ROS Links vs One Good Natural Link

[kamikaze Optimizer]

I recently had a conversation with a friend, a fellow SEO professional, regarding the true value of Run of Site links, versus receiving one good natural link from the same site; with me putting more value in the single good natural link.

I debated that even if you receive thousands of ROS links from a site, you only get true credit of one link even if Google reports thousands of them in your back links.

Any agreement/disagreement on this?

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:24 pm (utc) on April 24, 2008]

[tedster]

I'd disagree, but just a bit. While 1,000 links are not going to count 1,000 times more, there is still a potential for somewhat greater value, from what I see. Of course, you're almost screaming for a close human inspection with ROS links, so any guideline violations on either site should be well stowed away.

The only way I can see ROS links making sense these days is if they point to a pre-sell page on the other domain.

[steveb]

Setting up a false dichotomy isn't very helpful. One natural link is worth less than natural ROS links. One unnatural lousy link is better than a a batch of lousy ROS links.

[kamikaze Optimizer]

Hi Tedster and Steveb:

You both bring up an important point.

Let’s assume that the ROS links in our discussion are clearly labeled “Sponsored Links” and that there are 34 of them.

Verses a well written, on topic blog post by a professional journalist in which a link is placed within the context of the text, in the most natural way.

[edited by: kamikaze_Optimizer at 7:01 am (utc) on April 25, 2008]

[CainIV]

Kamikaze, I deal with this topic often. From my testing, very few links are as effective as in-content link from well-linked to, quality authority blogs.

There are varying degrees of opinion on whether Sponsored links are effective or are not, but from my research and experience I would suggest that any link that is "labelled" and is in the footer area, or lwoer area of nav, is likely to be significantly discounted.

The issue is that rules are meant to be broken, and I do know of cases where ROS links, even in Sponsored Areas, gave a website a big boost, but for the most part, this was few and far between.

[tedster]

Let’s assume that the ROS links in our discussion are clearly labeled “Sponsored Links”

This changes the discussion a lot - you're talking about selling and buying links. So there is a risk for the site hosting the links, beyond the question of how effective the links may be for the sites they link to. I'm assuming here that the links do not use a nofollow or other means of stopping PR from passing. That is what Google asks for on sponsored links, but since you didn't mention it, I'll assume the links are coded to pass PR.

First some facts. Many sites with "Sponsored Links" labels have already lost toolbar PR, although some have not. Also, it seems that many of these links are still effective, even though the toolbar PR has been dropped or wiped out. However, there are others who lost toolbar PR and also suffered in their rankings - i.e. there can be a penalty for selling links, and it can have real teeth. So the risks are real, if not universally applied.

Google has sent a clear message that they do not like this kind of linking, whether it's ROS or just a one-off text link. ROS links with a Sponsored Links label is certainly easy for Google to spot through an automated process. I also feel rather certain that Google has not finished their campaign against link selling when those links pass PR.

So we have a business decision - a calculated risk, if you will. And the risk seems to be greater for small business than it is for the major corporation, and greater for the seller than the buyer.

Is the extra link revenue worth the risk to other business purposes that the site serves?
Can Google afford to drop the link seller's site from the search results without looking foolish?

If a major enterprise sells links, Google is between a rock and hard place. For a small business, there's not so big a dilemma for Google. I get the sense that Google is trying to be even handed, but that can be like an elephant trying not to crush a few bugs,

Going back to the ROS aspect for a bit, I would judge the value of any link by how good a traffic generator that link can be. It tends to be the case -- links that generate traffic also help ranking. That's really Google's goal in trying to reward natural links and punish "unnatural' links, as I see it.

Certainly a set of ROS links has a better chance of generating traffic. But getting into the area of sponsored links that pass PR, well, that takes it to a diffferent type of discussion.

[edited by: tedster at 3:36 pm (utc) on April 25, 2008]

[kamikaze Optimizer]

Thanks Cain, I agree with you.

Tedster, you crack me up, you seemed to touch base on all of the things that I was discussing with my friend when the debate of the ROS Links vs One Good Natural Link first came up. Were you a fly on the wall? :)

I completely agree with everything that you have stated.

Darn, I should have wagered my friend on this one, I could have won a coffee and/or a beer.