Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Get some more good quality incomeing links.
With google playing the reciprocal links dont count game and webmasters now fearing penalisation for linking to other sites, exactly how is this supposed to come about?
Anyone with any clear ideas?
Are some link exchanges being devalued. That could very well be the case, I certainly hope it is.
Are all link exchanges being devalued? Not by a long shot.
It isn't link exchanges in general, it's the type of link exchanges that is the issue.
Absolutely not!
It may not be palatable to some but why should most link exchanges carry any value?
What does it say, other than 2 webmasters have agreed to exchange links, in most cases not even for traffic but to try a boost their rankings.
Whilst it suits those boosting their position it does not help Google and what they are trying to do
2 webmasters have agreed to exchange links, in most cases not even for traffic but to try a boost their rankings.
And just how does a search engine determine the intent behind a link?
Between two webmasters, you can't divine intent. With a honking ten page resources section, you can probably buy a clue about intent.
For example, if you've placed your link "www.yourwebsite.com" within a cheesy webring and get 20 IBL's, the weight of your link is less than it would be had it been placed in a few larger, more established websites.
Basically, links to your website from joeschmo.net, don't weigh as much as links to your website from microsoft.com. Google and other search engines can easily measure the popularity of Microsoft's site and Joe Schmo's site.
The more popular and established the site containing your IBL, the more weight your link carries.
>It isn't link exchanges in general, it's the type of link exchanges that is the issue.
I would have to agree with the above and question how technology can ascertain what "type" of exchange it is. There is no way in my mind a robot can look at a page a and tell anything apart from the obvious.
1) this is a good link because there is plenty of similar information about relevant subject matter here
2) this is a bad link because its irrelevant to the page subject matter or affiliate copied content and thus under penalty
It makes a mockery of any concept of authority site also when you take away multiple link from one site to another.
Example ...
an accountancy information site points to information on a government web site about a 40% tax level for private companies and also again to another page about 18% for limited liability companies.
So how do you personally think this link structure should pan out .. what link is more important? Having trouble? Right .. imagine you are a robot and have a strict set of rules to run through to decide in all cases.
This is ultimately a ridiculous way to structure an information system.
IMO you may as well go back to dui decimal and hope the title of a book is really meaningful.
.... I question how technology can ascertain what "type" of exchange it is.
I wouldn't underestimate the technology available to a search company with plenty of cash and phD's.
And from a technology point of view I would think that detecting the "type" of link and scoring it accordingly is very easy.
.. what link is more important? Having trouble?
Not really - instant decision:-
an accountancy information site points to information on a government web site
That one's easy ;-)
Getting the links
Good quality unique content always attracts inbound links. I would start with that in mind when you build your pages.
TJ
Now this i know and all of the information I am producing is this sort of thing.
Mr Cutts says get / acquire. This is not waiting around for links to come in. In fact if you did that you would be at the bottom of the serps. There is no such thing as a site with top ranking that is there by natural means. Well ... not in my industry anyways and anyone with one please sticky mail me unless you are a niche site with 10 competitors...
Now penalties exist for acquiring links .. in fact I think I read somewhere it is considered bad form or bad technique to all of you non English people out there ... so what part of the anatomy would you say is being spoken from when it is said one should acquire / get incoming links? This really is IMO bottom speak sorry.
How does one acquire links without becoming a farmer? What rate will links come in to a site that is top ranking and thus what rate should one acquire links without tripping the many penalty switches? The hypocrisy is there for all to see really.
If this guy is saying to people do it what does that make of this supposed "natural" thing google are trying to do?
acquire / get incoming links?
That's just basic marketing. Ask other webmasters - if you produce something worthy, they'll generally link to it.
Press releases can work well. Try getting picked up by the blogging circuit in your sector, etc. Then there's all the Wiki's. And directories (some paid, some free).
Have a look through this forums library - there's tons of threads with tips and advice on getting links.
It's not bottom talk at all - inbound links are a fundamental part of the Google Algo and have been ever since it first started. It's a fact.
TJ
He only seems to be mirroring the "when the site is ready" guidelines.
Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
Have other relevant sites link to yours.
Submit your site to relevant directories
BTW, a straw in the wind perhaps, but AFAIK those two mentions of "relevant" are fairly recent additions...
FFAs,
Link Exchange Programs
Link Exchange SPAM mail
Three Way/"Cooperatives"/Other unnatural linking systems
Millions of links.htm type pages that wouldn't otherwise exist
Article Directory after article directory
Brokers dealing in the selling and buying of links
... and over the last few years it has dramatically influenced the direction the internet developed in.
Now that system has backfired on Google. They can't see the "real" links for the noise. They can throw technology at the problem and that's good for improving ways of detecting autogenerated text.... but not linking intent. If I charge you to build a link into my article all of Google's technology clout put together couldn't detect that my Paypal account benefited as a result of that link. (They could read all my gmail mail... but that's another story)
Google realised that their citation based system was creating such a mass of worthless citations that it was threatening to overwhelm their ranking systems. What do you do in those circumstances? You try to actively dissuade people from linking for SE purposes. But webmasters look after their own self-interest and don't just listen to everything an SE says. So you've got to persuade them. Make it more difficult to do link research work ... disable the linkback function. Damn, they're going to Yahoo for link: commands? OK, we'll re-enable it and show semi-data - that's bound to cause some confusion with at least some webmasters. On its own that won't have a great impact so we'll cause disruption and doubt in other ways. Let's screw up the PR toolbar reading and have it show an old PR or PR in a parallel universe. Let's also mess with the algo updates... weave to the left, wait a bit, weave to the right, wait a bit, kick to the rear, weave again...and hope people give up SEO and "realise" that quality content is once again the only sure fire way of getting to the top.
While all that's happening we have to work on new ways to dissuade people from their current linking habits. Giving them the impression that the time's over for reciprocals may help. Hopefully, like some posters here, they'll work on improving the quality of their sites so the links flow naturally (which will make our algo job a lot simpler).
OK, it will cause more people to buy one-ways... but that's another problem for another day.
That line from Matt is carefully chosen, part of the overall PR message, and is in Google's self interest. But you chould choose to believe he doesn't know what he's talking about - it's a free world :)
"G" knows better than anyone that most surfers dont even know that the stuff on the right and along the top of serps are paid for ads ..when they tell you where the "hotspots" are and where to "blend" adsense on your pages ..it's because they know from running their "adsense" on serps ( pages made from scraping our content )exactly what they are talkng about ..
If one remembers that they are an ad agency /publisher who uses a search engine format to display their pages it makes it easier to understand that they don't want too many people to take the free way to top of page one ..
Even PR and the formulation of it .. which was/is constantly touted as "G" way to give searchers "more relevant" serps and explained as such via every means possible ..
(wether that was the case in the early days of "G" was irrelevant to the business model)
The important thing was to make searchers perceive that "G" serps were more relevant ( their "success" in selling this "perception" to surfers .. does not necessarily mean the other "quality criteria" are true any longer )..and certainly not since adsense ..
Obviously "the algo" has to be "tightened" to eventually eliminate SEO practices ..and serps have to be randomized from time to time and for short periods ..or the Google economic model could not survive ..
I'm not knocking it ..just noting that anyone who thinks that Matt Cutts or anyone else from Google is telling them something for the webmasters good is being naive ..
Google wants webmasters to continue to promote their search engine for them .."improving the quality of your links" while it may help your site overall is really designed to have you shining their buttons for them ..
"Google where all the sites indexed have quality links" - and the ads can't be told apart from the organic results by 99% of those who use the search engine and thus click the ads , just like they are supposed to ;)
One is advised to strive for the first part of that sentence , before the -( and even to tell it to others ) ..and to pretend ( even to oneself ) that the second part is not "G"'s raison d'etre ..
just noting that anyone who thinks that Matt Cutts or anyone else from Google is telling them something for the webmasters good is being naive ..
he he, I like that. Matt could, of course, be saying something that's in our interest but it's important to bear in mind that you and I aren't paying his salary. It's therefore entirely possible that if he has to choose sides... it's not our side he's on! ;)
I would have to agree with the above and question how technology can ascertain what "type" of exchange it is.
Really? Here's about 8 ways.
-Percentage of links on a site that have links back
-Number of links on a page vs. actual content
-Proximity of links to other links
-Pages named "links, resources, partners, sponsors"
-Automated link exchange template forms
-The phrase "link exchange" on a page
-Links bought from link brokers
-Massive increases in irrelevant links
There's more I'm sure. Those peeps at the 'plex ain't no dummies. Whether or not their techniques are universally sound is of little consequence to them I'm sure, but I am sure they are doing it.
an accountancy information site points to information on a government web site about a 40% tax level for private companies and also again to another page about 18% for limited liability companies.
Stinkfoot, what planet are you on? These examples have nothing to do with the weight given to links. Lets talk about what DOES give weight to a link (or more appropriately the weight a link gives to keyword ranking).
-PR
-Number of outbound links on a page
-ANCHOR TEXT!
-Relevancy of page/site to linked page
My answer as to how to get these good links? Buy them, but be careful about it, or use viral marketing techniques (article writing, downloadable tools, etc)
Or just offer awesome content or be an enterprising commercial entity. That's about it!
