Forum Moderators: open
Create a reciprocal linking strategy with the following:
1. Get incoming links to www.widgets.com
2. Post outgoing links from directory.widgets.com
Sites look identical.
What are the flaws?
But, I know of very few people that would provide reciprocal links with you because they would want a link from the page with the valid content and not from a directory of sorts.
Then you'll also run into the problem of people just wanting a link from your directory even though they don't have related content.
I'm interested in seeing how this pans out. If you wouldn't mind sending me a StickyMail should you put this idea into play, I'd appreciate it.
You will find that you link to lots of sites that don't link to you, many sites will link to you because you have a useful site but also your resource area is worth linking to.
We have seen this done several times with brilliant results. These sites give huge amounts of PR away, but they fit perfectly in with how a good natural site would be. The links in and out keep growing and also the traffic, not just from search engines.
The problem is that the site must have decent content to start it and then all links out must be checked to make sure they are good quality......it's called work.
Doug
Build links page yourself. And don't put more than 50 external links in a page. Don't have too many unrelated categories.
Find links that do not need to be reciprocated. Buy? :)
1. Get listed in directories.
Example of a good one is directory-search.org
You'll show up on about 30 of his pages that all have a PR of 6+.
2. Put good OUTBOUND links to AUTHORITY sites on a related topic.
3. Have relivent content/linking based on the "THEME" of your site.
Have you all noticed that every hair-brain scheme talked about in the forums to trick google gets filtered eventually. Reciprical links was the most touchy but I really think Google out did themselves. I think the new results are better.
Create a reciprocal linking strategy with the following:
1. Get incoming links to www.widgets.com
2. Post outgoing links from directory.widgets.com
There is nothing wrong with this as far as I can see - all you are doing is making a link directory, the same way 1000's of sites do.
The only difference is that you are placing the directory on a subdomain.
The benifit might be that SE's might reconize the sub directory as a seperate site and all your incoming links might appear as one way links in the SE's eyes. Interesting idea.
anything done to disguise links will be (at some point) penalized
I have been advised to use the robots file to block outgoing links. Assuming link partners don't care, are there any potential pitfalls with this?
You have to ask - would you trade links with someone that was blocking their link directory from the spiders? If the answer is no then why should anyone trade links with you.
There are a lot of sites for which recip links exist not for SEO reasons but because synergy exists between demographics.
For a specific reason though, linking out appears to get you an algorithmic boost. It's 50%+ likely that you get a boost now for linking to authoritative sites.
The only benifit of that is to boost PR
Actually, there's the old-fashioned idea that a link is of value because people visiting the linking site will see the link, think it's of interest, and actually click it... nothing at all to do with search engines.
An admittedly antiquated notion, but charming nonetheless, doncha think?
That's not a realistic assumption, and I wouldn't recommend this tactic to anyone.
Why are you doing it? To avoid a very small PR leak? If that is your motive, then it is a decision that will likely not improve your rankings anyway.
Build optimized web pages full of good content and no tricks, follow W3C standards, and always think about your users, customers, and visitors. That's the best formula you can have for a successful web site (IMO).
Actually, there's the old-fashioned idea that a link is of value because people visiting the linking site will see the link, think it's of interest, and actually click it... nothing at all to do with search engines.
I totally agree with the above statement - BUT I think your missing the point.
Disallowing spiders from your links page is a shady underhanded move. The only possible reason I can see for it is to manipulate PR.
Tell me how blocking spiders from your links page/directory improves your "old-fashioned idea"?
added******
Why do it?If the answer to that is SEO related then its a bad move.
There is one site I work with that I was thinking of using this strategy -- the users are a golf community, they have never heard of SEO. The site owner is not concerned that there are 'bad neighborhoods', but rather recognizes that a bunch of retired golfers don't care about SEO, and if a link can appear one way, then why not do it?
Again, we haven't tried this yet, and I am trying to recognize the potential pitfalls of this before taking it to serious consideration.
But if they ARE concerned with rankings then as the professional you need to inform them about the damage that can be caused by linking to bad neighborhoods.
It just seems like the bad out weights the good in this situation or any situation concerning blocking robots from links pages.
Your site = Your call
In my area (yes it is very competetive), those that employ SEO and trickery end up ranking below those that build their sites for humans.
As for "bad neighborhoods" I have linked to several sites that had penalties on them, and never noticed any negative impact. The caveat is that they were a small percentage of my outgoing links.
If you end up with a link to a bad neighborhood, you should be safe unless you *appear to be a part of the bad neighborhood*. This is really only a danger to those that participate in link exchanges, and they end up linking to several sites that get nailed.
If it is a site that you really think is useful for your users, then link to it. It is the right thing to do. If it is part of your linking strategy, then be careful.
I don't personally do any form of link trading, and I never will. I'm kind of arrogant that way. I only want people to link to me if they think my sites are useful, and I will only link to them if I think their site is useful.
As for those things like linkspartner, or whatever. If a bad neighborhood develops within their members, you have a good chance of looking like you are part of a neighborhood of closely linked sites. Any "program" could easily fall prey to something like this.
But it's your call, and your risk to take.
People say that PR isn't important but you know what maybe tomorrow Google flips a switch and it becomes important. The best way to get good PR is from the directories. Get listed in them and you'll get PR.
Don't worry about link partners it's too obvious now that your links a fabricated and don't amount to anything.
Everyone seems to be complaining about 'Directory Sites' dominating the SERPs. While thinking of what sites I like to link to and how much traffic each site generates, I think I may have found a reason why so many directories are doing well.
When you search for a site to exchange links with, have you noticed that most sites tend to make their outgoing links hard to find? Not that they are impossible if you are looking for them, but the average visitor will never see them.
What is different with the directory style sites is that they make their outgoing links clearly available. Not just clearly available but easy for their visitors to find.
I have outgoing links on my sites that are very easy to find. They are on topic and they are clean links. (no redirects) My sites are doing fine in the SERPs.
I don't think that Google would bother with a penalty for reciprocal links, but I could see them decreasing the rank of a site that hides outgoing links in an attempt to keep visitors on their site. It's a virtual 'dead end' site and the only way out is to go back to the search engine and search again.
The whole point of putting an outgoing link is to direct people to that site. By hiding links you may as well not have them at all. Maybe there is some weight to outgoing links after all, but it's not really the link itself, but the usability of it.
just my 0.02
Don't worry about link partners it's too obvious now that your links a fabricated and don't amount to anything.
Poor advice in my opinion - 1000's of sites have #1 spots for competive terms solely because of reciprocal linking strategies and targeted anchor text.
The latter more than the first one bub. That's why the term "search engine optimization" and it's page 1 results didn't budge. One sided linking with heavy inbound link text using "search engine optimization" kept them from dropping even when some of their pages have 18%+ keyword density in the body text,hx tags and 30% in the link text.
businessezines >> One additional question...how do you know when a site is considered by Google as an authority site?
realtor.com, ebay.com, interest.com, whitehouse.gov webmd.com are examples of what I call authority sites. They've gone passed having to be "optimized" and hold their own without search engine help. .org sites usually have a high PR,are non profit and tend to have good information.
The real answer is look at what is ranking. Directory based sites. What does a directory do? It crosslinks out the butt and most of it's links go out bound with very little reciprication. They have high PR, because of that they rank because of that and if you turn your site into that it will rank all day long depending if you can turn your site into a directory on something.
A good link out to an authority site for more information on what your page is about says you are on topic and the information mostlikely agrees with what an authority is saying.
A link from a directory establishes you as being valid and not a fly by night site. dmoz doesn't put trash in their directory unless it is by human error and if your site is worth 400 bucks you'll list it in yahoo.
I bet googleguy would define an authority site (if it is in his vocabulary because he probably doesn't care :) ) as heavy inbound links. Because the information is good enough to link to.
I bet googleguy would define an authority site (if it is in his vocabulary because he probably doesn't care
Actually, I believe it is in his vocabulary because it was a post by GoogleGuy that started all the discussion of "authority-like score" and "hub-like score".
So obviously he and Google *do care* about sites that appear to be authorities, it is just not clear if you really do get a bonus for linking to them.
But it is important to remember that google's bread and butter is linking between sites. They need links to follow. So it serves their self interest to encourage outbound linking.
