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?
Maybe more a sect than a religion!
Survival of the biggest.
And that in itself is a link strategy. Do what you can to make your site bigger. Not just churned out pages but something with substance.
Just look back at Brett's 12 steps (or was it 24 - I can't find it just now). Didn't he suggest adding a page a day? Sure that added long tail content but it also adds link power.
Once corporate websites, retailers etc thought of selling their goods online, the free link giveaway was over and others caught onto that charging - could be profitable and easy. Just look at the tremendous effort involved to get even a half decent link. There are still folks that do the 'one link a day' will get you somewhere.
Yeah, 12 months later and you have a massive 365 links.
Okay, that's if they all return the favour, but I bet they won't. There's no getting away from the fact you will only have 365 links, and if that doubles, (well let's hope it does)it's still not enough, and all that wasted effort too.
So what's the best way to get links without all that hassle?
Yeah, 12 months later and you have a massive 365 links.
Following statement may bruise egos: If you believe that high quality links are not possible to get just by simple request then I'm sorry to say that your site is not up to scratch. Case in point - Wikipedia has an enormous number of high quality links, and it didn't even need to request them. Google gets large numbers of links daily. Innovative tools and services, things which add real value, pick up links like they were fallen leaves. Niche websites likewise.
Wikipedia may have good links but those links get a lot of pages listed, many that are worthless stumps with no inbound links at all.
I've seen the same thing with less well known sites. A site with 1000 pages loses to a similar site with 5000 page even though both have about the same number of inbound links.
If you believe that high quality links are not possible to get just by simple request then I'm sorry to say that your site is not up to scratch.
Eh? if it was that simple, then webmasters wouldn't need to hang around on forums to 'beg for useless tips' (I see this on my forum every day!). Boy, I'm glad the above link troubles doesn't apply to my site, I must get about 15 links requests every day, but they only turn out to be useless off-topic links from low PR pages. That's web pages and NOT proper websites, and if I linked with every one then I'd have many thousands by now, but followed the advice on here to go the quality route. My link count isn't great, but am No 2 in Yahoo for one of my keywords so it's cool.
Infact, picked up my second .gov link a few months back - so things are okay linkwise. Could do with a few more quality on-topics, but since my links are free I shouldn't be complaining.
Case in point - Wikipedia has an enormous number of high quality links, and it didn't even need to request them.
It can have all the links in the world, but I don't use it, have never used it, and never will. So a ton of links doesn't impress me nor will it force me to choose one site over another, and that's the way it should be!
[edited by: Maxnpaddy at 2:08 pm (utc) on Nov. 1, 2007]
Too many to physically checkExactly my point. If you're providing good content then you will get so many links that it's too many to even physically check; amongst which are large numbers of good quality ones.
I do think it's important to remind people that inbound links also serve another useful purpose. They actually refer visitors to your site! The site i work has a lot of reciprocal links built up over the years, but when i analyze where our visits are coming from, i only see about 5 of our link partners there. Out of those 5 or so, we get a lot of referrals.
So for me it's about finding like-minded sites. I am even comfortable linking to our competitors and vice-versa because our products are superior, and i believe we'll get the better of our competitors if our links are side by side anyway.
But you need the positions to get the traffic that will provide the income to support the initial development.
Its a complete catch 22.
Imo you have niche, niche, niche, and have plenty of sites.
Now, I believe it is better to go back to the olden days BG and buy banner ads. I would highly suggest you do not go "run of site" and buy banners on sites with realted content and that are "trustworthy" in the eyes a search engine.
A banner ad on a site that would normally bring you the right traffic is probably a better idea than risking a so called text-link ad.
As for commercial sector sites having more trouble than content sites; commercial sector sites are at a great advantage because they have the new and the cutting edge; just think of two recent mega-stories: iphone and vista... they attracted links in volumes that a content-site could never dream of ***.
* Sure, there may be the odd tiny scheme which doesn't.
** Sure, a few do, but check what shows up in your backlinks from most.
*** If you're just trying to sell someone else's established product at the market rate; then why should anyone link to you anyway?
Nobody knows who they are, ofcourse content helps in keeping visitors, but the majority are unknown sites acting like mini corporates (lol) which is just sickening as they are nothing more than amateurs running adsense/affiliate links. They have no effective promotion behind them, many don't even do the minimum PPC required to get 40'000 visitors per year, so the problem is easy to fix. But there is always a reason why these site owners never promote - that's the issue here, and it's something worthy of discussion. Many waste their time and money chasing that dream, and it's very dangerous financially.
Low traffic, silly worthless links - you might as well shut down now, as nobody will find you. It obviously isn't working.
Large businesses shut down parts of their companies all the time, because they underperform or don't deliver. The same applies to the web.
[edited by: Maxnpaddy at 11:45 am (utc) on Nov. 2, 2007]
I have tried Adwords on and off for 4 years and the truth is it just doesn't produce any results for my business. I was spending every month and not seeing any return at all. However, higher placement in the natural search listings make all the difference in the world to my business in sales. The more people that see my work the more that buy, so you can't make an argument that it's an outdated product nobody wants. In fact after a redesign of my site in late 2006 my sales have almost doubled for 2007 as my traffic improved! 2007 has been my best year ever in both sales and assignments without adding hardly any new product.
Now at the end of September Google updated and I got whacked yet again from more links to my site being nofollowed. October traffic was approx 55% of what September's was and the phone went dead, nothing but SPAM in my inbox. October, November and December are always the busiest months of the year for me so I am feeling the impact already. That is why I, and many other small businesses, see no alternative to paying for links. There simply isn't any other way for us to get quality links to our commercial sites.
However, higher placement in the natural search listings make all the difference in the world to my business in sales.
Interesting how many quote the serps of any engine as giving the best clickthrough, however this is not necessarily the case. Links will be links wherever they be placed (in serps/banners or adverts), they still get clicked on, as there is nothing else but links on a website, so there is no choice but to click them.
Search engines and directories usefulness are based on what is searched or clicked and the search pages give very good clickthrough, so the listings within should benefit at some stage, although some businesses will get more than others. I'd suggest that standard search results probably result in 40% to 60% of all clickthroughs, while enhanced adverts and links provide an extra 40% to 60% of clicks, so it's always worth buying advertising, as the extra percentage of clicks the better ad spots give is crucial to being found.
Google penalises the free stuff and forces advertisers to spend on the one-thing that doesn't get penalised - paid adverts. They can't penalise any paid links, otherwise paying advertisers will pull their ads. Trust me paid advertising is a serious necessity because the web is so big, and the free serps won't do the job alone - too many sites and pages about you see.
That is why I, and many other small businesses, see no alternative to paying for links. There simply isn't any other way for us to get quality links to our commercial sites.
One of the most mature and accurate things I've heard for a long time, and something that should be followed if a decent web business is to stand out. Ofcourse links and a web presence is only a tiny part of advertising, and I shudder to think why many spend their lives trying to use free recip linking techniques to make a living, and then 3 years later their sites die. It doesn't work anymore unless it can be done in such a large and automated way, if that can be achieved, then maybe a site can get something out of it - but common sense tells me few have the ability to do that.
[edited by: Maxnpaddy at 1:11 am (utc) on Nov. 3, 2007]
I have about 15 sites. Some of them I promoted by various methods of link building while others I just said the heck with the serps and bought ads in newspapers and magazines. I have also tested AdWords. In most cases this is what I have found works and does not work for me.
Buying ads in print media and pointing people to a website has excellent convension rates but varies with the publication. In many cases classified ads outpull display ads (I actually run a combination of the two). An expensive publication does not necessarily pull better than a cheap one. In my case the best pulling publication is the least expensive of all I run ads in. It is best to test several publications running various size ads to determine the best way to spend (spread) your money. You can put a select menu in your order form (if you have a commercial site) and ask the customers how they heard of your company. You can list the publications you advertise in as well as SE's and even have one option for "Friend/Co-worker." That will give you a better indiaction of which publications pull best. I am an old mail-order marketer from way before the internet was even in diapers. Don't overlook the traditional methods of selling or promoting. It can work well in combination with what you do on the net. In my industry I found this has more ROI than AdWords. So why help monopolize a SE take over the internet when I can get better results elsewhere?
As to whether link exchange still works or not, many of the posts you read on this board as well as others like it will suggest that it doesn't. I decided to make a test to see if it still does help in the SERP's. About three months ago, I bought a throw-away domain, put a few pages of content on it and hired a link monkey. I do not feel she is very good. Nevertheless, the site now has a PR3 with 30 inbounds (some junk, some on target) and while I am not at the top of the SERP's I see the site coming up the ladder. Now that does not mean the site will not eventually get hit. But I can varify that if you get reciprocal links, you will still be able to climb in the SERP's. I am not suggesting this is the way to go but I would not discount it in the way others on this board have.
What is really needed is for a more scientific study of Internet Marketing (I hate the term SEO). People on this board work on a few sites, do some testing and reach "conclusions" without much actual data. If a university were to create a few hundred sites and try various methods such as site A gets only reciprocals, site B gets only three-ways, site C gets only one-ways, etc then perhaps we could know more factually what is cool and what is not. But so much of this is myth that it makes me wonder if people who visit boards like these end up more confussed than had thay not. With so many "don't do this and don't do that" it is a wonder anyone could do anything after reading some of these posts.
I for one, quit reciprocal linking after my most valuable top-ranking site got busted by Google three years ago. After that I was too afraid to do anything. That is why I went in for print ads instead of AdWords (why should I feed the hand that slaps me). But it was fun to once again throw up a site, get some old-fashion run-of-the-mill recips and see my junk site climb in the SERP's.
Lastly, in defense of the SERP's I would like to say that conversions seem to improve as you get closer to the top of the SERP's for important keywords. I feel that in Internet Marketing the SERP's are very important but some other overlooked traditional methods (that seem to have become forgotten) thrown in along with it makes for a good mix.
If some company wants to buy an ad and their intension is purely advertising, then they should not mind a nofollow link. But people that buy links to boost PR are taking risks. If either seller or buyer gets punished, it will be the buyer. Even if you buy a link that looks like a natural link, nowadays you run the risk of someone reporting it. Although some say that even when you report someone, Google does nothing. This is not about being honest, not about being pure to Google, it is about risk. How much risk are you willing to take? Do you sleep well at night? Do you pay all you taxes? Are you always looking over your shoulder to see if the tax man is after you? If you pay you taxes you won't need to be looking over your shoulder all the time. Google is like the IRS. They take your property first and then make you sue them to get it back. You can sue IRS if you are in the right and win in court. But you can't with Google. Nevermind words like black hat or white hat. This is about taking risks. Many people drive 10, 20, 30 miles over the speed limit, but that does not make it legal.
ichthyous, to buy or not to buy is up to your thrist of risk. Heck you can even go through life without even buying health insurance if you want. Eveyone knows that business is about taking risk. High risk businesses often make huge profits. But the higher the stakes the greater the chance of going belly up.
What if you have a majority of non-paid links with a few high-PR paid links thrown in?
To buy or not to buy, that is the question. No one can answer this question but you.
Forget Google and just remember
Links = traffic
A mature website should get most of its traffic from website referrals (links), not Google.
Folks are too reliant on Google, and thats asking for trouble.
Channel your efforts into building great content, and that will bring links.
Create a graphic with some hyperlink text to your site underneath, pick a worthy site in a specific genre, and send them a friendly email telling them you think they are a great example of the genre, and supply the html code to the graphic/text linking to you.
The important thing though is that you are actually rewarding WORTHY sites - not just spamming every site with the same award.
Usually worthy sites are more likely to also not be fly-by-nighters and build a good reputation, increasing the quality of the hyperlink to your site.
If you are able to do what you say you can do then more power to you!
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.
Google wouldn't bother checking all pages. It already identifies competitive keywords and targets these. The top dogs get the most rigorous testing and, if they fail, the toughest penalties, including the 950!
p/g
Google wouldn't bother checking all pages. It already identifies competitive keywords and targets these. The top dogs get the most rigorous testing and, if they fail, the toughest penalties, including the 950!
Ah, well that makes the most sense of all. For the really hot keywords, Google could even be checking things manually. BTW, what's the 950? Confined to Google hell for 950 lifetimes?
But I have found that inbounds from link pages usually do not bring good traffic. Mostly just link hunters.
True - this is the case, but sites just won't give away their main web site space for free. Too much in it for them.
One might pick up the odd good link, but it's not going to make you rich, so forget that, plus what you get out of it will be so naff, it feels like so much effort to get nowhere is now the case for the web. It's a bit easier to get links once your site is established and offers a good service, but even many of those link offers are rubbish, mainly from webmasters with low ranked, untargeted sites that only want to boost pagerank. Jeeze, what an existence, and is why I basically ceased most link exchange activity, it wastes my time more than anything. I mean for what I actually get out of it - it's pretty much pointless and worthless these days.
It was different a few years back, but times have changed.
Why should link development always be about Google? That's short-sighted.
Forget Google and just remember
Links = trafficA mature website should get most of its traffic from website referrals (links), not Google. Folks are too reliant on Google, and thats asking for trouble.
Exactly my point.
If you look at high-ranking competitor sites that do not not have reciprocal link directories on them and then you explore their backlinks, you can probably determine which one-way inbounds are bought links. You can email those sites and say, hey I noticed you are linking to so-and-so, how I can I get in on this? What do I have to do to merit a link on your website? Perhaps they will offer to sell you some space on their site and you can works things out subtlety. But buying links from link brokers, that seems to me like selling your soul to the devil. Be sure you do it with a throw-away domain.
