Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I have a link back to my design site at the footer of every site I develop, I'm actually more worried that SEs will penalize me or clients for three way linking (if they link to each other and then both link back to me, since some are on my portfolio page). Why should I not interlink client sites?
Yes, you treat it as a business - so do I and that is the point. If a client doesn't want the link then no link - what is the problem in my opinion.
My issue is that in itself a link back by default is unprofessional - most offline printed graphic work (smalltime, not IBM) also has a credit at the bottom, and I presume if their client requested it would be removed.
A signature on the bottom of a clients site is an ad. A promo for myself. How is the web any different from any other business/service in this regard?
I'll give some more examples:
I am sitting next to a couple PC's right now, they both have "DELL" on the side of them, I paid for them, what right does Dell have to put his name on them?
I am holding a coffee mug, it says "webmasterworld.com" on it, what was Brett thinking? (granted, I did mooch it)
Advertising and promotion is how business works, just because someone pays me to build them a site doesn't mean I don't have the right to sign it, to say "I made this, like it? I'll make you one!"
A website is in ways both a product and a service, however you choose to view it as a webmaster; selling a product or providing a service, you have a right to sign it so that others know how to get one like it. If the customer doesn't want you to do so then that is a negotiable point in the sale process.
Not everyone will agree, but then not everyone will agree on ANYTHING. The important thing is not to call each other wrong on an issue like this but rather to agree to disagree, to others, a site signature is "unprofessional" or "ugly", to me, those are emotional responses. I see it as good business sense to sign a site, but I won't lambast someone who doesn't.
M
all web designers leave their links, and their clients don't object
surely that is a valid link,
the websites owners are happy to recommend their website designer
Business referrals are invaluable, every business does it,
adverts by ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
shall we all demand that the esteemed search engine remove em from its adverts adds
If folk don't demand what they want, search engines will naturally assume that everything in good ,
Have fun chaps
SEO your own site without the expense of any of your clients.
or however to word that?
Use client testimonials not links for the sake of getting an inbound link from a client that does not understand what that even means.
I think this whole topic should be a big, "Don't do it."
Unless it will benefit each client to do so and they understand what's up with your purpose.
Business is business
the signature as i see it is a great thing .... unfortunately in some areas it can be counter productive for the client. I have a couple of directories that contain client pages inside the domain and outside the domains and are my designs. There are others in my area with similar schemes. I DO not put links back to the directories even on the pages within the directories for a very ethical reason .... more than 1/2 the client visits are generated externally being refered from search engines or other purchased links. If it fair to link your boutique hotel back to a directory with all of your competitors? I think not. THis is what most of my competitors do to their clients who eventually become my clients. I finally put up my own page for design and hosting a few months back and have put signature links to that site on a couple of really large projects.
I think the ethics question is the determining factor for signature links.
amen
I believe that the client website you design should have the option for any ads on any of their pages as long as they are paying for your web design.
It's wrong in my opinion to link your site from them. I don't even care to hear other opinions on this subject. As a good SEO would not do.
If you think it's your right to do than do it. I don't care. As far as the original subject... I believe it to be wrong to link between client sites all together.
"unless they have something related that will help their own surfers, not yours."
If a client does not want our service listed on their business domain than we don't list, no questions asked.
That's my kind of designer. There are a few designers and coders who have received a bunch of seo advice and free links from me. I picked where their links came from, and they were probably better off that way.
I wouldn't even touch a designer that required a link at the bottom of anything they designed for me.
I agree that it looks amateurish both for the designer and for the business, though I'll carve out an exception for things like non-profits where it can be tactfully stated that "This website was generously donated..." or "is generously maintained by..." or whatever.
For seo resons, I wouldn't make a tangle of client sites. I wouldn't do it with my own sites. I wouldn't have them all linking to me, either.
That said, everyone is free to make whatever deals they like. I also think there might be some exceptions for designers who make some serious butt kicking designs. If you're that good, you can write your own ticket and that might include a credit at the bottom. Normal websites that need to load for people with a phone modem usually aren't that spectacular. Being a portfolio isn't their purpose.
My consultants asked if they could add a link to the bottom of my sites. I agreed that they could. Why? For several reasons. First, I am happy with the job they do and want to help them grow their business. I also want to help keep them in business. They are a small company and anything that I can do to get them leads benefits me as well. It has also earned me goodwill with them. They go above and beyond the call of duty when the occasion demands and this is a non-monetary way for me to pay them back.
In my case the ten second rule has minimal impact. The vast majority of my visitors return time and again (community sites). I do not expect losing a visitor or two to the link at the bottom of the page is going to cost me any advertisers.
I think that the design guys should get permission to link at the bottom. If the website owner doesn't mind then I fail to see anything wrong with it. I certainly don't find it unprofessional to have a link to your web designer on your site.
My site credits are in the footer, in 8pt font and generally several shades lighter than the rest of the site text. I personally find it hard to believe that a link which is less likely to be seen than the copyright info or privacy links will distract a site visitor to the point that they will click away to another site. I'd find it peculiar that anyone who wasn't a web designer would be sniffing around the footer of a website anyway, most site visitors have probably made up their mind whether or not they will stick around before they've gotten halfway through the content area of the homepage.
good night all.
...Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
I've always found that bit of advice interesting. If I had five sites, one about travel to Arizona, one about travel to California, one about travel to New York, etc. AND search engines didn't exist, I would certainly want those 5 sites very well interconnected with links. With no search engines, I would do everything possible to drive traffic from one site to another.
However, the conventional wisdom seems to suggest that is a sure fire way to get a search engine penalty.
So why does Google keep that advice posted?
FarmBoy
I'm convinced there is no SEO harm in doing this if the sites appear gradually over time. I sure wouldn't put up 50 different sites like this, within a few days of each other, without expecting some type of G! penalty.
I usually place a link from my portfolio page to a new client's site as soon as the site is complete. Then after the site receives a G! PR I add a sitewide credit link back to my own site.
Works for me.
Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?
The answer would be emphatically yes, you're right. In the absence of search engines, that link would be even more important. Absolutely yes.
So why does Google keep that advice posted?
Several years ago at the SJ SES, a Googler mentioned deprecating outbound links to irrelevant sites. Deprecation is different than penalizing. Instead of the link delivering full force, it delivers a partial benefit. As long as the outbounds aren't to untrustworthy sites, I'm confident outbounds to irrelevant sites aren't harmful.
next time you buy a car, tell the dealer you want all those silly factory emblems and dealer stickers removed, I am sure he'll do it...
The only dealer ads on the last several cars I've bought have been on the license plate frame and the cardboard insert that is meant to be replaced by the plate. I pull both off as soon as I pull into my driveway. They got paid for services rendered and ongoing free advertising isn't part of the deal.
if your that good
I know a few people here who design more than a few sites and they are "that good", but you will be hardpressed to find their signatures (other than coding habits) on their clients' sites.
[edited by: Kirby at 5:39 am (utc) on Aug. 3, 2006]
I believe that web designers are just trying to get a quantum leap on a juicy market (so people say) while they don't even have time to really understand what it takes. my $.02
What better service can there be to me, the user, than to have a link to the designer at the bottom of the page. I can click on it, check out other sites the designer has done, and perhaps get my own site.
For something that was initially a fantastic innovation about freedom of expression and freedom of information where you can express yourself by putting anything you like on your website and building it however you like, it is now some kind of dictatorship run by the search engines.
Ie, if you want your voice to be heard (found in the search engines) then you must not link to too many sites, not link to sites that aren't about the same subject, build your web pages this way, not that, make sure you don't use this word too many times and so on ...
Gah, I feel really depressed now :(
next time you buy a car, tell the dealer you want all those silly factory emblems and dealer stickers removed, I am sure he'll do it...FOR A PRICE
There is a law here in the Netherlands which demands car sellers to remove all stickers from a car if a customer wants a car without advertisments. I'll try to look up that law and see if it can be extended to websites and "designed by..." links.
When a customer pays for a site or a brochure, he should not have to deal with a Web designer who believes his cutomers' sites are his playground, whether the customer is aware of that or not.
Many of my clients don't know about the tackyness of the credits' link. But a whole lot of other people who do business with them do.
I take the highroad and make a site that will be at the utmost professional standards not only for my clients, but their own cutomers who may not look so favourably on designers's links at the bottom of a site.
My whole perspective on this is that when one practices real customers service and has the benefit of the client as one of their goals, the focus on what's acceptable changes. When I design a site for a client, I don't do it for the client alone or his own ego. I do it for the client's customers who will use the site.
This is what real customer service is about and it takes a whole lot more maturity and humility to avoid playing in a client's site as if it were your own playground.
Usually that argument wins me the job everytime. They see my business ethics as very high and it brings them a sense of trust that I won't take advantage of them and pull a fast one.
Some people here have said that they would charge more to have their credits removed from a customer's site. This is the type of attitude that poisons the industry and makes people afraid of the "Intarnet." I find that quite abusive. In other businesses, that's called the opt in by default. No one likes an op in by default.
Finally, when people ask me how and where I get referrals, or let the world know about the projects we work on, I tell them that we have a portfolio page. It is our responsibility to promote our services and products out of our own pocket. If you put your link on a customer's site, you should pay for that space you are receiving.
What I say may sound like heresy to many here and I don't care. I know I'm right and that in a few years people who disagree with me today will turn around and see it my way. I'm right after all.
...I'm confident outbounds to irrelevant sites aren't harmful.
That's different, IMO, than interconnected sites where each of X number of sites, for example, are linked to each of the other X sites.
My understanding is that asking for a crosslinking penalty. The frustrating thing is you can search around and find people who are absolutely convinced this type of crosslinking does not present a SE problem and others who are equally convinced it does.
FarmBoy
if your that good
I know a few people here who design more than a few sites and they are "that good", but you will be hardpressed to find their signatures (other than coding habits) on their clients' sites.
Maybe I should have said that differently since it doesn't look like my point went across. I'm sure there are great designers here and everywhere. I meant that a link might be warranted if you are doing something unique like some extremely complicated animation or extremely intricate design. Maybe I should say if "the site" is that good, but some people I know only do extremely high end stuff. Unfortunately, it's also high bandwidth and just doesn't fit well with a sample of the general internet population.
I think my designers and coders are good. They've made some beautiful things for me, all without links. However, they've designed some sites for me that would be complete dogs if entered into any contest that cared about eye pleasing art. Most designers wouldn't even want a link on these "dogs" I speak of. Their purpose is not to showcase the talent of the designer. Their purpose is to convert.
That is exactly what I assume when I see a site with a web design firm link in the footer. ;)
I don't find it entirely unprofessional, but to me it's a flag that the site owner isn't particularly web-savvy (unless he extracted a payment for the links) and that the design firm isn't a major player. But, if the client doesn't care, why argue with free ads? (BTW, last time I ordered a new car from the factory, I put on the sales order that the dealer was not allowed to apply any decals or advertising. Most US dealers will put some kind of inconspicuous logo on the rear of the car without asking permission.)
Whether or not sitewide footer links create a good impression, I'd worry about the implications to the client if for some reason my site became a "bad neighborhood" in the eyes of the search engines. (For example, if they detect lots of sitewide links from unrelated sites and figure that something is fishy:).) Putting the interest of the clients first means not putting the clients into one big link network with my ads.
Once the business fails, he advertises its assets for sale.
You can advertise your business, or you can advertise your business for sale. While our company does *not* include a *link* to our site, we do have a "powered by.." saying at the bottom which has our domain name in it.
An artist signs his paintings. A car company signs their car (very expensive cars allow you to pay more to have it removed). A computer company signs their computers. A painter puts his sign in your front yard. Banks put their sign in front of financed buildings.
Not only is this accepted, but businesses also know to look at the bottom of a website they like to look at who did it. Each of the sites we have done have been six-digit jobs -- and we have gotten more work from our "powered by..." link at the bottom than any other form of advertising we have done. Our average cost per acquisition is $15k -- if we didn't have that little link, it would be more like $45k.
It's not only professional, it is accepted and expected.
< /soapbox >
I do like the idea of subtle, unlinked text if the client is willing. That takes SEO out of the motivation and eliminates the already minimal risk of getting tagged as a link network. And, if the client is OK with it and the sites are well-done, there's significant value in that little ad.
I really can't fathom why anybody would object to this practice. A web site is a publication, just like a book or a brochure. In the print design world it is also common practice to put the design company's name and contact details in the publication. In fact, I believe that a report and accounts requires it as a matter of law.
From a purely online point of view, putting a link to the "webmaster" at the bottom of a web site is as old as the web itself.
Either way, it's the most natural form of linking imaginable. It would be more 'unnatural' or 'spammy' to *not* link to the designer's web site, purely for the sake of pandering to the (real or imagined) fear of upsetting the search engines.
...put their name on the fancy brochures they developed, at the bottom of the magazine ad they designed, or in the TV commercial they produced... why would they expect that I'd want their web design to include an ad?
Probably not the best example Roger. :) Ads and brochures do not equate to websites in my book. A website is a publication akin to a magazine, book, movie, or TV show. All of which typically identify publisher, producer, creators, editor, - seems like anyone remotely involved with the production of the pubication/movie/episode. Heck even the gaffer gets credit!
I think perhaps it depends on how one views the website. Catalogs and magazines have many similar charactertistics, but as an advertising vehicle catalogs rarely list the agency responsible for their design. Editorial and artistic vehicles meant to be the end product usually DO give credit all around.
I wouldn't object in the least to a subtle "About this Site" page that listed a variety of credits, both for technology used, people involved, etc.
We've probably pushed this metaphor as far as it will go. ;)
