Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Link Strategy Number Two:
Triangular or three-way linking is when a site A links to site B for a link back from site C. This supposedly is considered better by some SEO's than two-way linking. Their thinking is that two-way linking is no longer effective and that three-way linking "appears" to Google to be one-way links. But other SEO's believe that Google can identify three-way linking and that you risk huge penalties.
Link Strategy Number Three:
This strategy is similar to Number Two above. It is also a three-way link strategy. Instead of a link from site A, the SEO offers a link from the SEO's site or a separate site such as a directory to site B in return for a link from site B to site A. The advantage is that site A doesn't even need any of its own outbound links. Still, other SEO's believe Google can detect a link cluster and punish site A.
Link Strategy Number Four:
Four-way linking is also possible but with the same pros and cons as Number Two and Three above. More complicated and fewer webmasters willing to participate.
Link Strategy Number Five:
Article links. Many SEO's believe that what appears natural to Google is a link or two from the inside of an article about the theme which the site that is to receive the link is about. Usually the SEO will create an informative article with the links in the middle or end of the article. They offer the article to any number of webmasters for free, as content for their sites in return for a link to their client's site. It could be said that this will backfire if the article is published on various sites as it is duplicate content and has the same link destination in each article. Also, a lot of these articles get submitted to "article farms" which can be identified by Google (if not now then at sometime in the future). The best way to do this would be to offer a unique article to each webmaster but the cost of producing a number of unique articles would be expensive.
Link Strategy Number Six:
One-way links are the most difficult of all but the most effective in my opinion. There are a few sites that will link to you one-way if you ask them the properly. Some modest sites do not think like SEO's. Some of them do not even know the meaning of the term SEO. It is hard work but well worth the effort (in my opinion) even if the links come from low or no PR sites. But many SEO's believe one-way links from FFA's and directories are identifiable by Google as spam so one must work hard to find honest and related sites willing to do this. The typical link request probably won't work.
Link Strategy Number Seven:
Buying links. Some SEO's believe that if you buy links, banner ads will do no good as they do not contain keywords. They therefore believe that you need to buy text links with keywords in the link. Google mentions on its guidelines for webmasters that they do not like link buying and they even have a form you can submit to report sites that buy links. Some say Google does nothing about it. Others say differently. Perhaps Google creates fear so that people buy adwords rather than advertising elsewhere. In my opinion buying banner ads is safer than textlinks as Google cannot call that spam. Surely a site has the right to advertise. But text-based ads are probably a bad idea, especially if it says "Sponsored Links" somewhere near the links. Some say that without keywords in the link, it will do nothing for reputation. But if Google is smart, it could detect the reputation from the site the banner is on.
Link Strategy Number Eight:
Let's say that site A is the site you are promoting and also one you want to "protect." Instead of doing any risky linking strategies on A, you could create a number of information sites with related content on various IP C-blocks to "take the fall" should Google decide to flex its muscle. In this strategy, site A does noting but receive links from sites B, C, & D, while B, C, D participate in various linking activities to create PR which they then pass on to site A. This could be considered spam depending on how you look at it. The junkier the information sites and the more risky the linking patterns of those sites (B, C, D), the greater the chance of A getting hit, I would think. This could also be quality work, again, depending on how you look at it. It could natural and it could be artificial.
Link Strategy Number Nine:
Build a site naturally. Many SEO's are now saying the only white-hat way to make a high ranking site is to develop excellent content. In my opinion, this is easier to do for a site that is purely an information site but is more difficult to do for a commercial site. It takes lots of time and most people are not successful at getting it off the ground. The concept is good but it is hard to come up with a winner. It is also most discouraging if you are beat in the rankings by sites that cheat. You could wait forever and not get anywhere.
Link Strategy Number Ten:
A combination of all of the above. The problem with this is that Google can punish a site for any one strategy and you won't even know which one it is.
=====================================
Does anyone have any other link building strategies to add?
11. Devise some unique tools or interactive gimicks to be used as link bait. I'm not talking content for your site, but content which can you can offer other sites to use, and within this would be a free link back to your site. For example, one of my websites is based in the gambling industry and I often get a couple of sites ask if I want a calculator tool for my site. They're usually done in flash and all they ask is for a link back. Obviously this is going to be different for each niche, and you probably have to think 'outside the box'. It has to be something that offers added value to other sites but something that can't easily be replicated.
Hopefully I'll get better. :)
It doesn't matter if this is black hat, white hat, or grey hat. After all, what kind of hat does Google wear? It is a matter of risk. I know what it is like to have a top-ranking site beating many large corporations only to get hit by Google and never to recover. Are you willing to take a chance? You could try your luck in Los Vegas too.
3. Does anyone here think it that likely that I penalized?
I think a solid few percent of the people you send the email to will forward it on to the Google spam team.
I think a solid few percent of the people you send the email to will forward it on to the Google spam team.
Yes, there is always a risk of that. There are plenty of people who think they are wearing white hats. When sending emails asking for links, be careful what you write. Never mention subjects such as search engine rankings. Years ago, webmasters used to say things like, linking will improve ranking. Some foolish webmasters are still doing that. It is better to mention why you feel your content would be of interest to their site visitors.
I have a new site out there but I've been very careful in attempting any link strategies. Spooked really. So I'm taking my time. In reality I only need a half dozen good inbounds to capture a good local market.
What's the view on blogs today? I just started one and placed one link to the new site. It's topic related.
But the way to go isn't to do with recip links, 3 ways or other link hunting, forget all that rubbish as I guarantee you will waste your time.
Some would argue the way is only held back by your imagination and creative ability, but it isn't enough to think of an idea, throw it onto a site and hope it works - even the best linking idea will fail if it's attached to a bad business idea. As with all things, the site must be fantastic and wanted by everybody, far beyond the webmaster community. Then when you have that idea, then and only then can a linking plan work - but you will have to give up something pretty useful for untrusting to bite.
Link Hunting is small time and websites are wise to it. It will soon be a worthless activity, as so many now charge quite hefty fees for placement.
I hardly swap links anymore because of the hassle involved and so little gain. Okay, I got a boost in the serps of my fave engine, but this placement hasn't exactly boosted my profits, which is the main aim I believe.
after everything i have put into this site, I cant even begin to afford any risks with serps
That's it exactly. You have to evaluate the risk based on what you have put into your site.
Some of the sites I'm seeing that use these methods have ranked very well for years now. So apparently, for whatever reason, Google has not worked this detection into their algorithm. Perhaps it's much more difficult to apply this kind of detection across billions of pages than people seem to realize?
I have always found that a natural profile of diverse linking is what helps me, and not so much any 'one' method.
Some of my links are paid links in content on topically related websites.
Some links are links where a website suggested I list a different resource but gave me a great link in return.
Some are from articles, some are high ranking reciprocal websites.
My sense is that a natural grade and diverse link profile works best.
Another problem with 3-way linking is that in most cases an seo makes a three-way link proposal in an email sent out to prospecitve linking partners. If it falls into the hands of a white hat samaritan who takes pleasure in reporting people, that could spell trouble for anyone taking this risky fork in the road.
In entertainment there is a strong dependency on reciprocals and on my site they typically generate at least a third of the traffic.
Perhaps in order to determine a cluster, you would have to query an inbound link to site A from site B against every inbound link to site B. Then do the same with site C which is also linking to site A. If site A had 2,000 inbounds and each inbound linking site had an average of say 500 inbounds, that is a lot of checking. If Google had to go through all that for every site in its database, it probably would not be practical.
That's my point. To rerun that kind of checking on a dozen billion pages with enough frequency to keep the results fresh requires a lot of processing power. Now, Google has a lot of processing power, but is it enough to make this kind of check practical? Current search results indicate that Google doesn't think it is.
You can only optimize a website's content so much, the rest has to be made up with links and Pagerank.
We all know of ways to build links, but the dilema is how much risk are you willing to take.
The major sites take very little risks. As they dont really need to, its quite easy for a major fortune 500 company to get a PR8 or even a 9. These days however you are seeing a lot of these major sites cross-linking all their other sites, perhaps 5-10 of them, all at the top, passing on PR. How the hell can we compete with 5 or so PR8s cross-linking every page?
The Internet industry has just become another capitalist industry, where the small man once again has no chance.
Is this how you really wanted it Google?
The Internet industry has just become another capitalist industry, where the small man once again has no chance.Is this how you really wanted it Google?
Yes, the level playing field is no longer level. I have a feeling Google wants the big corporate types to rank high and might even have some prejudice in the algo.
Once that trust is realized, it seems that almost any kind of properly researched paid link and one way 'type' link work
The major sites take very little risks. As they dont really need to, its quite easy for a major fortune 500 company to get a PR8 or even a 9. These days however you are seeing a lot of these major sites cross-linking all their other sites, perhaps 5-10 of them, all at the top, passing on PR. How the hell can we compete with 5 or so PR8s cross-linking every page?
They often (not always) mess up when it comes to optimising for specific searches. They do SEO with a broad brush, but can be beaten by good content, detailed SEO work and some risk taking on the link buying. I see an affiliate has made it into the top ten for the most competitive poker term. There's hope!
There's hope!
Yes, it is like a religion, isn't it?
