Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The sayings are "people will link automatically the pages if they found it relevant without asking for back links", " Participation on other sites will definitely get you noticed. Especially if you have something unique/interesting to say. Leave your link there, and people will follow. Eventually, if your site is good, people will link to it on their own" and like many more.
Not everyone can build sites like wikipedia, overture and Google. By this post I want to verify that if natural linking actually takes place for average sites if yes then to what extent. So please post your honest answer that you would like to link for nothing and what you see in such sites?
And my preoccupation with Google is a result of it having some astronomical percentage of all search traffic in the UK. That's only rational.
Somewhere on here, lost in the mists of time, there is a great quote from BT about the ultimate object of SEO being liberation from the tyranny of obsession with search engine results.
Sounds a bit Zen, I know, but in my experience it is very true.
After all it is the dumb algorithm that brings us much of our custom and money.
The answer, if we are to reach your utopia and stop preoccupying ourselves (well OK, not you) with search engines, is transparent human modified search. Algorithms are always going to be gamed and thus SEO will always be about gaming them. Get humans involved and you're dealing with something significantly less stupid.
About 12 months ago I would have answered "no". That's because it was a year or so ago when links to my websites started appearing. Before that point I would only make link exchanges with other websites, and ask myself "why aren't people linking to my site for free, it's such a great website". Now I understand that my website wasn't so "great". So, I guess getting free links from other websites is about having the website online for some time to add more pages and improve content in general.
And also, remember one rule aplies: the more traffic you have, the more potential linkers you have.
After all it is the dumb algorithm that brings us much of our custom and money.
Actually, I think you've misunderstood what I was referring to before, which was by no means an idealistic utopia where no-one thinks about links and Google.
The object rather being to get to the stage where you are not reliant on 95% of your traffic coming from Google, but instead an increasing percentage from other sources, such as bookmarks, recommendations from a friend, links, offline resources, etc., etc.
Until eventually, and if my memory serves me correctly this was BT's original point, that if Google ceased to exist your site would still survive.
The dominant search engine will always be vital to attracting new customers, in the same way as the Yellow Pages or the Phone Book have been in the past.
What I object to is the current state of the serps where sites that offer a poor product and abysmal service are ranking higher than me because they have successfully abused Google’s dumb algorithm.
There are a few sites in the serps I monitor that are straight up ripping off their customers. They accept payment by Western Union and send no product whatsoever. Sites like complaintsboard verify this yet Google continues to rank them high.
Adding a human element could stop problems such as this occurring.
I am implementing various campaigns to get traffic from elsewhere (eg. free products for adverts on social networking sites. I am trying to 'go viral' in a way!) but I am in a field where we cannot use most forms of traditional advertising or Adwords. Organic search results are thus disproportionately important to us.
I think we are in very different fields and are looking at this from very different places.
I believe that the best way to get natural links is to produce content that other people would naturally want to link to.
If you want to write (or copy & paste from a database) about popular topics that you think are going to make you money, good luck competing with the millions who think likewise.
Now, if you take time to think about a topic that: 1)people may be looking for; 2) is difficult to find on the web; 3) you are knowledgeable enough (or capable of learning about) to write accurately and comprehensibly about; then getting links will be much easier (and only after getting links do you think about making your money).
There are millions of pages selling ipods, why would somebody link to yours? Now, there are fewer pages about 'common problems with ipods'; and there are even fewer pages about 'problems that Hollywood celebrities faced with ipods, and how Apple dealt with them'. I think the latter one would have many outbound links, but would easierly get natural links.
1) If you say; "natural one-way linking doesn't exist in large enough numbers to make a difference", it implies that you are a webmaster failure who creates crummy sites.
2) On the other hand if you say; "natural one-way linking is as alive and well as ever", it implies that you are a webmaster guru who have people falling over themselves trying to link to you.
Who wants to say that; "natural linking" is more like "wishful thinking", and imply that you are a webmaster doofus.
Therefore, I think "natural one-way linking" is as prevalent as pigeons in Central Park.
I think it also depends on the nature of the website you create. Perhaps some websites encourage natural links (eg. an entertaining blog) more than others (eg. a product site).
I still think that there are very few links out there that are not influenced to at least the smallest extent by the emergence of backlink powered search.
I again refer to the endless discussions on these very forums about how to make links look natural..
Am I a doofus?! Well, I don't think so! But if I am I'll take it. It's worked pretty well for me so far!
But, as far as being a guru goes, I really couldn't give a flying widget what you or anyone else thinks of my motivation for participation. My point in posting in this thread (and following your comment it will be the last time that I do so) was to help give back some of the knowledge that used to be on offer around here when I first joined.
To give you an actual example in parting, a client had, like some of you here, a commercial website that she had taken just about as far as she could.
She spent some thought, time and money and built another site about a secondary subject which she knew that her customers would be interested in.
It was and remains the most comprehensive and useful on the subject and she receives a fairly steady stream of unrequested inward links because of that site. More importantly, her site is recommended and talked about on- and offline and receives more visitors than her "commercial" site, but also converts a goodly percentage of those visitors into customers for her business.
Because of those inward links it also ranks pretty well, but the idea at the beginning was not to "rank in the search engines" and she is not reliant on them for the visitors.
So you can sit there and say that you have a commercial site and no-one will ever link to you and that the world has been polluted by Google, or you can maybe think about ways to market yourself which aren't necessarily visible in your present frame of mind.
So you can sit there and say that you have a commercial site and no-one will ever link to you and that the world has been polluted by Google, or you can maybe think about ways to market yourself which aren't necessarily visible in your present frame of mind.
Bingo! If a site never gets links (except through link exchanges), it's probably because there's no reason why anybody should link to it.
If you've got a commercial site, you can get one-way inbound links, but you aren't going to do it by being just another widget seller--you've got to offer a unique twist of some kind, whether it's an automated tool (like one travel-accessory vendor's voltage and plug conversion wizard), a special service (send us a JPEG scan of your fingernails, and we'll send you custom nail extensions), or something that's simply clever, interesting, and in tune with what's getting a lot of attention these days (sleep sacks for hotel guests who are paranoid about bedbugs).
Sonny or Sonny Jim are often used in the UK in a disparaging way to denote inferiority! I'm revising for a series of important accountancy exams this coming week and it's frying my brain. And I accused you of a rant!
My utmost apologies stever.
[edited by: thecityofgold2005 at 3:29 pm (utc) on June 3, 2007]
I think most of us here are a bit jaded and thus think that linking is something people do for the sake of the engines (Google or otherwise). But not every single site on the net is designed to make money. Some sites are just hobby site, or a source for someone's creative outlet, and will of course include outgoing links; it is only natural. ;)
Another prime example of natural links are links that are created on government and educational sites (save the paid text-links on university newspaper sites).
My main site has thousands of pages of really great content that I spent a lot of money to create. I did this in part with this idea of "build it and they will link to it". Boy was that naive! That site has been live and I'd say I've recieved 5-6 unrequested links at this point in the game. Pathetic for as much content as there is.
...it seems to really matter what *kind* of site you're talking about.
It is always possible that the content is not as unique or useful as you had hoped. I have a site which started as a stupid tutorial meant as a joke, and now I have links from About and MSN UK. I was flabbergasted when I found those links. Natural links are a given if you have something on the site that is worth linking to. Of course I have other sites which don't have anything better to say than a bunch of other sites about the same topic, so those don't get many (if any) links.
The webusers are clueless and or don't care. It's not their business to. But the SERPs do. Quality informational sites drop and drop while the top pages become more and more dominated by multiple sites put up by "marketing companies". The democracy of the web at work.
The catch is that most of these links are given by webusers(Emphasis added)
Very true, but one doesn't need thousands of links to do well in the SERPs. Having a few good links from webmasters who operate reputable and equally impressive sites is much better, than having thousands of links from blogs (even if they don't have nofollow tags).
The fact that good content will get linked to is something that simply will not change. As long as content and information from other sites is being referenced by webmasters and web users when they develop their own derivatives, linking will exist.
That said, can you please link to me at... he he ;)
In my opinion these are the links that should be valued the highest, coming most directly from a user.
These are almost the definition of a natural link. They are someone recommending something to their friends.
Wherever you turn, there's always someone plotting to ruin the party :)
called "sonny" who I was replying to
But I wasn't replying to you.
I command you to "unbunch your bloomers"!
For sites that the provide unique useful content, links will start sprouting up like magic. It probably won't happen overnight, but given some time (SE's have to find the site, for example) it will certainly happen.
The key, obviously, is the content. And depending on that content, the reasons for linking to it can be very different.
For example, if you have a collection of funny quotes from a specific person, and that person says something stupid and its in the news - suddenly you'll have a bunch of links.
Another example might be a site with in-depth reference material on whatever. As long as the information is accurate (which depending on the topic might also mean updated in a timely fashion) and comprehensible (not only easy to read, but easy to find sub-topics, etc.), you will get all kinds of links.
It should also be noted that the more ads (and the more intrusive the ads) the less likely you will get the links.
Besides being helpful to people who visit my site, I truly believe it will help my page rank, although I offer no proof. Read the Google webmaster guidelines. They say something like, "design your site for visitors in mind, not search engines". I think those guys are pretty smart and can test, in their own way, if you are providing USEFUL outgoing links.
But for me it's a no brainer. I get tremendous use from free software. The amount that I give back right now is pretty small.
cheers,
KB
[edited by: jatar_k at 3:03 pm (utc) on June 6, 2007]
[edit reason] no urls thanks [/edit]
Then the internets grew up, cut his hair, got a family, and decided he could get a larger house and a boat by sending out emails for Viagra and getting top SERPs for mortgage re-fis.
Sure - but the more immediate problem I've run into is that all those content pages immediatly dropped into the supplemental index so no one even knew the pages were there - not as bad now but still largely invisible ... so how would they know to ever link to it? I know - bigger picture conversation - but the chicken/egg paradox of getting links and yet needing them to be present is a real problem.
>"The catch is that most of these links are given by webusers"
Yes - very good point. Tutorial on building websites are likely going to get a lot of links from web developers - who are probably the highest concentration of webmasters.
That was Fine as in the earlier years webmasters had thinking similar to above quoted lines, Don't you think after Page rank phenomena many people cannot think the use of links beyond PR boosting.
Actually people still link to quality sites as EFV just stated for the purpose of upgrading user experience. In fact I would say the a good percentage of the webmasters out there have come full circle on pagerank. I for one never made linking decisions based on pagerank, and haven't had any trouble ranking in natural serps. Link to places that will help your sites visitors and you'll be in the right mindset. I've never launched a "link campaign" and people still link to my sites without any encouragement beyond what my sites themselves have to offer.
There was a communal sense to it - like the summer of free information love.
Those were the good old days. I remember looking at the links to my site in my stats and being just thrilled because some little personal homepage on the other side of the world had liked my site and linked to it.
Now I don't even try to see who is linking to me. It's too much of a pain to sort through all the MFA spammer links to find the real ones.
