What were link developers doing 'before SEO'

[Makaveli2007]

just out of curiosity..Ive heard of people whove been in the link development business for a really long time, probably before backlinks became an important ranking factor in the major engines (back when it was about kw density, etc.).

Is anybody here who's been doing it that long? Has your skill become a lot more profitable ever since links do not only drive traffic directly, but also indirectly from the search engines?

[cnvi]

"What were link developers doing 'before SEO'"

Traditional link exchange with relevant sites. It worked pre-google and pre-seo and it still works today. If you do link with other sites, you must maintain editorial discretion. You must maintain a natural volume. Avoid the temptation to use full duplex "get links quick" services. Those services will only get you into trouble.

Link exchange is a data management nightmare. If you choose to use a software or service to manage link exchange, make sure it is strictly EDITOR BASED which means you determine who you will and will not link to.

Good luck.

[Makaveli2007]

You mean to say that link exchange (with relevant sites) for the actual traffic still works well, today? (just curious, because most people seem to think the opposite)

[cnvi]

why do you think "most people seem to think the opposite"?

[Makaveli2007]

B/c I've done a few posts about linking for actual traffic vs. linking for rankigns on here (and asked similar questions elsewhere) and the usual answer is 'getting links for rankings pays off a lot better'.

Also the common opinion on most forums Ive been to obviously is that doing link exchanges is a waste of time.

There's one single time that I read where somebody said that link exchanges (for the traffic it brings) worked well for him (and that he didn't bother about search engines).

I'm not saying all of those people are right, but I'm pretty sure that I could ask the question if link exchanges (for getting actual traffic) are worth it and most webmasters would reply that SEO (or PPC for that matter) is where it's all at.

[pageoneresults]

What were link developers doing 'before SEO'

Let's define "Link Developer". If we look at it from a commodity perspective, which most do, those link developers were probably performing search engine submissions before. You know, those submit to 100,000 plus type deals? It's all about automation and numbers (volume).

Link development is just "one part of the whole". If that is someone's only service offered, then it means one of two things. They are a true professional, or it's an automated process based on volume with not even a little "labor of love" involved. ;)

[wheel]

lol Page1. I'd completely forgotten about the 'submit to a million search engines' stuff. Thanks for the memories :).

[ftwb05]

selling second hand cars! (joke, sorry, its late)

[jimbeetle]

B/c I've done a few posts about linking for actual traffic vs. linking for rankigns on here (and asked similar questions elsewhere) and the usual answer is 'getting links for rankings pays off a lot better'.

No, I think if you look around a bit more, the usual "safe" answer here is to develop links for traffic, not rankings.

But -- here's the kicker -- you also have to realize that many of those same "safe" answers are coming from folks doing exactly the opposite -- developing links for rankings and not traffic.

[Makaveli2007]

I read the post by sugarrae (I think?) which was about traffic development vs. link development and I think many people agree that getting links for traffic (but still getting anchor text etc. right) is the way to go, but not really because the heaps of direct traffic are better than a search engine ranking (though a nice and more stable traffic source), but because those are the links search engines count (and might want to count even more going into the future).

If you put a link on a site that has 10 links you only get 1/10th (or so) of the traffic..and youll also only get 1/10th or so of the (real) page rank, if its still true that a page can only pass a certain amount of link juice.
(Links from authoritative sites are better..so are links from relevant sites..whether its for traffic or the engines). I can see how those do overlap and that search engines might want to lower rankings of pages that only get traffic from search engines..as that would mean that other webmasters in the field dont really think that its a website worth seeing (if nobody tries to make it seen)...

but actually I was referring to link exchanges (if I remember correctly..if not sorry for putting it wrong) and that whenever somebody says 'link exchange' on a forum the common reply is 'link exchanges are old, they dont work anymore, etc.' (and never have I heard anybody take another stance and say: 'yeah they might not work great for SEO anymore, but they actually do work great for traffic').

However, I once did read somewhere that link exchanges with relevant sites still work out great for the traffic (not for rankings)...thats why I was curious to find out and asked this :-)

[edited by: martinibuster at 4:17 am (utc) on Jan. 3, 2008]
[edit reason] Removed specifics. [/edit]

[martinibuster]

However, I once did read somewhere that link exchanges with relevant sites still work out great for the traffic (not for rankings)...thats why I was curious to find out and asked this :-)

Link exchanging for ranking still works, under certain circumstances, but there are risks involved. For more info please read the current ongoing threads about it. There are ongoing discussions of that in the link dev forum. You may want to seek those out.

:)