Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I am doing a 3-way link building and it works pretty good in a matter of weeks
What do you prefer?
As all the sites are in a related industry, and I really have not gone excessive on the 3-way, I see this is little risk. Any thoughts?
To deny it is to engage in willful ignorance or deception.
Problem is "defacto" acceptance, even though the rules state something difference. Just because you live 40 minutes from the Googleplex and because Matt and the entire spam team told you they have the framework in place to actively detect these or anything else doesn't mean anything practical in the real world of SEO.
Apparently they have the structure in place to detect paid links, so naturally those 3 sites in the top ten that are there solely because of carefully selected paid links (and have been for 4 years) would have either been flagged (which they haven't), or those links have gone completely undetected.
My point is not to say that I believe high risk link campaigns are the way to go; nor is it to argue whether three way linking is or is not high risk; I am saying be careful when you consider writing off techniques because of what you heard the 'S' team say - because those rule-sets do not always apply to trench-level SEO I see working on a day to day basis :)
I wish they would, in fact, because ethical SEOs like us would see a bigger benefit from our hard, natural work when building quality editorial links to our website. The issue is an obvious disparity between what is written on paper, and what is applied.
A strategic war plan means nothing when you are losing the war on the ground.
But longevity is the name of the game.No, it's the name of your game.
re: 3-ways. The fact is, 3 sites on similar topics that could very well interlink naturally. Networks by definition interlink. The concept of 'neighbourhoods' depends on this. However, if your entire stategy is built on 3-ways, I don't think you will keep you ranking for long.
1) Look at it this way, manipulatively builing 3-ways distorts google. (This is your intent, remember)
2) Naturally gaining links shows your site is good (Google is based on this concept)
3) If statisical analysis shows a high number of links come back to you in short order, a review might be in order
4) If a review shows your whole site is based wholley (or mostly) on MANIPULATIVE 3-WAYS, your site cannot be said to be thought to have value by the community. Only money has got you where you are.
Now, based on this, I think PAID 3-ways are going to land you in trouble. Indeed my fist post on this thread is below, and I stand by it.
If you are doing highly relevant linking, then great. I you are doing somewhat relevant, but basically paid linking, you will eventually get in trouble- in that the links will be devalued, and the ranking will plummet.If you are just doing paid links, with no eye to relevancy, or if G decides your entire link profile was based on questionable practises, the drop in ranking may be accompanied by a loss of Trust- which is hard to get back, and will artificially depress your ranking even after you have built a good link profile.
Most of the 3 way stuff that i see is/are dreadful link-farms, and further more its so off topic - they should be reported to some sort of Link Trade Association - as they are wasting everyone's time with really dodgy practices, and giving the entire link trading enterprise/attempts a bad name.
In general, the only kind of sites engaging in 3-ways are those trying to build their reputation. Three, four, five or even six sites with no reputation trying to build each others reputation by linking in a circle does not seem the best solution for long-term success in competitive markets.
Not
I agree completely and want to clarify that I am not writing off those techniques. Nor did I state that 3 way links will get you banned. Nor did I state that Google is catching them (or letting them all slide, either)
Anti-not
What I am pointing out is that there is a risk factor and that the technique should be considered against how much risk you are willing to handle.
Do people really think that you can just "beat" Google - by getting to number one if you shouldn't be there? There are probably thousands of people who have actually managed it... but how many have remained there? If you're looking to build a long term business then it's incredibly risky - and getting caught out more often than not spells the end of that site. If you want to and can get short term gain through these methods, good on you - and congratulations. If you want to build something with a future, then think carefully about how big and clever you are, and then how big and clever Google is with all the money and people they have there.
a friend of mine works on the spam team at Google as well - they do have systems in place, they catch about 80% of it currently
Nonsense. I personally have access to information showing thousands of sites ranking in the top 10 for their keywords based almost completely on 3-way links.
In fact, I know of one example that ranks for keywords dealing with link building. It ranks #1, and has for years, despite openly saying on the page itself that it holds the ranking due to 3-way links. The site is a commercial link building service, and yet there it sits, at #1, since 2004. I've analyzed its links myself, and they are all 3-way.
Whoever told you the 80% thing is either lying or is clueless about how many 3-way links are slipping through their filters.
there is a risk factor and that the technique should be considered against how much risk you are willing to handle.
That's the key point. There is a risk that you'll get nuked, so don't invest too much in the tactic.
If you have a way of committing very little time to it while making a decent profit, fantastic and keep it to yourself.
And, no matter how adept you are, you may be found out via your acquantices.
Nice summary and I agree. stay under radar. do a mix doing link campaign.
ok, so you guys are saying that if I have 2 quality sites: A and B, and I place links within content to my 3rd party link partners on site A in exchange for links within content to site B and all exchanges are 100% on topic, it puts me in risk?
If you have one paid blog link out of 1000 backlinks, is this likely to get you banned? Extremely unlikely.
If you have 1000 backlinks all from paid directories will this get you banned? Apparently, not right now it won't. You'll rank just fine.
If you have 1000 backlinks all from paid directories, will this get you banned in the future? That's the risk. I'd say chances are you will eventually get hit, either manually or algorithmically.
Where the line is, what the line is about, is all up for speculation. What shouldn't be up for speculation is that there is a risk - and the penalty is severe. Ignoring it and suggesting that 'working today'='no risk' is foolishness.
By the same token, because it's working today, the approach that 'it's risky so we don't do it' isn't an ideal strategy. There's a validity to having a site rank for 6 months or two years, that churns out money durint that time - as long as you know the blade could fall at anytime. If all you've got invested in it is $8 for a .com and some backlinks, what's the big deal?
Ideally, you might consider using low risk link building on a main corporate site, and tinker with higher risk variations on less important domains. The second part can help you with the first as well.
yup, ill let you know..check this keyword <snip> . I got number 6-8 in the front page of google in just 1 month..:)..thats a fact!..pretty great huh!
You're lucky this post was edited before a Google rep came through and gave you a nice little site review. Why would you give this information away, especially with so many telling you it's not a good idea?
As I said RISK is just undefined word.
Five days ago:
I was just making a good debate. Actually i'm not in a 3-way link building.
3-way is just the best way to get in the first page NOTHING to be argue with and get your income coming.
Are you saying with in the last 5 days you have proved 3-way linking is the best?
Ideally, you might consider using low risk link building on a main corporate site, and tinker with higher risk variations on less important domains. The second part can help you with the first as well.
the only low risk link building technique i heard of is not going after links at all and waiting for the entire world to dig deep enough to find my superb content and ideas a thousand miles under the sea level.
can you give me some idea of other low risk link building techniques?
For all sites, give out free widgets, such as counters, with embedded backlinks.
For a whole bunch of brilliant ideas:
What are Latest Techniques for FREE One Way Links? [webmasterworld.com]
Link Building Tips [Top 50] [webmasterworld.com]
By all means, exchange links- but with relavent sites. The thing I dislike about 3-way is this.
Either the other two sites are good and relevant, or they're not. If they are, exchange (editorial) links with both. If not, then an IBL from the duff site will be low-value, and an outbound may be positively damaging (G definately cares about where you choose to link to- evidence of this abounds)
so in short, if I do 3way linking with highly relevant websites, I am talking about 100% relevancy, is it still risky?
Regards,
Jaunty
I'm wondering about other people's opinions here. Assuming 3 highly-related & independantly owned sites, and assuming embedded editorial links in each case, which of the following would give you thew most benefit.
CASE 1
A<==>B
A<==>C
B<==>C
CASE 2
A==>B
B==>C
C==>A
And alternatively, would it be better or worse so be in one of the above, or SPECIFICALLY site B in the following, if A and C were co-owned:
CASE 3
A==>B
B==>C
