Forum Moderators: open
Do not use unstructured linking practices. That is... sporadic linking anywhere or everywhere.
I have never heard of this before.
Can anyone elaborate?
Or point me to a knowledgeable resource that discusses this?
I've never heard the terms structured or unstructured used related to linking.
Without any links to your pages in the first place, each is a needle in a haystack.
Unstructured linking can be inferred as making each domain its own stand-alone web site, that is for all intensive purposes only to enhance PageRank/Link Popularity rather than enhancing visitors (especially from Google) ability to easily navigate your information.
At first look, unstructured linking works well (developing PageRank) but you start losing visitors intuitivenes (understanding) immediately -- only the owner of the different domains knows why different domains were used.
When advertising products or services for resell through an unstructured linking strategy what you are really asking a potential customers to do is "trust" the domain name not "trust" the company. A domain much like any other advertising channel does not instill trust, does not fulfill, does not offer refunds, privacy, ditribution or returns the company behind these domain offers this.
Thus if heavy crosslinking produces a Google redflag or a spam report is submitted to Google and Google reps investigates - all those things that instill consumer confidence are normally missing - therefore less desireable for Google to be showing these sites to Google users. Remember from Google vantagepoint - the user is the most important factor of the Google equation.
Strutured linking - easily accomplished if starting a new project, and bit more thought process required if existing mulitple domains are implemented.
All domains are design as a single site or interface.
<added> regardless of which domain the visitor enters and navigates in all pages belong to the company (e.g. the main brand site even though the visitor is naviagting in another domain name</added>
None of the index (mainpages) are used within the structure of the interface.
Each index (mainpage) of each domain is an opening splash page with one link going internal into the interface design (look at this as the same if developing for different languages.
I prefer using a right side menu bar to post all subsequent domains leaving the page top menu for internal hierarchy directories buttons.
I also prefer using a left side menu for breadcrumb of the directory that way the visitor can navigate each & every single page from every other page without getting lose in your structure.
Normally a single company owns all domain thus regardless of information, product or service you must make this multiple domain strategy intuitive for navigation & usability but the simple fact is multiple domains are rarely customer focus (the development is purely for corporate exposure).
Lastly - remembering that all of your index pages are outside of the crosslinking structure, your copyright statement and ownership can link each page to the mainpage thus having an even distribution of reciprocal links (crosslinks) and oneway links.
In addition - the main page can also develop market focus promotions outside of the common interface of domains thus highly targeted promotions only to those interested (in one domain) which also have oneway links into the interface structure.
If for exmaple you have 4 domain all targeting different themed markets, this allows you the vertical price products and services (inside interface regular prices) at the mainpage entrance (for promotion) reduced price, and limited change of channel conflicts.
Obviously there is much planning in this but the extra planning pays dividends, plus at credibility and intcreases conversions.
[edited by: fathom at 12:58 am (utc) on Jan. 20, 2003]
A site's total maximum PageRank (not toolbar PageRank) is the total number of pages it has * 1. This can, of course, be increased by inbound links from other sites, but for now referring to internal linking only.
A site's total maximum PageRank cannot be more than this, but it can be less than this when pages include outbound links.
Generally, we want (at least, I do) to focus the PageRank on the main page, and therefore the links. So structured vs. unstructured linking could refer to internal linking that focuses PageRank versus linking that does not.
Rod
So structured vs. unstructured linking could refer to internal linking that focuses PageRank versus linking that does not.
Yes indeed, very true. A page deep in your structure that receives PageRank but does not redistributes that PageRank to another page (e.g. your mainpage) is a deadend, for PageRank as well as the visitor.
The visitor must backout of the page thus not good design. The focus should always be "what to do next" not "backup and try again".
In affect the only way a set of standalone sites can work... is have standalone companies managing each.
There are 4 stand-alone domains, each with a splash page that is only linked to from one interior page of each. The splash pages are not included in the site-wide linking structure otherwise.
I can follow that far. But then I'm getting lost. Am I correct in assuming that all the other interior pages of all four domains inter-link with all the interior pages of the other domains, with the exception of the index/splash pages?
Another point:
A little over a year ago there was a widespread PR0 penalty that was assumed to have been dealt out in a number of cases because of cross-linking issues. It was widespread enough so that it was definitely an algorithmic adjustment and apparently automatically imposed when the conditions for penalty were met. The penalty was lifted gradually at a few time intervals, so it was also an automated rolling back and restoration of a percentage of sites each time. Each time, some sites' PR was restored, some only partially, while others weren't.
With a good number of sites, even though changes were made and corrections made, the PR0 penalty remains until this day. Some site have retained "normal" PR for the index pages, while PR remains stripped for interior pages. One site I've seen (belonging to an SEO, BTW) has had the entire site PR0, and does to this day.
I'm wondering how the structured pattern affects PR related to penalty issues as we've seen them applied and lifted in an automated fashion. I've seen cases where cross-linking can be logical and enhance user experience, but the penalty issue is an over-riding concern, even in legitimate cases, simply because the bot doesn't have human comprehension. Links are just followed, and patterns can easily be mapped.
That part also isn't clear, how structured linking and/or cross-linking would relate to PR and penalty issues. The situation is much looser now than when the axe fell hard last year, but it's still worth examining safety parameters in terms of preventives.
It's a very interesting concept, and we've had some interestng discussions in the past about hubs and spokes, which I relate to this discussion regarding 4 related sites (spokes), with the addition of a central site, which would be the hub.
I'm trying to correlate this concept with the hub/spoke model and see how they relate.
[edited by: Marcia at 2:40 am (utc) on Jan. 20, 2003]
Just registered a couple of weeks ago and had trouble receiving my activiation email, which is the main reason for the delay in when I signed-on and when I first posted :-).
For internal linking, generally I've had all pages link to the home page as well as the main categories. Clicking on a main categoriy takes you to some content with links to sub-categories. The pages within the categories link to other pages within that category (or sub-category) as well as the home page.
To do otherwise you lose too much without even having the foggiest idea that you are losing too much.
As I continue to say "the FIND is more important than the SEARCH. The search only provides the awareness and interest.
The actual web site (of the company) produces the desire (the impulse) to buy (to take action), the domain name(s) themselves have very little to do with this.
The company is the trusting credible merchant... not the domain.
It sounds like you've used Themed Pyramid Navigation [searchengineworld.com]. There was a later discussion on Search Engine Theme Pyramids and Google [webmasterworld.com]. With those, the homepage / index page is linked back to from interior page.
There's a relation to interior distribution and flow of Page Rank, but the concept of linking between interior pages of a group of sites back and forth brings up an additional, different set of issues than just interior linking and PR considerations. There's a PR distribution issue added on that's beyond the one site with a themed structure.
Regarding ownership, that factor affects branding and consumer confidence and loyalty, but as the linking structures relate to Google, Page Rank and penalties, there are factors that are unrelated to consumer issues.
The critical issue we have to look at is that while the consumer is dealing with the company, Google will deal with the domains.
Marcia wrote: Regarding ownership, that factor affects branding and consumer confidence and loyalty, but as the linking structures relate to Google, Page Rank and penalties, there are factors that are unrelated to consumer issues.The critical issue we have to look at is that while the consumer is dealing with the company, Google will deal with the domains.
No matter how you slice it - these are the same things.
Goolge continuously looks for new innovative ways (algo) to keep the best results at the top and the worst results at the bottom or out of its index.
Google Ranking [google.ca]
Excerpts:
How does Google rank pages?1. The basics
Google's order of results is automatically determined by more than 100 factors, including our PageRank algorithm...
...Due to the nature of our business and our interest in protecting the integrity of our search results.
...Google's order of results is automatically determined by several factors, including our PageRank algorithm...
...You may want to check and see if the number of other sites linking to your URL has changed. This is the single biggest factor in determining what sites are indexed by Google, as we find most pages when our robots crawl the web and jump from page to page via hyperlinks...
Google Guidelines [google.ca]
Excerpts:
...Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link...Make pages for users, not for search engines.
Don't deceive your users, or present different content to search engines than you display to users.
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. 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?"
Google deals with Google Users, nothing more, nothing less...
Not with your company and not with your domain or domains.
Multiple domain strategies automatically removes the focus off the individual users needs in favour of the company’s corporate needs.
Thus your strategy must first and forthmost be about the consumer coming from Google, if Google ranking is your concern.
In actual fact there are few pages which cross-link.
First - if four domains are used and each index.html of those domains are not part of the common structure between the domains then only a single page (the highest page of your link hierarchy in each domain crosslinks.
The remainder of links are oneway links (non-reciprocating) or crosslinking.
Although difficult to visualize (from text) but ultimately this is a single web site.
The same strategy is identical if a single domain using subdomains to represent each directory structure rather than directories.
The greatest advantages of this design is not PageRank but:
1. common repetitive link anchor texts (or graphical links alt="" and link title="")
2. visitor usability, navigation, and business credibiliy. They see all of your unique selling points and much more intuitive when:
widgery.com (primary company site) and all its credentials is:
a repositiory of widgets for sale at: buywidgets.com
a virtual designer of widget supplement tools at: widgethelp.com
a manufacture of custom widgets at: widgetdevelopment.com, and
a virtual library of widget history at: widg.net
but all available and navible from the same place (interface) without needing to figure out the corporate strategy.
Do not use unstructured linking practices. That is... sporadic linking anywhere or everywhere
Good_Vibes,
Basically you can and should link around anywhere if it pleases you and your visitors, even if the sites you link to are PR0.
It seems to be that more or less exclusive, heavy interlinking between seperate domains means asking for trouble, unless each domain has already generated its own quality external inbound links.
There are heavily interlinking groups of domains that survived Google's penalty because of that.
I guess it could be summed up in; a page deserves to be in the google index if it gets a real independant vote (link).
WebGuerrilla's definition on natural linkage [webmasterworld.com] in this older thread has a good logic.
Heavy interlinking between subdomains seems to be regarded as interlinking within one domain.
[webmasterworld.com...]
All my domains were included into google's base for more than a year and all this time have good position and PR. When they were removed from google I was shocked! I do not tried to cheat or smth, I was satisfied with the results. One thing that I have is small links at the bottom of each page linking to another page of mine. Maybe google thought that it is like a link farm, but it is very small. About 15 domains only just linked to each other.
yes, from the outside it looks like the threshold ratio of domain interlinking versus independant external inbound links has been surpassed?
Webguerrilla had a posting in a thread last year (which I cannot find anymore) remarking towards Googleguy the different standards Google seems to have with regards to domain interlinking and penalties.
Webguerrilla had a posting in a thread last year (which I cannot find anymore) remarking towards Googleguy the different standards Google seems to have with regards to domain interlinking and penalties.
Could you sum up these different standards?
Or could someone find this thread?
it basically referred to something of a double standard of Google on the cross-linking penalty issue.
If you crosslink yourself into a linkfarm, that actually is advertising the linkfarm concept and the added advantage of linkage towards search engine rankings, you are/were easily targeted and punished (back in January 2002, the famous PR0 penalties).
If you do not advertise it, but carefully establish cross-linking of several domains after having already gotten several external inbound links for the individual domains (lets say all PR4 to PR6 pages/sites), you seem to be able to get away with it (at least from unreported automatic checks).
I would not be suprised if soonest, any benificial inter- and reciprocal linking effects and will neutralised. At least that sounds more professional than handing out penalties without time scales..
