Forum Moderators: open
I am in the process of launching a reciprocal links campaign and have discovered that I should be able to legitmately place multiple links on many of the larger sites I will be targeting. (ie one website that links to my site from up to 5 or 6 different webpages).
Will this improve my page rank or be seen as a negative by the google monster?
Thanks
Not the issue. If that were the case, then the editor profile pages themselves would not have been in the index. They all were. Also careful analysis of internal dmoz.org PR flow indicated the links were indeed being counted for PR. (The way I knew is I was checking profile pages of metas and top level cat editors. Often these have huge PR. If that editor happens to also be the listed editor of some cat really far down the tree, because of the link from the editor profile page that cat has an abnormally high PR.)
>This leads me to the logical conclusion that G has somehow determined that the links to this site in particular are to be ignored.
Possible. Also possible that they just aren't being shown due to a Google bug or quirk.
This thread really has gotten too bizarre. Simple question which has a simple answer, there is no harm in getting several links from high quality sites.
Perhaps steve, and pardon me for assuming this, but perhaps you don't closely monitor WW's backlinks.
The site I am referring to happens to be a site that I do closely monitor.
I have seen something similar on two other sites I monitor.
Do you, really, and I mean "really really", think that Google has little "oddball exceptions" programmed into the algo, or do you think perhaps that you're just trolling because it appears that your stance is that if you haven't observed it, it just can't be true.
Good point. Going back to the OPs question, if he can get 5 or 6 links from one site he won't be penalized by Google. At the very worst it could give no additional benefit, and quite possibly could help. At minimum, if he gets links on 6 pages this should increase click through traffic than just one link.
How about the possibility it is some Google glitch/bug as I already suggested? Or again that perhaps Google has programmed the algo not to show some backlinks at random to make reverse engineering it difficult. I am not saying I don't believe that you observed this. Merely that your conclusion as to what you saw meant may be in error.
Multiple reciprocal links from the one site!
Will this improve my page rank or be seen as google bait?
I am in the process of launching a reciprocal links campaign
Now, to recap... Getting multiple links from a single site (with a large number of pages) should be okay. However, there appears to be:
a) dampening effect which limits the efficacy of multiple links from a single site. The larger the overall ratio of links versus the number of pages seems to play a part in it.
b) a filter in place that monitors reciprocal links (AKA crosslinking) and if a certain threshold is passed G appears to ignore the links completely.
--
To answer Robert's theory of a "glitch". This "glitch" has lasted through 3 PR/backlink updates.
Furthermore this is not the only site which I have observed a "crosslinking penalty".
It could also be possible that GoogleGuy himself has personally removed these links from the index. However, the more likely, and more logical determination is that G's spam detection algo has a crosslinking threshold, wherein after a certain criteria is met, the links are ignored.
I am not the only one in this forum that has observed this.
You may want to do a little reading, especially Msg #52 here: [webmasterworld.com...]
--
Now, I've done enough feeding for a while.
"Why doesn't Google just ignore internal/cross links?" Ignore is a strong word--it means you're setting aside information completely. If there are cross links, that can be useful information in good or bad ways, and we try to take that into account.
seems to leave the answer to the questions here up in the air. It sounds to me like
If there are cross links, that can be useful information in good or bad ways, and we try to take that into account.infers that Google tries to devine the usefulness of the info in determining the value of the link, therefore cross links could be bad or good.
However, the more likely, and more logical determination is that G's spam detection algo has a crosslinking threshold,
i have to agree - I had a competitor engage in a massive cross-linking effort, he was No. 2 for a long time, and has now all but disappeared.. Do you think this "filtering" is global, or just limited to the "big money phrases" I see talked about in other threads?
.
And don't link back to that site, both of you will be penalized.
Proof?
IMO the algo is just too complex to reach certain simple conclusions, like "X links won't get you penalized" (though I believe there is no penalty at all for getting links).
And there is neither a proof nor a spoon in SEO :)
SteveB you are out of date. WebG is right. Only 1 link now counts per site.
Do you really think that only one link from apple.com is counted as back link for mac.com (for PR purpose) just because it is on a different domain instead in a directory?
I would like to know the origin of this legend.
And don't link back to that site, both of you will be penalized.
Penalize would mean that these pages are removed from the index. Of course, that's not true.
This can't *possibly* be true. As I said earlier, a high-ranking .edu site recently linked to three different articles on my site and all three of those articles (and no others) jumped a rank in PR.
Now, it may well be true that PR *itself* doesn't mean much anymore. It seems fairly close to irrelevant to me. But are you really trying to claim that a page's PR doesn't go up when a high-ranking site links to it if that site has already linked to yours somewhere else? I've explicitly seen the exact opposite as recently as this month.
That is simply a foolish statement. So which single link does Google count?
LOL.
Newbies ignore that bit of craziness. Literally thousands of links from one domian can help the PR of another domain.
Namaste you should delete your post as it is so wrong it is irresponsible.
It means more than 3 months before after Florida.
SteveB you are out of date. WebG is right. Only 1 link now counts per site.
Sorry, but WebG is wrong.
5,6 links will most probably give you full benefit in terms of PR.
As for the other discussions in this thread, I would say it all depends.
