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.
IMO the types of sites that are looking for link exchanges in this way are of low quality and not able to get their links easily, I dont mean this to be typical of all sites who exchange links - just the ones that act in the way Freedom has explained.
I do still read all the link requests because i find a few good ones.
Besides, Google is not the only SE out there these days. And 10,000 links may not get you the ranking you want on your main page/anchor text, but it could boost your interior pages to PR6 and 7 - which could generate high ranking just because of the higher PR.
And I think the problem will only get worse. But to fight back, I've posted on my sites (in link format) links to the "abuse@XXX" type addresses for all the email harvesters to trip themselves up on.
Who is to say that a link from a flower site to a second hand car site has not been placed there because the webmaster of the flower of the site got his car from there and thinks the car site is genuinely a good site.
If Google were to discount all off topic links then it they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Sure devalue them slightly but not discount them all together.
Quality Link Development
What is quality link development? Link development is essentially search engine spam, so how can an aggressive link builder be less quality than a polite link builder?
The concept of PageRank is predicated on naturally occurring links, with naturally occurring anchor text. The moment you solicit a reciprocal link you are manipulating one of the most fundamental criteria the algorithm is measuring.
If you go to the Google Faqs page for webmasters you won't find a single reference to reciprocal links.
It's a bit of a stretch to accuse one person of being low quality for essentially doing what you are doing, except on a smaller scale. It's like not considering yourself a criminal if you only mug people once a week, as opposed to those low quality muggers that do it every evening.
I agree that these emails are annoying. Nevertheless, that's life. It's not a perfect world and sometimes you have to step over dog----.
Link development is essentially search engine spam, so how can an aggressive link builder be less quality than a polite link builder?
Have to respectfully disagree, sort of.
Aggressive or polite, quality is not an issue. I can be very aggressive (and thus annoying) or polite in soliciting links that really would be good resources.
Suppose we hand wrote 2,000 pages of content and would like to add 5 links to each page and in return request a link from those parties to the top level category of that page. If we found the 5 most relevant links to place on each page and requested those webmasters to also add our link on a page that we seek out on their site and found to be most relevant to our category abd that would be useful to their visitors... is that not quality?
I don't think that is search engine spam at all. It's just fostering the process of natural linking and making sure that the utmost benefit is being received by both parties and the user.
It's showing someone a resource that they might otherwise never find. Especially if we explicitly say "Hey, we're not going to remove your link regardless, but it would be great if you could link to us... might even help bring more traffic to the page that links to you".
It's all aimed in manipulation but that's today as you say "in the gutter". At least there are ways that still attempt to create quality relationships between good resources.
Anyways, that's all a load of crap and we'll never spend the time to do that. Just for the sake of argument (nothing harsh ;-) ). The state of linking is really pretty poor right now and I'd be amazed to see something like what i've suggested above.
What is quality link development? Link development is essentially search engine spam, so how can an aggressive link builder be less quality than a polite link builder?
You're the mod for this forum and that's your belief? That's your words. Your belief.
The following comes from the Google Information for Webmasters
If you increase the links pointing to the page, Google will likely find your site in the future.
The best way to ensure Google finds your site is for your page to be linked from lots of pages on other sites
Under,
2. Why Does my Page's rank keep changing?
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.
Under...
3. I'm changing my URL, how can I maintain my rank?
Google listings are based in part on our ability to find you from links on other sites. To preserve your rank, you will want to inform others who link to you of your change of address.
It's a bit of a stretch to accuse one person of being low quality for essentially doing what you are doing, except on a smaller scale.
Wow. Unbelievable.
If you increase the links pointing to the page, Google will likely find your site in the future.
The best way to ensure Google finds your site is for your page to be linked from lots of pages on other sites...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 listings are based in part on our ability to find you from links on other sites. To preserve your rank, you will want to inform others who link to you of your change of address.
None of those statements address reciprocal links. All of them apply to inbound links, but you are making an assumption by implying that they are referencing reciprocal links. Those statements you cited apply as much to recips as they would to a link farm, as neither are being referenced.
My statements are based upon the Stanford paper, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine. The idea of ranking pages based on links has it's roots in Academic citations (incidentally, those citations are not reciprocal arrangements). In the paper, as well as on the Google website, there are no mentions of arrangements between webmasters to link with each other. There are only references to the reality that websites tended to link to each other when making a reference (or citation) within a hypertextual environment.
HTML = HyperText Markup Language
What is HyperText? According to the w3c,
Hypertext is text which is not constrained to be linear. Hypertext is text which contains links to other texts.
The web was thought of as a hypertext environment where pages were linked to the rest of the web through hypertext- not search engines. PageRank was conceived to harness this structure and organize it using the web's own inherent order.
Any attempt to manipulate the search engines is abuse. Reciprocal links is a technique that is primarily done with the intent of influencing the search engines.
What difference does it make if you are being nice to one hundred people, or being nice to an entire country: You are still being nice, albeit on a smaller scale. Is your being nice to one hundred people diminished by the one doing it to an entire country?
A recip link exchange campaign is rooted in an attempt to manipulate the search engines, so does it really make a difference if you are emailing a hundred webmasters or the webmasters on an entire industry? Fundamentally, what you are trying to accomplish is the same thing.
It's a bit of a stretch to accuse one person of being low quality for essentially doing what you are doing, except on a smaller scale.
I really do think that Link Development is not generally looked upon as a good thing from the Googleplex. They tolerate it to be sure. I can't recall ever hearing a Google spokesperson ever praising reciprocal links as a wonderful contribution to Google's accuracy and success as a search engine. Maybe they have, but I've never heard that.
It's a bit of a stretch to accuse one person of being low quality for essentially doing what you are doing, except on a smaller scale.
The difference is more than just scale, it's targeting and context, and (in my mind) that's what makes the quality difference.
Martini, by your logic, a major league baseball pitcher and a vandal throwing a rock through my windshield are doing the same thing. By some measures they are, by some they're not. Be careful how you use the word "essentially" when the discussion hasn't reached common ground about what is the "essence".
A recip link exchange campaign is rooted in an attempt to manipulate the search engines
This is a sweeping generalization, not always true. Some businesses drum up link exchanges because they geninuely intend to circulate traffic amongst themselves. This is especially common among small businesses who have websites to support their brick and mortar stores. They don't have a clue about SEO, they just know that, for example, it's a good thing for the local wedding dress store, the jeweller, the flower shop and the caterer to help each other out.
so does it really make a difference if you are emailing a hundred webmasters or the webmasters on an entire industry? Fundamentally, what you are trying to accomplish is the same thing.
The "essence" in question here isn't scale, it's targeting. A lot of the link exchange requests that get past my filters are not nearly as well targeted as "an entire industry".
Second, if you take the time to look up and make sure you follow the webmaster's instructions when you request a link, there IS a qualititative difference on the receiving end compared to what an automated system would likely send. The labour of the former tends to keep such campaigns on a smaller scale, but again it's not scale that makes the difference.
but you are making an assumption by implying that they are referencing reciprocal links.
No I wasn't. I know exactly what they mean.
Any Link development is essentially search engine spam.
I think this is where you and I and others can agree to disagree. If quality link development is spam abuse of the SE's, then with all do respect - that's a bit jaded and cynical.
This is the where your argument whithers. I see nothing wrong with seeking out quality, theme related link partners with quality sites. Spam abuse and molestation of the serps? That's a stretch.
I've exchanged link with 150 theme related websites and it has not improved my ranking at all on Google. Not one bit. But yet, I am still doing it - why? Because the traffic I get from those links justifies the reason. Reciprocal linking to boost ranking hasn't worked in a long time on Google in my opinion. I gave up on that a long time ago.
The hypothesis of my post before it got incredibly side tracked was simple:
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. Why? Because nobody bothers to read the 20 link emails they get every day. Why? Because those link spammers don't bother and don't care who they link with, just so long as they get a link.
It's a bit of a stretch to accuse one person of being low quality for essentially doing what you are doing, except on a smaller scale.
Now let me get one final point straight. I am the one who says what is quality and what is not quality when it comes to my websites. Some philosophy 101 theory about link exchanges does not judge quality in my neighborhood. Rubbish.
1. If they don't read my link instructions, they are not quality websites.
2. If they don't adhere to my link instructions, they are not quality websites.
3. If they send me a link request in spite of all the "dont's" I have listed, they are not a quality website because obviously, they don't care about my guidelines. If they don't care about my guidelines, then it's obvious the only thing they care about is rankings. = No quality.
4. If they automate the process without regard for theme, instructions, acceptance rules, etc., they are not quality websites.
X, Y and Z type websites are notorious for these aggressive, internet mafia style tactics for link exchanges. Yes, I say they are not quality and when I or my link master seeks links, it is done in a professional manner with sites that we believe are of high quality and theme related. To hell with Google anymore. Traffic that is not dependent on the SE's is great diversification and smart business.
For someone that is fond of citing Google's guidelines, what about this one?
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
A site with instructions for how to exchange recip links is certainly participating in some sort of link scheme.
Who is to say that a link from a flower site to a second hand car site has not been placed there because the webmaster of the flower of the site got his car from there and thinks the car site is genuinely a good site.
This is a good point. I have a client that links to sites that seemingly have nothing to do with each other except that the products all make great gifts.
A site with instructions for how to exchange recip links is certainly participating in some sort of link scheme.
Or they just are willing to consider exchanging links but want to pre-screen the applicants. I don't think that's so insidious (scheme).
You're definitely right on that one and I always have to double check the context on that word, especially on the boards and blogs.
I think in the sense that google's site was quoted above, "scheme" was meant as being a little affoul of acceptible use.
Anyone else have anything to add on this one? Good or bad?
IMHO - the only reason to offer a recip link, especially on a "links" directory page is to boost your SE Rank and visibility. Which is against the "rules".
Very few, if any users actually dig through those directories - and to me they are a sign that "there's Something Not Proper in the mix".
Don't kid yourself.
the only reason to offer a recip link, especially on a "links" directory page is to boost your SE Rank and visibility
That might be the most common reason, but it ain't the only reason. You're allowed to be cynical, but not 100%.
There ARE sites out there that trade links to trade real traffic.
IMHO - the only reason to offer a recip link, especially on a "links" directory page is to boost your SE Rank and visibility. Which is against the "rules".Very few, if any users actually dig through those directories - and to me they are a sign that "there's Something Not Proper in the mix".
It is not wise to paint with such a broad brush. I have a site with a directory incorporated. It was set up originally for the sole purpose of protesting a trade association's site that refused to give public exposure to all of its membership. I gave an avenue for the membership to get a bit of internet exposure.
That site now outranks the trade association's site across many scores of relevant search terms, and maintains similar traffic patterns even though the trade association spends large sums on print and television advertising that promote its site.
Yes, I suggest (but don't require) a recip from folks submitting their site.
Many thought I was a fool for giving something away. From my perspective it has only increased that site's visibility and traffic, although originally that was not the intent.
Regarding users actually visiting those pages - yep, they do. 5-10% of the site's traffic arrives through those pages, and, those pages (as a group) consistently rank in the top 10 most frequently visited pages on the entire site.
WBF
A site with instructions for how to exchange recip links is certainly participating in some sort of link scheme.
My link instructions attempt to cull out the non theme and non quality links. I trade links these days for traffic purposes and to decrease a dependency on the search engines. 18 months ago, reciprocal linking may have done something for your serps, but today, not much IMO.
buckworks is absolutely right about the difference in connotation on the word "scheme" from one side of the pond to the other. It has thrown me off a couple of times.
With all do respect:--> PatrickDeese acts like all link exchanges are evil. I don't believe they are evil and don't believe my attempt to achieve quality and theme related in linking is a "scheme." It's just web marketing 101. But if Deese's posts claim (as I interpret them) that all link exchanges are basically evil schemes pointed at serp manipulation, what's he doing reading threads in the Link Development section?
Unless one is not doing link exchanges at all, I believe one shouldn't even make proclamations similar to those. It's hypocritical to try and attack me for culling out bad sites from good with guidelines on my resources pages.
I think the vast majority of webmasters here will agree:
Link Spam = automated link requests that ignore theme and instructions by sending out 1,000s and 1,000s of link requests. They bury your link in with 50 others on link page 35.
Quality Link Exchange = is a manual process where you attempt to trade links with theme related websites while following guidelines they may have.
Trying to blur the two together with some link exchange philosophy 101 theory reveals some transparent attempts at self preservation for link spam OR FILIBUSTERING OF A THREAD because of some agenda OR just plain backwards thinking. IMO. And with all due respect.
My original post did NOT say anything about serp manipulation nor traffic from those links. I am just trying to comment that the very nature of link development has changed dramatically over the last year and is going downhill.
Before it got mod filibusterd, I was looking to see if other webmasters thought the entire nature of link development was going downhill. My reasoning was that link spam had changed the game, but maybe I am wrong that link spam is not the cause. I don't know. Before it got filibustered with some "perspective," I was looking for answers stemming from that line of questioning.
Any attempt to manipulate the search engines is abuse. Reciprocal links is a technique that is primarily done with the intent of influencing the search engines.
Do Google and Yahoo trade/exchange links (reciprocal links)?
A Link To Yahoo On Google [directory.google.com] ¦ A Link To Google On Yahoo [dir.yahoo.com]
domain-A.com finds domain-B.com while surfing and since it is a great resource for their visitors domain-A.com provides a link to domain-B.com.
A few weeks later domain-B.com finds domain-A.com while surfing and since it is a great resource for their visitors domain-B.com provides a link to domain-A.com.
Neither is aware of the other's link to their respective domains.
Question #1:
Do domain-A.com and domain-B.com trade/exchange links (reciprocal links)?
__________________________________________________
Scenario #2:
domain-A.com finds domain-B.com while surfing and since it is a great resource for their visitors domain-A.com provides a link to domain-B.com and then asks for a link back from domain-B.com.
A few weeks later domain-B.com decides that domain-A.com is a great resource for their visitors so domain-B.com provides a link to domain-A.com and contacts domain-A.com to inform them of the link.
Both aware of the other's link to their respective domains.
Question #2:
Do domain-A.com and domain-B.com trade/exchange links (reciprocal links)?
* According to the people who control the Search Engines
Happy?
I cannot say that I am particularly happy with the crap flood of "Please check your Link in My Directory" type emails.
But *pretending* that a recip links directory (and just so we're on the same page - a crap recip links directory - ala www.example.com/links/g/221.html style recip links directory), even from "related" sites is somehow immune from algo tweaks - don't kid yourself.
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.
The simple fact that two sites interlink, like the example of Y & G is not the same as having a reciprocal links directory.
Having a 1% of your inbounds be recip links cannot be viewed as the same as having 90% of your inbound links being recips.
So it's an innappropriate example of two websites reciprocating without self-interest: They're not websites, they are directories. They are supposed to link to each other.
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
So it's an innappropriate example of two websites reciprocating without self-interest: They're not websites, they are directories. They are supposed to link to each other.
So by your definition a link to and from the following directories is an example of two websites reciprocating without self-interest, right?
directory.gift-shop-A.com & directory.gift-shop-B.com
Now you're asking me to discern the intentions of two fictitious webmasters exchanging links between two fictitious websites?
Huh?
dmoz and Yahoo are not websites, they are directories.
Now it's my turn to say, "Huh?"
The link to Google from Yahoo [dir.yahoo.com] is from the Yahoo directory.
dir.yahoo.com/
That's a directory.
Geez, come on. You can't refute my points so now you're hauling out these weird little side arguments that also don't prove any points.
I mean really, let's raise the bar on this discussion. Asking me to discern the intention between fictitious webmasters and their fictitious websites is absurd.
Let's stick to the discussion.
[edited by: martinibuster at 1:18 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2005]
