Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I've been reading many, many posts about getting link value by posting on blogs or social networking sites.
However, when I look at the source code for such sites, I see the links with rel=nofollow attributes.
So, where's the value?
It would seem that I'm getting behind the curve here.
Any replies much appreciated.
Blogs and social sites?
Where's the value?
Exposure, traffic, and backlinks from the linkerati.
Firstly,In all cases links from Blog and Social sites are not no followed.
Links in comments are no followed. I think that's what the OP is talking about.
[edited by: martinibuster at 4:37 am (utc) on Aug. 26, 2007]
I've been reading many, many posts about getting link value by posting on blogs or social networking sites.
Blogging and social network sites are not my thing so this is hardly expert opinion.... but surely any links placed in these types of sites amount to a vote for yourself which makes them 100% artifical. The links are self awarded and are not earned. Isn't that the opposite of what Google looks for?
Google has a history of devalueing any type of artificial linking so why is this category of artifical links going to be treated differently?
Posts throughout these forums promote the virtues blogging/social networking/articles while at the same time other discussions are emphatic that real links value only comes from low numbers of quality inbounds.
Isn't there a contradiction here? Am I missing something?
1) Link or plug will get removed eventually.
2) No link value, as the targeting would be way off as in NOT targeted.
3) Social sites are too multi-purpose
Everything is paid now, and you know people are wise to it, and can't be fooled anymore.
It's pay or your site dies. :)
[edited by: Maxnpaddy at 7:32 pm (utc) on Aug. 26, 2007]
#1 - Pingbacks and trackbacks. If you add them to your site and you link to an article on any blog that has pings and trackbacks enabled (most do) you get an instant relevant deep link in the comments section of the blog.
#2 - RSS feeds, most blogs syndicate so an excerpt of your content will find its way onto interested readers aggregators.
Those two will generate traffic to your site.
#3 - If you write an article or content that everyone talks about, and the bloggosphere talks about it in mass, you will end up with relevant deep links on at least a few sites that don't use 'nofollow'.
I believe google discounts blogs link value in general but if you're new to blogging you need to know that blogs are more and more imune to google, most get their traffic without google.
Social sites and blogs may be largely ignored by google but they also get more traffic than many normal sites and do it without the need of good serp results. Bloggers especially tend to bypass google altogether. Theres value for sure.
That's beyond my level of knowledge. Can you please explain in layman's terms?
"#1 - Pingbacks and trackbacks. If you add them to your site and you link to an article on any blog that has pings and trackbacks enabled (most do) you get an instant relevant deep link in the comments section of the blog."
That's beyond my level of knowledge. Can you please explain in layman's terms?
In laymans terms: Let's say, for example, you have a wordpress blog with a standard template. A regular blog.
You write a post about Paris Hilton, and in that post you link to three other blogs, that have also recently written about Paris Hilton.
This is where "blog magic" happens. Your blog engine will run around to all the other blogs you've mentioned, and write a little comment in their comments sections, with a quote from your post and a link back to your blog. BAM! Three links.
I believe google discounts blogs link value in general
Wow! Assuming you're not talking about blogs that automatically add "nofollow", I'm quite surprised at that statement. Certainly, the conventional wisdom I've seen to date, and my own experience, would persuade me that on-topic inline links in blogs with good anchor text are often very very powerful, and Google loves them. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Anything popular is going to attract links, and spam usually follows ten-fold, which is a big problem. Once this happens site owners have to take anti-spam measures and even totally stop all incoming links and if that means a complete ban, then so be it. So, links need to be monitored closely, and that takes time so after a while spam links hurt a site so much, a total ban of all links is really the only answer.
Yes, link spamming of Social sites is pointless and worthless.
I also am coming to believe pay per post networks are being devalued. Another guess.
But it's not all about links. The publicity a few good blog posts can bring you can far out weigh the value of a link.
I also am coming to believe pay per post networks are being devalued.
The opposite was the buzz at the recent SES San Jose, especially about a certain blogsvertising company with a booth there. Lots of positive buzz.
There are various categories for the articles, and I've noticed that the authors insert anchor text links back to their sites for various keywords.
The links don't have nofollow attributes, the site itself is a PR6, although the articles have no PR.
I was trying to figure out just how the site owners made any money, and then I noticed that there were Amazon ads in the middle of the articles, ads that pertained to the articles' topics.
The whole subject of blog links and social site links is new to me, so I'd appreciate any further comments.
especially about a certain blogsvertising company with a booth there. Lots of positive buzz.
Is that the same one that's planning a booth in Vegas?
then I noticed that there were Amazon ads in the middle of the articles
That's a 90's style of click capture, hoping some punter stops reading his nice article and suddenly click on the advert.
Every time I see one of those, I ignore it, until I finish reading my lovely article, and probably forget the ad once finished too.
There are much better ways to get noticed you know, and it ain't by using social sites. Response rates are lower, to increase them requires new methods, ways to catch people's attention, and further ways to keep them there!
I don't think social sites are the way to go here.
[edited by: Maxnpaddy at 1:11 am (utc) on Aug. 28, 2007]
PPC? I thought the general concensus was that paid links were of no value (unless they're Adwords clicks, of course).
If not any of the above, what's left: bribing staffers at government offices to insert text links into .gov sites?
Brett's 26 steps article has been my bible for years, and it's always worked. I find it hard to believe that Google has changed the rules so dramatically that a link of value no longer has any value.
Let me offer an example. If I publish an article about current problems in the financial sector, and that article uses terms that would require paragraphs to explain, isn't it of value to the reader for me to offer a link if the reader wants more information about that particular term? Or for the reader to decide that he/she doesn't want an expanded explanation of the term?
Have the folks at Google become so incompetent that their system can't recognize links to pages of real content, as opposed to spam pages?
I really find that hard to believe, whether the links are from blogs, social sites, or traditional sites.
Please feel free to tell me where I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Well, if the old-school reciprocal links don't work anymore, and there's no link value from blogs, and there's no value to links from articles on social sites....then, what?
PPC? I thought the general concensus was that paid links were of no value
But there is no reason at all that white hat blog sites offering genuine, unique content cannot be treated as the equal of trusted static sites. In fact, because good blogs offer up opinions, stories, news and so on, they really are a treasure chests of the very sort of content that Google wants to attach itself to, imo. Outbound links, absent "nofollow" in such sites are good as gold. Moreover, there is even a silver lining in links bearing the "nofollow" tag in that they do not really mean nofollow. They can get the recipient page spidered and indexed, just without transmission of link love.
I'm all for good blogs.
I also think about why someone visits a website, and as a searcher myself, always hate it when looking for my DVDS or Videos, that I'm suddenly bombarded with ads. To give you an example, I'm at Yahoo, searching for whatever that day, only to get a sliding see-through advert partially block my view, which didn't exactly thrill me shall we say - so the first thing I did was click off that advert.
Another example was on my forum, I'm moderatoring as I often do and notice quite a few spam ads and links and stuff being plonked in the threads - now, I'm sure my members have joined to contribute by answering posts in a kind of social setting, so on visiting a social site, don't expect to find a drug related post. The intention of going to such a site isn't for the untargeted, uninvited plugs, it's for the entertainment - so the url drop has automatically failed (even though the spammer won't see it).
How much more proof do we need before folks understand marketing basics, and advertise in a more effective way. The same activity is the same for blogs and now these social sites such as Myspace, and I bet these sites fight what's NOT wanted, and if link dropping isn't tolerated, any link will be swiftly removed meaning zero effect for those links right!
So...... the question is - how to attract attention with advertising, but without being intrusive or untargeted, which I think is worse. Social sites deliever entertainment, and is all that is expected by visitors - so if I'm personally looking for something social, I'm probably not wanting to find a bunch of ads right, so why risk hurting a social site with bad and unwanted adverts, you wouldn't do it right.
What once worked years ago is now failing big-time, and the sites that allow it to continue will turn away visitors. Maybe it's more the delivery method that's ineffective, but if it's unwanted, then it's going to affect sales. That's a major problem for any site wanting to compete today, and important for social or entertainment sites as running such sites is now big business.
I've pursued one-way links, reciprocal links, and submissions to directories, all of which were related to my sites' niches.
In my experience reciprocal links don't work much anymore. Most link swaps are of such low value and low traffic drivers, you are better of buying targeted one-way links instead - it's faster this way, links will count for more with SE's and paid links get better placement on websites compared to the free basic links.
The evidence for this is all over the web, and I feel the free stuff available these days feeds spam behaviour, which in turn hurts genuine services who's only goal is to improve the advertising function of the web. Do blogs and social sites attract spam and decrease link value - hell yeah! - and a few key reasons are clear why this happens.
1. Social sites get targeted for the popularity (visitor reach potential), and ripe for spam attack.
2. Link value is decreased (deliberately by the resource) to stop spam by lowering any advantage to unpaid advert/link space. Sort of helps control the spam, but not 100% effective. Infact it fails quite badly.
3. Anything that allows free entry eg: blogs, directories, forums, social sites, attracts low quality, spammers, scams and untargeted stuff. This lowers the quality aspect of host sites, thus turning mentioned resources into 'link dumps' and eventually destroying any effective targeting for advertisers and specialty information for visitors.
(Bear in mind I mean the spam type resource sites and communities here, and obviously not the more professionally run blogs and directories etc).
The blame for this lies with a few types of individuals, engines and web designers. In the chase for money, they destroy what is good and help support criminal activity and spam.
[edited by: Maxnpaddy at 7:53 pm (utc) on Aug. 30, 2007]
I have no evidence that blog links are devalued more often than regular site links of course, Google guards it's algo well. I was reffering to the following.
#1 - A link on a page with 300 other links conceivably gets 1/300th of the PR. Each comment on a non "nofollow" blog gets a share of whatever PR that page has to give. Blogs tend to have more links per page because of comments.
#2 - Blogs tend not to remain completely focused on one subject or one area of subjects thus blogs may be less of an authority on any of the subjects within it.
I think those two factors devalue links on blogs more than on regular sites. Thats all. I wouldn't be surprised if someone constructs a method of ignoring any links held within a "comment template" at the push of a button on Googles end.
#1 - A link on a page with 300 other links conceivably gets 1/300th of the PR.... Blogs tend to have more links per page because of comments.
1. The comments are typically no-followed so that's a non-consideration.
2. The overwhelming majority of blogs I read or have come across do not typically have anywhere near 300 outgoing links per page. Even hyper-popular blogs like BoingBoing, PerezHilton and TMZ don't have anywhere near that many outgoing links, much less more serious blogs focused on specific hobbies and business topics.
#2 - Blogs tend not to remain completely focused on one subject or one area of subjects thus blogs may be less of an authority on any of the subjects within it...
Survey the vast array of topics that BOTW lists in their Blog Directory [blogs.botw.org], then take a look at Yahoo's Directory of Blogs [dir.yahoo.com] and you will see that as far as being authorities, a great many blogs are sharply focused in their given niche, many written by industry experts and enthusiasts.
I believe google discounts blogs link value in general
Not yet...
However, the nature of most blogging systems is that the linkjuice is short lived. When a post goes up on a Wordpress blog (for that is what everyine is using... ever stop to think whether that's a clever choice?) then the homepage of the blog carries the link. Over time, though, the article drops off the home page. If, during that time, loads of people (deep) linked to the article, then links from the article continue to to carry weight. If not, the link itself from the article is not worth much.
So that's why people say to write good content.
Yahoo Answers puts nofollow on every one of my links that I put in my "Sources". I answered a question about every other day for the last 3 months. I have a 83% "Best Answer" rating. I am getting over 3000 visitors a day from Yahoo Answers and they turn 20% more pageviews than the average user.
Over time, though, the article drops off the home page.
If it's an important enough post, you can get some link juice to it by posting articles on Gather, Hub pages, Squidoo, etc. with deep links embedded. On another blog site, you can then link to your articles in the social sites. In this way, social sites can help work in a viral way. Spread it all around.
BTW, you can always turn off comments when it makes sense.
True. But, if it's an article that's important enough, you can upload it as a page and not as a post, then link to it from other high ranking pages, including, of course, the home page. I'm talking WordPress.
