Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is link spam killing high quality, theme related link development?
For the last two years now, I've posted my link instructions on my website in big, bold and multi-colored font so link masters can easily read and understand my link instructions.
I state that I am only interested in ENTIRE sites related to my theme. Link pages about my theme do not count. I only want links from sites entirely related to my theme.
Second, I also state that theme related websites must be able to put my link on a page that has some PR. PR2 is fine, just so long as it has some PR and I know it's not in trouble with Google. Considering that my link pages are PR4 and PR5, I think most people are getting a good deal when I reciprocate a link to them.
Third, I state that they most post my link first, and then write to me. (I've been tricked before).
Finally, most importantly, I post that I will not, under any circumstances, trade links with X, Y, and Z type websites. Webmasters of these type sites are told not even to bother sending me an email. I am polite but firm and crystal clear on this request.
Well, despite my clear instructions and my email address only posted on this page, I was getting about 5 to 20 link requests from the wrong type of websites every single day.
After 6 months of wasting my time muddling through these link letters from sites that weren't even close to adhering to my instructions (trying to find the rare good one) - I finally pulled my email address off my website and put it up as an image. I did this after I realized that a large portion of these were "automated" and doing link exchanges by hand and eye had become old fashioned.
This move did cut down the spam from the email harvesters that crawled my website but it didn't stop all of them. I still get too many automated link requests from people that just tack on "webmaster" or "feedback" or "info" at the front of your domain name for the email address.
The whole thing has gotten so bad, that I don't even bother to look at any email that I believe is a link request(unless it is obvious somewhere that the email is from another site that is theme related).
The problem now is that I think all webmasters are doing this because they are sick to death of link spam. I hired and trained a guy to do quality, theme related link exchanges for my network of sites as well as for a friend of mine. Our new link master is having a very difficult time finding quality link partners and my guess is the reason is that most webmasters are not opening the majority of link requests that they receive.
Link spam from agressive X, Y and Z type websites that automate the process and don't even bother to read your instructions has just choked the life out of quality theme related link development in my opinion and forever damaged what used to be a routine part of website marketing and SEO.
Anyone else have that opinion? Am I the only one that doesn't even bother to read link emails anymore because of all the spam? One to two years ago, when I did my own hand and eye link exchanges (call me old fashioned) I had a pretty good success rate at getting quality links. But something has changed and the whole process has gotten about 10x harder to find good partners.
Fiction: Joining a link exchange or "free-for-all" link program will boost my rankings.
Fact: Linking schemes do not increase a given site's PageRankI challenge anyone to find a specific endorsement of the process of reciprocal link exchange on Google's website.
Since Google doesn't give us an "exact" definition many of us will read the aforementioned in various ways depending upon one's level of understanding.
I read the aforementioned like this.
I have seen evidence that Google has taken action to penalize or ban sites that join a link exchange program (whereby "program" is defined as "several" sites all linking to each other with several being upwards of 500 sites or more).
I have NOT seen evidence that Google has taken action to penalize or ban sites that join a link exchange program (whereby "program" is defined as "2" sites linking to each other).
Therefore, I interpret Google's information for Webmasters to mean something OTHER or something MORE than just a link exchange between 2 sites.
Further evidence I use to come to my conclusion is found in the complete posting by Google which reads:
Fiction: Joining a link exchange or "free-for-all" link program will boost my rankings.Fact: Linking schemes do not increase a given site's PageRank, and will often do a site more harm than good. Many sites that advertise link-sharing programs not only offer little value, but will distribute your email address without your permission, resulting in an increased volume of unwanted mail to you.
Please note that Google says:
Many sites that advertise link-sharing programs not only offer little value, but will distribute your email address without your permission, resulting in an increased volume of unwanted mail to you.
Such a statement has NOTHING to do with a 1 on 1 link exchange between 2 site owners.
I have never in my 8 years online seen a post that complained about someone who exchanged a link with another site owner and then having them distribute their email address without their permission, resulting in an increased volume of unwanted mail for them, have you?
Also, I read this:
Main Entry: [1]scheme
Pronunciation: 'skEm
Function: noun
3 : a plan or program of action; especially : a crafty or secret one
Which to me suggests that if Google discovers a group of say 500 Websites who all have links FROM the other 499 sites as well as links TO the other 499 sites, then that is what Google means by a "linking scheme" and not when just 2 sites join a link exchange to each other ONLY.
One would have to read way too much into what Google posted to come away with the conclusion that exchanging links between just 2 sites is evil or that it doesn't increase a given site's PageRank, and will often do a site more harm than good.
There is no evidence to support such a conclusion when there is plenty of evidence to support the contrary.
I am sure that you can locate just as many sites as I can that have exchanged links with other sites that rank quite well and there PageRank has increased because of the exchanges.
I am just sharing my understanding of what Google wrote about link exchange programs without reading anything into it.
I have NOT seen evidence that Google has taken action to penalize or ban sites that join a link exchange program (whereby "program" is defined as "2" sites linking to each other).
Nobody is asserting that Google is penalizing websites for participating in reciprocal link exchanges. You are arguing a point that is not under discussion here.
Please take a moment to read the previous posts and get a better understanding of what we are discussing.
That's BS.
The overwhelming majority of link exchanges are performed by people that have no clue that PageRank even exists. Unless you mean to say that "the overwhelming majority of link exchanges performed by SEOs are primarily transacted for ranking purposes only".
Last time I checked any site that existed on the web was by definition a "website". ;)
Now, is link spam choking the life out of quality link development? No.
Has click-fraud ruined PPC? No. Are either of those issues factors you must consider when determining the CoDB? Yes.
>>I don't even bother reading the 5-20 requests I get every day.
Well, maybe you should. Maybe one of them will present a good case for linking. You can replicate that one. ;)
A more interesting question might be, "Did PageRank ruin quality linking"?
Oh come on. You know what I mean.
Let me type this nice and slow so the nit pickers are pleased.
We are talking about websites that are not directories entering into reciprocal link arrangements with other websites that are not directories. Chrystl hauled out a poor example of two websites that are directories that are linking to each other: Not under discussion.
Is that exact enough?
Sigh. It's disappointing that I can make a coherently reasoned argument and the only thing that's seized upon is a trifling little detail in a separate post that had nothing to do with the substance of the discussion.
The overwhelming majority of link exchanges are performed by people that have no clue that PageRank even exists.
My quoted statement isn't concerned with nor does it address whether these webmasters know what they are doing, let alone that they are interested in increasing their PageRank. All of my statements so far concern the motivation for exchanging links, which is to increase their ranking, with the acknowledgement that there are a FEW who do recips for the purpose of increasing traffic outside of the search engine environment.
A more interesting question might be, "Did PageRank ruin quality linking"?
Now that's a far more interesting question.
I haven't seen Freedom's site, nor his links directory - but sites that make a special recip links directories and whatnot, are just asking for trouble - IMHO.
It's only 9 pages long and arranged by sub-theme spinning from my main theme. There can't be more then 30 links on a page. I did it that way because I am an organization freak.
It seems to work fine. As for the SE's, I've never given 5 minutes of thought whether they liked it or not.
Now, is link spam choking the life out of quality link development? No.
Okay, let me take it a step further on that theme. Is something happening to link development? I am talking about an irreversible trend here. I am looking at the big picture and trying to make sense of it.
Is PageRank the sole culprit?
I have to agree that PR played a part. But I also think that the high demand for link development outsourcing has played a role. Two years ago, one didn't see so many link development companies setting up shop overseas. (It seems to have been a growth industry in 2004).
But I also think that LD has seen it's fair share of "Button Pushing" as referred to in the Supporters Forum (am I using that correctly?) -which has taxed the entire culture of LD. Sure, maybe I should read those 5-20 link requests every day but 6 months of that can wear anyone down tho.
In 2004, LD saw a "revolution" of sorts and now we have to look at what is left over and what is to come. Are we going to see telemarketers calling up webmasters asking for a link exchange? Are more SEOs/Webmasters going to offer to buy links? = It happens to me more regularly these days and look at the companies that set up shop with the sole purpose of brokering links.
If we break away from what SE's think of link exchanges and try to look at the big picture and trends, I think we can actually learn and understand a lot more.
>I don't even bother reading the 5-20 requests I get every day.
But true - link exchange using Email has become nearly impossible, however good a link you are offering.
The only solution for now is a linkexchage form, either part of commercial software or in-house. This way they got to play by your rules somewhat. Also much easier, even at the end of busy day, when it is standartized. In_google_cache = approve, not_in_google_cache = wait/delete/whatever.
I don't bother to read those emails because they don't bother to read my link instructions. If they read my link instructions, 95 percent of them would not even bother to email me.
You could cut that margin down if you asked for a specific subject line. At least you'd know it wasn't auto-gen crap. If they follow that rule it's likely they've followed others.
HOwever, since all my email addresses are in images and my email addresses are not the usual "webmaster' "info" - I still get some people that obviously read the image and still ignore everything with this long shot hope the rules don't apply to them.
I even write some back and ask why did they submit when it was obvious the rules excluded them and I get some crazy answers.
Desperation I guess.
