long ago on a different thread there was this guy who got 17000 links on a blog, he monitored it over the next few day and had 0 click throughs.
A good relevant link from an educational site, news aricle, etc... are the ones that you want.
You can link all you want, but if you get no click throughs? That is what you also have to look at.
You can link all you want, but if you get no click throughs? That is what you also have to look at...
...this is the basis of correct "link" thinking....approach it from this perspective...and you are likely to benefit from the click through traffic because of the link relationship FIRST and then SECOND from how the search engines may look at this relationship...(and link traffic can be very strong on the conversion side because of relevancy and "shared values")
but regardless of how the engines look at it...you can still benefit from the targeted traffic...
Not too long along Mr. Google Employee #1 said they would be "cracking down" on bought links. And to do this day, I still see a competitor of mine (and all the other sites that buy links from the "network") ranking in the top 3 for keywords worth hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues for top spots.
Their links are obviously "bought".
Google and everyone's mom knows the group of websites selling the links, and the sites have no relevance to any of the very rich companies that pay for them. Those same links account for over 90% of their backlink count (and from the same IP address, no less)
As someone said earlier, Google Employee #1's comments are from HIS personal blog and may or may not reflect the reality of how the Google algo actually works.
[edited by: tedster at 2:40 pm (utc) on June 26, 2006]
I just think it's another case of Google saying "Do as I say, not as I do"
I build "authority sites" so I could care less if G discounts or penalizes for reciprocal links, one ways links, or bought links.
As I've said before, everyone who disagrees with Google's tactics (or especially Google Employee #1's PR "announcements"), isn't necessarily doing so out of self-interest or because they are trying to "game" them. (I know that's hard for you to believe)
I have to take issue with this statement. While technically true, we have to know Matt's clout at Google's spam department. I know he is not the only one there, but I have a feeling that most of his ideas make it in the algo, if they can be implemented.
Of course, he could be doing this to scare us into complying and playing nice.
