Forum Moderators: martinibuster
We see this type of comment all the time. The question is, how do we define quality as it applies to sites we might link to?
Blurring the "defining quality" issue, can there be valid but different quality standards for different categories of sites (ie: hobbyist vs ecommerce) that are linked to from a single site site?
I'd think we all know what quality is, even on our own sites. But, then again, maybe not. ;-)
Link to quality sites."
We see this type of comment all the time. The question is, how do we define quality as it applies to sites we might link to?
excellent question. Our own customers ask this of us on a daily basis.
We tell them to use your own judgement. Look at how much original content is on the site, if the site benefits your end user helping them learn more about a topic that is mentioned on your own site. Is the site easy to navigate? Does the site utilize annoying colors or is pleasing to the eye?
Sometimes it's a tough call.. just this morning I was looking at a client's site that had fabulous content. She had written lots of relevant original useful articles and blurbs of information that can't be found anywhere else on the web on that specific topic. But her navigation left alot to be desired and the colors weren't the best choices. I would still call the site a quality site because I was drawn to the information even though the navigation and design needed work.
When determining if a potential link exchange partner has a quality site, I tend to look at content first. If the site is turnkey or lacking in content but has pretty colors and good navigation, is that site really useful to end users who can't find the information they are looking for?
You have to use your common sense when defining what a quality site is. You will know a quality site when you see it because you want to stick around and look at it more.. you might even bookmark it. A site that causes you to say "I've seen all of this before" is probably going to fall into the low quality range.
I'd think we all know what quality is, even on our own sites.
Maybe as far as what we want for our own sites. Beyond that I wonder. We've had a few threads here asking for a definition of quality content or links, I don't recall them being over run with responses.
But, then again, maybe not. ;-)
Maybe it's just too hard to define broadly.
Sometimes it's a tough call..
Yeah. Especially if you have a content/info site that might link to both hobbyist sites and ecommerce sites.
Linking to hobbyist sites could easily bring you face to face with some pretty underwhelming design work. But some of those si6tes are important to the hobby and/or at least to the webmasters and their fellow local hobbyists. For these sites it seems like a much more generous standard might be advisable and well recieved.
Then you move on to the ecom sites serving the same audience.
Here again you might find more than one level of professionalism in site design, function, etc.
If the commercial activity among the target audience is well developed you might be linking to a bunch of franchise sites or sites of very well established local or regional merchants with the understanding and money to have well designed and very functional sites.
With this group of link candidates you need to look at the sites and the competition. Maybe you don't have to link to every site offering the same products, if there are competitors. Here's where the more competition the better.
But if the commerce happens at a more basic level involving small independant merchants that might use out of the box sites/pages, like the "stores" offered by larger sites or basic merchant built sites, well the quality of the site can appear pretty minimal in some cases.
I'd argue that this last group of sites might well hold some of the most important link candidates, which might also be some of the least appealing sites at first glance.
That's possible because they may well be owned by highly respected merchants who are expert in their field but less skilled at webmastering.
So while the site design might be very poor quality, the content quality might be hard to beat, if you can even find it elsewhere online.
All of which leads me to think "quality" as it applies to link candidates is pretty subjective.
And then there is the question of "quality" as it applies to who your link candidates link to.
That can be pretty defining itself.
