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?
My thoughts will apply to ecom sites only-
In my space, there are only about 3-400 authoritative, quality directory type sites. Once you get listed in all of those (I have been for years), then you just pick up the occasional link from a satisfied customer or a supplier - even though my site is pretty large (we have had over 80,000 customers), and we strive to deliver first class service and customer satisfaction, we seem to only get 1 or 2 new "natural" links per month (and many of these are on pages that are in google's supplementary index).
I am seeing more and more of my competitors getting their link counts way up in the 1,000's. Many of them have made significant improvements in the serps! They have bought links and hired or outsourced a "link-monkey" to get them every exchanged, guest book, forum posted or off topic link they can find. Out of their many thousands of links, though, there are really only those same 3-400 solid on-topic ones.
To confirm this, I took the top 10 results from my most competitive
keyword and got the top 1,000 backlinks from each competitor from yahoo - I spreadsheeted all of these and then analyzed them to see which quality inbound links I might have missed - guess what? You could count them on one hand....
With last year's expansion of the supplemental index, PR has a new significance - so the importance of links (and the temptation) are doubled because links can 1. get you higher in the serps and 2. (more importanly for large ecom sites) get more of your pages into the main index.
I know that they are working hard at the plex to try to figure out which of those inbounds are quality and which are not, but for those of us running a business, its some rough sledding.
My impression is that the ability to attract natural links is highly dependent upon the specific niche, and the extent to which you are creating content that is totally unique (as opposed to merely creating a better version of something that already more or less exists).
In many commercially significant niches purely natural links are a tiny percentage of the total number of links created within the past few years. And, if you were to build a site and make no effort to stimulate "unnatural" links, your site would never appear in the portion of the SERPs seen by ordinary users (say, within the top 100 positions). And that lack of visibility would continue indefinitely due to the chicken and egg syndome mentioned by others.
My impression is that those who report it is easy to attract natural links are in a fundamentally different situation than those who report it is next-to-impossible to succeed on the basis of natural link growth.
Either
a. they have an "early mover" advantage -- they operate a site that is firmly entrenched and highly visible in the SERPs.
or
b. they are targeting key words which are not commercially significant, or where the existing competition is extremely weak
or
c. they are very good at creating "link bait", or are doing something else unusually creative or clever that helps them attract lots of links. While these links may be "natural" in the same way successful fashion models have "natural" beauty, that doesn't mean other webmasters can easily replicate their success, any more than most of us could easily make a living as a fashion model.
I think what many of us are saying is that we do link to good information outside our site when it helps our visitors. So natural linking does still take place. That doesn't mean it isn't hard to get natural links.
I was wondering whether to use a text link or a banner to introduce my new site using one of the old ones?
Was brainstorming the other day about how I got those 60'000ish links to my old site (most of them natural), and come up with a couple of theories:
A) Size and reputation of site/company
B) Domain/company name, and it's importance.
The size didn't apply to my specific case, but the domain name certainly did, in that it is very memorable and thus stick in the mind (which should be the objective of any half decent site) - but want to stress that it takes more than a domain name to attract links. Just that the domain IS important and you need to get that right!
I can't speak for the entire web's buying or link giving habits - but giving away important links for nothing is an incredible sacrifice (you are expecting established sites to grant a link and lose profit, mostly for no gain whatsoever) - so it's my theory such sites will be very selective if doing this. But the reason behind such an act, escapes me and isn't obvious, er because of the profit loss involved.
(Sorry got a bit sidetracked)
K - so when giving a natural link, I imagine such businesses are saying to themselves "What do we stand to gain if we give whatever site a freebie link?"
And
"Is Google really going to give us that much if we whack a load of links to our site - when we clearly lose profit in doing so"
(which is the same as saying "What's in it for us"). But if company thinks there is nothing in it, they will not link.
If a site never gets links, it's probably because there's no reason why anybody should link to it
If that's true, then it's a lost cause so the sensible idea is to take it down off the web, and start over again with a fresh and superior idea. It also means nobody knows the site exists, hence no links yet.
This is the problem and feel the No 1 issue facing webmaster sites - Being found. (note I did not include large corporates for a reason)
Depends on the nature of the website. (the webmaster created) Perhaps some sites encourage natural links more than others
Although this statement is most accurate, it has a ring of truth about it, that I find disturbing about this whole webmaster, fight fight, money grab, get rich fast mentality. Yes it's a very good point why SOME sites just get linked to, while others struggle big time. But this whole link-crazed race to see who get's the most links isn't helping the web at all, and has little to do with natural anything. Getting natural links is different for each site, this is because each site is Individual, and requires a tailored approach to links.
Infact, I'm thinking Professional company Vs Webmaster site has a clear seperation about what is achievable link-wise and natural linking. The ability between the two is the ability to deliver the most, be it traffic, value, ROI etc - and it's this that determines who gets the natural links.
I have a theory:
Webmasters only link with webmasters. Corporates only link to like-sized corporates, and actually dislike and discount webmaster sites.
This doesn't help when one is desperate for links, but you cannot force someone to link if they hate you for something. The secret to natural links has to be something to do with perception of the site. Question is what?
And finding that out is the key. Once you know the problem, you can take action to rectify it. Even if it means scrapping the idea and going back to the drawing board - things can be re-modelled, new services can be added etc, but finding out why people aren't linking is the key here. Many don't do this, and it's a shame.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 1:11 am (utc) on June 6, 2007]
I hope more people will comment on this. One question I have is does the info in the alt tag of a linked graphic count for anything. Maybe this should be a new thread.
Helping Hand, Your comments really brought it home to me how different the commercial sector is from the informational. A university or museum is not going to hesitate to link to my site if they think it is quality. They have no concerns about the money aspect. Same with smaller time sites in my field. I don't hesitate to link out to quality either. There has even been speculation here on WW that one way outgoing links to quality pages might even be a benefit with Google.
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.
OK. We'll try the PR7 Walmart site.
[google.com...]
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.
Yes, but - - -
It can also be that you have just one or two interesting subjects that drive peoples attention.
According to google (under its "Advanced Search"), the correct way to determine the links they count to a site for PgRank purposes is to type: link:www.walmart.com (no s on link) in which case the links inbound to Wal Mart are some 9000, not 3, and does not show any Ad Word ads.
Also, interestingly, it also matters if you leave a space after links: before www.#*$!x, in which case you get 444,000 inbound links, or go back to the singular and leave a space after link: www.walmart.com - you get 506,000. Try it on any site and you get the same variance.
On my site, doing it the Google way without an s and no space after link: the sites Google is counting are those that my site does not do reciprocal links with. They are counting free, natural links, though I have to say, quite imperfectly.
Bingo! If a site never gets links, it's probably as there's no reason to link to it
If the site/business is that good, I imagine the masses would link to it like crazy (if it's really that good). But the more likely senario is if no links to start with - it's not going to get many natural links anyway, at least not to start with and not short-term either.
Catch 22......
[edited by: Helpinghand at 2:44 pm (utc) on June 6, 2007]
Let's talk about large commercial sites..
My site is very useful and has millions of pages of unique product price comparisons and hundreds of thousands of consumer reviews. I do get free links but from an SEO standpoint they are pretty much worthless links from PR0 pages with off-topic subjects (mostly social sites and free hosting homepages). The human traffic from these links is also insignificant. You may choose to believe that if you just have a site worth linking to that given enough time you will become a powerhouse of one-way link love, but it is a foolish fantasy.
No one worth getting a link from is going to magically link to you if you run a mega e-commerce site..
Why would your competitors link to you for free? They are doing everything they can to undermine your operations. Even the most clueless of webmasters would not put a link on their homepage to yours out of the kindness of their heart.
Sure Wal-Mart.com has people linking to it for free, but 99.9% of us do not have Wal-Mart's brand name going for us nor do we have their PPC budget in order to bring human attention to our site.
If you want to build inbound links you have to get off your butt and go get them..
Then we started writing some snappy top ten lists and links from authority sites started pouring in (well, streaming anyway).
There are plenty of sites out there that are going for the fresh look of daily updated content and they can't all produce it by themselves so they link out to interesting stuff they come across.
There's a big difference between quality content and catchy content.
those who report it is easy to attract natural links are in a fundamentally different situation than those who report it is next-to-impossible to succeed
Ofcourse. There still has to be at least a certain amount of content or a touch of quality about a site - to make me link without too much deliberation.
The best sites are so large and powerful that this thought doesn't come into it much - people just link because of branding involved. But maybe they just follow the crowd or link because it's 'cool' to do so, or they read it on a forum? hmmmmm.
The bigger you are - the easier it is.
This is a necessary first step. Someone mentioned:
doing something unusually creative or clever to attract links
I see this as a smart move, and the way to go. Old link attraction ideas are a little stale - time for fresh ideas.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 1:43 pm (utc) on June 7, 2007]
Sums up my opinions 100% too. Google most respects sites with similar keywords. Forget it! They all want YOUR business! Those who HONESTLY link to you out of true interest HAVE LITTLE OR NO PR! So maybe G should start thinking about this and give more credit to THOSE sites.
1. I believe, today, it is nearly impossible to get a legitimate recip link from anyone who subscribes to this website/forum, as well as most others without a signed sealed and attorney delivered contract. Forget about asking for one or worse still a one-way link, as everyone has become far too greedy and parnoid to even respond (what with automated spam and bad Google vibes). I admit, we have even recently removed our somewhat naieve statement about "letting us know about similar sites."
2. I think "natural" links today are nearly non-existant, which is TOO BAD for Google. "All the good ideas are gone" and the only people starting NEW websites today are in it for the money (Let any one who can deny this in here, right NOW, throw the first stone!) Therefore, no new sites today are ever going to link anyone without a good (profitable) reason. Face it Google, it IS the truth. So unless you want to ban ALL new sites (okay, and maybe also Barbie D's graduation memories website on UToob) and just be a search engine of the archived, you need to change with the times.
3. Personally, we're still old-school (from the early 90's) and frequently DO out-link to many other quality? sites freely (without contacting them to ask for a recip link! - oh my!) simply for the news interest of our readers, when we get notices or Press Releases from them, since we are mostly a niche-news oriented site. However such links nowadays rarely last more than 30 days or until the news interest wanes. (BTW we USED to archive such links, but G has now graciously taught us about the importance of rel=nofollow, because you never know what they might turn into someday despite our innocence.)
4. I think G will very soon realize they have virtually DESTROYED (with a BIG "D", i.e. "done evil") the "pristine" nature of the original web in their attempt to weed out the relatively? few? misbehavers when they realize that most sites will learn (or get the idea from their webmasters) that "ALL LINKING IS B-A-D", and they will wind up with an algorithm which no longer works because NO ONE will be linking ANYONE ANYMORE! So long G. Wrong decision. Game over.
[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 9:40 am (utc) on June 8, 2007]
These all get spammed to hell with junk, investors jump in and pump cash into them, creating little Googles and the problem is still with us. We will still have the battle of webmasters Vs corporates, where the corps still won't give anyone a natural link.
It's pay for links or else, and many don't have the budget for this.
It is the largest company in the US. PR=7
NYTimes, LATimes & WebmasterWorld PR=8
Content sites will always have an easier time achieving PR than commerce sites.
Definition of a PR selling site "An entity that trades links on the basis of entertainment value, that has no ownership of it's own idea, product or service"
I uninstalled my toolbar ages ago. I can't see how this benefits anymore as soon as I reach my desired PR level - there is no further use for the toolbar. It becomes redundant.
A toolbar that virally builds natural links? No way.
These seem to get dugg and delicioused etc. no problem.
But my entertainment sites - which I think are actually much more interesting and potentially viral...don't do so well. People say "cool site" but don't seem to want to link to them.
You should be linking to what helps you - not what sounds cool.
Forget about asking for one or worse still a one-way link
2. I think "natural" links today are nearly non-existant,
the only people strting NEW websites today are in it for the money
3. Personally, we're still old-school (from the early 90's) and frequently DO out-link to many other quality?
In fact I have found link building in my niche very hard. It is very difficult to find sites to make requests (either one way or receip) to. I have tried a huge range of searches for sites to ask for links from, I have tried a press release service, and everything else I could think of. Nothing works.
On the other hand when people need the info on my site, they do link unasked. I even got a really good review, and links from a section of one of the largest sites in my niche.
most sites will learn (or get the idea from their webmasters) that "ALL LINKING IS B-A-D"
If you only link to sites you genuinely think are relevant, this is not a major problem.
