Forum Moderators: open
I know this topic has been discussed many times before and here is a chance to discuss it again. I have a network of sites all of a similar theme but divided into separate sites by locality. Each site has unique content about the area it serves.
In order to avoid cross-linking penalities (whether they exist or not I don't know), I created a special link page called theme network, which links to all the other sites on each site. This theme network page is different for each site. For example text used, anchor text used, order of links, page properties.
The theme pages don't link to each other, so is this even cross-linking?
I have to have the sites in a network for the user. I noticed that Yahoo does a similar thing for it's regional sites (except it does it from its main page and uses redirects). Will Yahoo get a cross-linking penality?
So I am okay in what I'm doing?
[edited by: Marcia at 1:51 am (utc) on Mar. 15, 2003]
[edit reason] no direct appeals, please [/edit]
You're right, there have been multiple discussion on this, and it's a situation that can come up in a lot of industries - real estate, travel, tourism, restaurant guides, the list goes on. It's not uncommon.
While there can be legitimate reasons for it, no one has ever been able to come up with a definitive answer as to what's safe, and Google sure won't tell us. There are people who it's working for so far, and chances are good they won't tell us unless it's for a price - and they haven't got any guarantees of immunity either.
What's getting by today may not any time soon, I've recently seen sites cross-linked between every page on all the sites - not to be emulated, there's no guarantee they'll stay where they are.
The best thing is to read and research, then decide how much calculated risk to take in view of what's good for the user experience and the business model. The hub/spoke model done prudently seems to be the safest - for now anyway. Less is probably most always safer and better than more.
I think it was because of you that I changed my previous linking strategy. Before it had every page of every site linked to the index pages of all the sites. This didn't cause me to receive a penality but it definitely drained my pr.
I'm just wondering if the current way I link these sites is safe or not. Is this network page the correct way to go about it?
What about creating a network page and blocking the bots from seeing that page by using a .htaccess file?
Get a graphical web mapping tool and see how other people are doing it, and find your own happy medium.
Is it wrong to have a network? Why can't I do this for both the user and for pr?
When properly done there is nothing wrong about it, but you really need to appreciate alot.
When you are ignorant to "cause & effect" your exceptionally design kings castle of PageRank and over-powering the competition -- can quickly sink into the quicksand. A hige foundation of knowledge and skill is needed...
Some examples of why?
Crosslinking got me banned
70 plus websites almost all gone [webmasterworld.com]
Cross-linking
Cross-linking (bad)? [webmasterworld.com]
In these articles the person had obviously spammed they had duplicate content on the 70 sites with only the index pages being different. They receive a dup content penalty not a penalty for cross-linking. In my case the sites all feature unique content. It makes sense for the user that there this network page because it would guide them to the locality that they could be interested in.
Kovacs,
Linking the deep content doesn't make sense inuititively to the user and won't allow them to easy pass between sites, which is must.
The index pages aren't in a circle of links, though some sites are interlinked from the index pages because they all have state/province wide appeal. Most of the sites use this secondary page to link to the index pages of the other sites.
So is what I'm doing okay?
I'll give an example of why I do what I'm doing. Each site is part (say a state) of a map, having very specific information and services for that part. Some people who come to an individual site might be interested in a different state and should have a quick way of going to information on that state. It doesn't make sense that they hunt in this site for links about another state, instead it does make sense to have a quick index where they can go to any state.
To repeat my question, is what I'm doing okay?
Thanks for the input :)
I'm of the belief that Google does not want to stifle legitimate sites making legitimate use of the Internet. Cross-linking different but related sites is a hallmark of the web.
I think in your case Google's Guidelines [google.com] states it all:
A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
It sounds like you can be comfortable with both of those points and you should do what makes legitimate sense for your business and your visitors.
(Of course, one of my sites has been walking around with a big PR0 on its forehead for the past year and a half, so...)
Jim
Ditto.
<pure conjecture>
Basically, I think that cross-linking is deemed to be OK until someone turns you in. Then, upon review, the editor takes a look using the rule of thumb cited above. In addition to that rule of thumb, I think there are likely to be two other mitigating factors; (1) the individual network sites have their own, independent backlinks and (2) the age of the site.
</pure conjecture>
You instill me with confidence. So atleast I know I was in the right when my sites get penalized ;)
The sites have been set up this way for about 4-6 months. I hope that is an indication that they are okay. I am worried because it took a lot of time to build these sites and there is no definitive answer about how to network sites and make both the user and Google happy, which is really what we all are trying to do.
The theme pages don't link to each other, so is this even cross-linking?
You actually answered yourself. No you yourself are not cross-linking.
If you simply have navigation links between sites then this is similar to reciprocal links.
To clarify further - most pages of each site are actually using a "feedback loop" (link on a low level page linking to a homepage of another site...
And top level pages link both ways.
In retrospect only 1 or maybe 2 pages per site actually "crosslink" and the remainer are one-way links.
If this is your strategy - you can't get any better. :)
I don't want to get personal :)
I suggest you put the site in your profile because I think you may be leading some of the more experienced members astray ;)
I have seen the site in question and your site is classic closed circle crosslinking. You have every one of your sites crosslinked in the same fashion with the same page/links that only go the sites within your "network".
Take a look at your pages with an open mind and you will see what I am saying.
It is only a matter of time in my opinion before you risk losing them all.
[Edited] I was asked to take a look at your site and that is the only reason I know.
The Network links page has links to the entire group. But it isn't a circle because it is like: (1-10 represents if ten sites, since the links page also points to the index page of the site where it resides)
website1.com/links1.html ---> websites1-10.com/index.html
and website2.com/links2.html ---> websites1-10.com/index.html
(text on any links1-10.html page is not equal any other to links1-10.html page)
This is different from the complete cross-link style where:
website1-10.com/index.html <---> website1-10.com/index.html
I do have some of the sites crosslinked on the index page but even these do not make a complete circle.
I have many inbound links from sites outside of the network (DMOZ, Yahoo, and many directory sites).
I am not sure if you remember the previous version of my sites' set up where I had heavily cross-linked. I changed this about 4-5 months ago and noticed no problems so far.
Should I worry?
I do try to look at my sites objectively, but sometimes when you work closely on something for too long it is hard to remain objective.
This is why I really appreciate the feedback from this forum :)
ADDED Note: I am willing to sticky anyone who asks the URLs so they can see for themselves.
[edited by: allanp73 at 3:15 am (utc) on Mar. 16, 2003]
As others have noted, do what makes sense for your visitors and get plenty of other linkage for the sites. Also, avoid link-farm style duplication of link pages (which it sounds like you already aware of).
You are basically having the same set of links in your link page in all your sites...It was a classic technic which worked liked charm without problem a year before . Yours is a very competitve field and pushing the edge in a competitive field is always dangerous :)
If i were you i will remove the links between sites in the network and instead focus on promoting the sites induvidually ...
Allan first of all, crosslinking on an index page grabs attention unless there are very few and there's a logical, good enough reason so it'll pass a hand check or close look by anyone with a watchful eye. IMHO the safest strategy is sticking with minimums, and not doing anything beyond what looks reasonable from a logical user perspective, in order to arouse the least suspicion possible.
I'm looking at a takeout menu thinking of calling out, so let's take Chinese restaurants as a hypothetical illustration. If I were looking for one near me online and there was a directory with all the Chinese restaurants in a bunch of states with listings for each city, possibly broken down into named city areas, I'd start with looking for one close - someplace in California that's closest. If I looked and didn't like what West Hills had, I'd look at another close-by locale, like canoga park chinese restaurants. Having crosslinks among and between California cities - especially Southern, CA would be logical, helpful and expected. If there were links to Arizona or Phoenix Chinese restaurants, it wouldn't be helpful at all, and would look contrived for PR purposes.
If traveling, and planning on going from Arizona to California, had I looked at the AZ section and found places it would be logical for there to be a link between the main AZ local to the main CA listing, where I'd want to find city listings - there cross-linking would be logical and helpful if I were traveling the state taking a restaurant tour. A link from AZ to CA would help - just the state, not the individual cities. And then down to more specific.
It seems reasonable and helpful for main state locations to be linked with each other, and city locations to be linked within states or even narrower areas - but not for cities within one state to be cross-linked with cities in another state. There could even be broader regional categories - northwest, southwest, northeast, etc.
After logic it's deciding what goes where - whether on the index page (moderately), or a different internal page or pages - or links back to a main hub if there is one.
That's flawed and incomplete, but it's just what wouldn't look fishy to me.
When going back over your post's allanp73 you seem to jump from one side to the other (good practicies - then questionable ones). Seeking advice is good... but ignoring the advice you seek generally means your mind is made up... so relying on other to appease your sensibilities when you have the facts, nothing anyones says will chance that, we can only agree with you.
The very best linking (reciprocal linking, crosslinking, interlinking whatever...) link for the visitors gain, not your own. Many believe "if I place a link here - visitors may want to click" does not cut it. There must be a good "visitor" reason for the link - not "I can develop PageRank and maybe a visitor will click.
It should be visitors will click and maybe I'll gain some PageRank.
I suspect that the multiple domains are for your benefit (PageRank/Link Popularity) with little thought to how a visitor will interpret this link strategy.
I also suspect - while under google's radar you will be fine but when superb ranking starts - you will be within Google's crosshairs and probably, eventually get penalized.
To avoid this negative potential you should ensure that for every 2 -3 links (between sites) which you control -- you must have at least a unique domain outside of your control.
Therefore per every 200 - 300 crosslinks, 100 oneway inbounds or reciprocals with other sites.
Also note: PageRank is votes for the page - If only voting for yourself - this is manipulation of voting practices, and a very good defintiion of "spamming".
I actually had Marcia look at my sites. After reading Marcia's advice I realized that I will have to change the linking structure. Also, your advice helped (thanks to everyone). I one fear is that by changing my structure that my linking pop. will drop.
What I think would be a reasonable linking strategy would be to have state cross-links and other links on the network link page.
I am always looking for new links so inbound links shouldn't be a problem. I imagine that the change will take effect by next month's update. I really have always tried to avoid spam and don't want my linking strategy to be mistaken for such, so I will play it safe.
I hope Google is listening: I'm doing the right thing. Give me time to correct the problem and don't penalize me.
[edited by: globay at 11:54 am (utc) on Mar. 16, 2003]
"I suspect that the multiple domains are for your benefit (PageRank/Link Popularity) with little thought to how a visitor will interpret this link strategy."
Actually the multiple domains existed long before the cross-links did. Each site is independent (having people who work in that area to deal with users and these people also develop unique information about the area the specific site serves) and each was marketed as such. However, what happened was visitors kept trying to get information where we had a site but was not the one where they requested the information. In order to allow the visitors to switch sites and make a proper request to the correct people the cross-links were established. At first I went over-board and cross-link every page of every site. I figured it would help the user to easily navigate. Dealing with hundreds of mis-directed emails made me want to make it as obvious as possible. However, I found out that this was considered bad, so I developed the network links page. I left some of the cross-links on the indexed pages where there seemed to be a demand for these links from the user (based on actual user responses).
Now this too is considered too much so I will mimumize these as well. My users will be less happy but without making Google happy, I won't have users in the first place. Google and its partners account for 85% of all my network's traffic. Directories and other search engines just aren't bringing in the numbers.
So I hope Google realizes that I was trying not to do any wrong.
My users will be less happy but without making Google happy, I won't have users in the first place. Google and its partners account for 85% of all my network's traffic. Directories and other search engines just aren't bringing in the numbers.
You will find that these are "one in the same".
Google does not want "your results" at the top - it only wants the best results at the top -- that is a huge difference.
We all believe we have the "best" for Google users and believe we all deserve to be ranked high. But if you stand back for a moment and look unbiasedly -- manipulating the formula doesn't mean you are better at providing quality to Google's users.
If site owners are currently not linking to you on their own accord - (which serves the same purpose as crosslinking) this is a reflection of how good your site is in the eyes of others.
Work on this - and you will be rightly rewarded.
Would if you did crosslinking in some degree, that did not seem spammy to you, but your site got banned? Is there any way to get it back to where it was, by removing the crosslinks?
Yes - in time - by removing the problem areas and requesting Google take a looksee, they usually will act in kind. This however can take months.
You are getting good advice from fathom and Marcia :)
You have to realize that whenever that many sites are “templated/designed” besides color changes, with the same links pages etc. you will draw attention to yourself.
I have no doubt that you are trying to do this for all the right reasons it’s just sometimes we fail to see what others see from their point of view.
Did you ever consider making one large site (hub) with all the information on specific areas and services?
I know this is unpopular with many, but I think over the long-run these sites tend to outperform the smaller sites. Of course I don’t know your specifics and this wouldn’t work well if you are designing these sites for others and getting paid per site.
"Did you ever consider making one large site (hub) with all the information on specific areas and services?"
I really can't do this. The sites though many use a similar template are independent of the each other. The people shown on them do have some control. It might be that in the future these people will have complete control depending on how the business model would evolve. Each site represents a large market, which it tries to provide services for. We are developing business relationships in these markets so clumping all of the sites together onto one would loose this for the user and potential business partners, which are coming very soon.
"You have to realize that whenever that many sites are “templated/designed” besides color changes, with the same links pages etc. you will draw attention to yourself. "
The templated look has more to do with my lack of time and poor design skills then it does with trying to replicate the sites. Another reason, I moved to the templated look was to enhance the feeling of the network. I have seen other successful groups of sites doing this and felt it would appeal to the user as well. The idea is to have a common style. The links pages are different (in terms of text, though the .html name is the same) and the content on the sites is different. I am hoping the as the sites grow they will look more different from each other. It is slow process and the sites are still relatively young all but one are less than a year old.
I appreciate your comments and I'm working to improve. Actually, I stayed up until 8:00 a.m. developing my sites. Nothing has changed yet. First I have to work out the hows then the programming happens.
Thanks again :)
>>“templated/designed” besides color changes
Right on, Conractor. There are companies putting out very reasonable, attractively designed package deals that not only replicate design, but include hundreds of pages of pre-made content in the deal.
rogerd
link-farm style duplication of link pages
In these cases content almost can't be king, there's ppractically nothing new under the sun in the way of content that isn't already being done.
>>Yes - in time - by removing the problem areas and requesting Google take a looksee
I wouldn't count on that for long term survival, there would be multiple hundreds of sites to review. It would take full time editorial staff people to handle the multiple hundreds of sites they'd have to look at for certain industries, and there's such a proliferation of PR manipulation and content duplication it would be impossible, in view of the abundance of sites involved.
Comparison was made recently between people looking through serps and those with "years of experience". Developers of some of those with years of experience behind them create interlinked networks, with inclusion in hubs they create included as part of the package. These are highly skilled people who not only have studied how to work the engines but are skilled at marketing. They present a USP that's highly attractive and advantageously competitive in pricing.
>>PageRank is votes for the page
Some important votes are in. For some locales, the ODP and Yahoo categories for this industry (as well as a few others) have been voted PR0 by Google.
It's so common to see sites with very low PR, in spite of having many links, that it's hard to see how it would be easy to get legitimate links to those sites if the people being contacted for the links are the careful type and know the slightest bit about how PR and bad neighborhoods work.
glengara
IMO location of the crosslinks can be a factor.
Having them within textual content seems a far safer bet than having them in what can appear to be navigational content.
That sounds sensible enough. Links appearing in the navigation in a limited way, in a limited hierarchical pattern that's logical and user-friendly without looking spammy supplemented by a very limited amount of textual content links that aren't replicated wholesale sounds a whole lot safer and legitimate looking.
I certainly do not have "years of experience" in this particular sector, but it does seem that it isn't PR, but the ultra-heavy weighting of link text that's creating a sizeable challenge. PR is not difficult to get if a site's kept clean and a little innovative thinking is put into it. But it's awful hard to trump link-text spamming without going in the same direction.
[edited by: Marcia at 9:48 pm (utc) on Mar. 16, 2003]
Many people in ultra competitive fields (not yours) use throwaway domains ...that is they continue to enjoy the traffic until it lasts and start with fresh domains once its banned ....
If you can afford the same strategy then continue with the current linking ...but if not then you have to look into more conservative/safe SEO Practices :)
It all boils down to how much risk you can afford
