Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I’m going to create a domain that has thousands of pages of content that is on topic. The content will be free from other sites so I can get the site up quickly. These pages will be stories, articles, lists...whatever is free to use and relevant to my topic. Then, to get the new site recognized by the search engines, I’ll add a few articles to my main site and a few other sites of mine, which already have a PR of 4-6. Then I will put links in the new articles on my existing sites to the new site with all the content. After that, I can just add as many links as I want from the content of the new site to my main site and other sites using the keywords I want from each article. Wahlla! Thousands of links!
In short:
My sites -> Link To -> articles on my sites -> Link To -> my new site -> Links To -> content on my new site -> Links To -> all of my sites with relevant keywords!
Tell me what you think. Please.
False analogy. Otherwise, you are suggesting that pagerank is lost at the same level it is gained? I haven't seen any examples of this. A more apt analogy might be somehting to the effect of page rank never being given because the two are related. But therein I would assume is the devil in the details ... there's always a way not to get caught. ;-)
As for the slimey aspect - look - businesses cross-promote and cross-pollenate one another in the real world all the time. There is no overriding social ethic here - we're simply talking about *google's* rules ... and Google only sets these rules because they havent come up with a transparent and reliable system enough yet to properly mitigate these issues. They're covering their own ass - and its almost always at the expense of the small website/entreprenuer trying to get started but getting stuck in the catch 22. So how do you get out of the catch 22? Well, Google's "rules" are great in theory but will get you no where fast.
IMO - do what ya got to do. Just be smart about it and stay under the radar. :)
The SE "rules" are for those who want to follow them. They are not law.
Beside they change from time to time anyhow.
The link is a form of recommendation, so if I have two sites and I link them once it is to recommend them to my visitors not to spam SE.
Otherwise, you are suggesting that pagerank is lost at the same level it is gained?
From the department of "I hope this makes you happy."
The PR leaving is going out at a rate dependant on how many outgoing links you have, minus a dampening factor which in an exagerrated accurate analogy means your wife is giving you back 75.15 cents.
Cabbagehead, it's an analogy, not a one-to-one comparison. ;)
Tell me what you think. Please.
I would, but I've done that before and came close to being booted of WebmasterWorld one day, no thanks.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 5:17 am (utc) on April 4, 2007]
we're simply talking about *google's* rules
That is true, but the bottom line on that is that it's the majority of the search market. Like it or not, there isn't much choice.
I don't believe in going to such great lengths simply to appease Google, when there are other lengths that can be gone to in the interest of the other search engines.
Whether it's legitimate or accepted to do what Jhet suggested isn't the question that I would ask myself. Is it a good use of my efforts/time?
The PR leaving is going out at a rate dependant on how many outgoing links you have, minus a dampening factor which in an exagerrated accurate analogy means your wife is giving you back 75.15 cents.
Martinibuster - to clarify, the PR going "out" is not LEAVING, it's being voted. PageRank is not lost, this is a common misconception in the SEO world.
He actually could gain PR in this model, but the problem is the cross-linking, and the PR gain is so marginal it's not worth doing.
Other comments: setting up a network of sites gets exponentially more difficult with each site, because the inbound links need to be increasingly unique.
This situation has nothing to do with IP addresses or whois. Google only looks at inbound links. Cutts and other engineers have said this several times recently.
btw - It's been thought of, but keep trying everything has it's origins - at least you're thinking and trying.
Martinibuster - to clarify...
I was being sarcastic, it was an analogy, no need to quibble.
This situation has nothing to do with IP addresses or whois. Google only looks at inbound links. Cutts and other engineers have said this several times recently
Theoretically you could be poorer as inflation always lowers the
value of national currencies. So if you passed it very s-l-o-w-l-y
you could be poorer.
I got this out of Econ. 101 (I also got a D)
Idolw – The free content was supposed to be articles from free article sites. The sites that let you repost their articles as long as you leave the link in the footer.
incrediBiLL – LOL! You could have posted what you wanted as far as I was concerned. I wouldn’t have taken offence. I was looking for honest thoughts on the matter :)
Whitey, that comment may be a little rich coming from someone in almost the exact situation the OP is proposing.
Of course Google could zero out such links under all circumstances, but don't take fo rgranted that they do just yet.
