how to get one way links

[amythepoet]

Oh, I need help in finding one way links, day after day, I'm after it and it's a slow crawl, anybody have any advice, besides, keep at it? hahha

[buckworks]

No argument, just facts.

The search with and without the space are different searches that do different things. The search with the space will turn up a lot of other results besides links to your site, so you need to understand what you're looking at.

[mack]

link:www.example.com
link: www.example.com

Are different search terms. The first (without space) is a Google search operator to only look for sites that link to your page.

The 2nd search (with space) is a broken search string, but will still be handled by Google. What the 2nd search is doing is displaying pages that contain the term www.example.com it may be a link it may be simply text.

Mack.

[buckworks]

What the 2nd search is doing is displaying pages that contain the term www.example.com it may be a link it may be simply text.

In addition to that, it will return pages that simply mention the word "example".

[Mark_A]

In addition to that, it will return pages that simply mention the word "example".

Yes, it does, we already checked that on p1.

But it seems that

link:mydomain.com
and
link:www.mydomain.com

give the same results. Is that right?

[mack]

Not always. Some people may link to you with www others may link without www

www.example.com
example.com
example.com/index.html
www.example.com/index.html

^ 4 different pages, same page.

Mack.

[amythepoet]

That's right Mack

[Mark_A]

Yes, I can see that happenning. But at the moment the site I checked in google only had a few links showing and they were the same links showing if I searched :

link:mydomain.com or
link:www.mydomain.com

[amythepoet]

ok I gotta take a walk, it's enough link talk for me for now

lateh as we say

[tigger]

Oh, well tigger you could be right, but I definately read few people in the link forum library saying that a few big links could change a site quickly rather than lots of low PR links which would have less effect.

I know what you mean about security, if you only have 5 links and one is deleted, that is 20% gone, whereas 1 of 20 or 30 is much less significant.

that would be my concern over just having the 2 links, plus if your working with sites that are being developed rather than just linking tools in theory the PR will increase anyways - take the volume links - the PR5's are a nice bonus when they come along

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Lots of mixed signals in this thread.

Re: Link search in Google
link:example.com and link:www.example.com are the same.
link: example.com and link: www.example.com with a space after the : are incorrect searches because you're asking Google to tell you how many sites link to SPACE with the term YOUR DOMAIN NAME. Space is the same as ALL SITES so you get a list of all sites that mention YOUR DOMAIN NAME. Don't use a space.

NOTE: if you DO see different results for www and non www incoming links you have an issue where Google thinks two versions of your site exist. Tell google in webmaster tools to index your site as either www, or non www, only. Next add .htaccess code to 301 redirect all of one version to the other and don't forget to go back to your site and MAKE SURE you only use one version in all of your own links.

Re: link value
There are charts on the internet that show you what a link is worth in terms of pagerank. While I don't think any of them are accurate they do show a relatively accurate scale. They suggest that a PR5 link is worth 3,333 PR4 links and 1 PR4 link is worth 3,333 PR3 links etc. Even if those numbers are off, which they likely are, you can see that a link with even 1 PR higher is worth much more and you can see that it would take tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of PR0 links to equal one PR6 link.

REMEMBER: if it's not related it may not count. Google has MANY reasons for not counting a link actually.

REMEMBER: If your site has a backlink profile that looks suspicious you might lose ALL link value. If you have no PR0-PR4 links but several hundred PR5+ somethings not right. For this reason you need ALL types of links, you would get all types naturally anyway. It is expected that you get more low level links than high, perhaps your high level incoming links can't even count UNTIL you have enough smaller ones... who knows. If you're out getting links get all links that make sense based on content and ignore how much PR they have.

Re: best place to get links
From sites similar to yours. Having a hard time doing that? Ask yourself this. You are willing to TAKE links but are you willing to GIVE them? Give and you shall receive! I know of several PR5 sites that link to the source and the manufacturer on every article and still enjoy a PR5, don't be afraid to link out when a link makes sense.

Tip of the day: don't forget to get incoming links to pages other than your index. If your main subject isn't about widgets but you do have a page that discusses how widgets interact with your subject go get widget links to that internal page. Even better, make that page the best online and watch them come in by themselves.

Mesaqe to Google - Stop placing so much importance on links, please. "getting links" is an entirely silly endeavor that skews results based on influence (or cash).

[internetheaven]

It's easy to get 1 way links. It's very, very hard to get valuable 1 way links.

The ideal link is on a page with less than 30 links (internal+outbound), on the same topic as your site, using the exact keyphrase in the linking text, with the linking page having it's own external backlinks and being a prominent page of the site (e.g. 2 clicks from the main page and a Pagerank of 3+).

I've seen more unicorns than I have those links to my site ... and my site has 7,000 backlinks and ranks well.

I gave up looking for good links as 1 good per day was my usual rate and I can get 30-50 low quality 1 ways in a day with much less effort and it seems to have more effect.

Lower your standards is my advice. Google, Yahoo and Bing don't reward effort and quality. They are a numbers game ... they are computers after all run by math.

[ergophobe]

SK - thanks for a detailed post. For a while I thought I had stumbled into a Twitter stream.

Two small clarifications/elaborations if I may.

As Buckworks keeps saying - the . is a word delimiter, which means that you get pages that mention "www", "example", and "com" as words as well, not just your domain name. In other words, the following searches are all different:

link:www.example.com (special operator)
link: www.example.com (returns pages that mention any or all three "words")
link: "www.example.com" (returns pages that mention your domain name)

As for www and non-www, those are the same in most cases but not all and in some cases, especially large enterprise sites, this is by design. In some cases it's by accident because of the canonical issues mentioned by Sgt Kickaxe, but that is just a common convention. There's no technical reason that example.com can't be my intranet and www.example.com my public-facing website.

[edited by: ergophobe at 9:47 pm (utc) on Jun 30, 2010]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The ideal link is on a page with less than 30 links

It's linear. The higher the value of the page the greater the number of outgoing links it can support. There have been examples of PR7 sites that had only one PR8 incoming link and that linked out to many other sites giving them all PR5-6. Loss to those sites didn't fluctuate as more and more were added to the giving site. While there was some additional loss the high value of the links reduced the effect of that loss. These examples don't last long enough to draw long term conclusions from, Google catches up to these rather quickly.

[warner carter]

what is the best way to get more high quality links?

[mack]

Having high quality content. If your content is unique and the best available, then quality sites are more likely to link to it.

Mack.

[buckworks]

Hello, Wayne Carter!

I see you joined a while ago but this is your first post. Welcome aboard! :)

It's easy to say that a quality site will naturally attract quality links, but for that to start happening the site needs to gain some visibility in the first place, and that stage can be tough.

You might already know this if you've lurked a lot, but one of our best sources of food for thought about that is a senior member named Wheel. Look up every post of his you can find in the Link Development forum and I guarantee you'll find something to trigger useful ideas.

[internetheaven]

Having high quality content. If your content is unique and the best available, then quality sites are more likely to link to it.

Yeah ... from an article they're writing which starts off listed on the main page then ends up in the archives. The linking page will end up Pagerank 0 with no external links and a handful of internal links.

Links from "quality sites" that are free tend not to be a cracking spot on their main pages. You write good content, you get a mention in an article somewhere.

I'll take a manually obtained main page link from a lower quality site any day!

[Mark_A]

I am grateful for any links I can get ! :-)

I am having a break from link building for this week, I hope to return to it reenvigorated and full of new ideas next week.

[kdanny]

You just gotta keep at it. The best way you to get a link is to have a respectable site that people will want to look to.

[wheel]

Having high quality content. If your content is unique and the best available, then quality sites are more likely to link to it.

This is now open to debate.

For years, the best way to get the highest quality links was to have great content then go chase links from quality sites.

This does not work in all industries anymore (it used to). In some industries, high quality sites simply will not link out any longer. And that means that the only way to get one way links is to buy them. Buying links started out as the lazy way to get links, but in some cases it's now the only way to get links. Or perhaps more specifically, there are other ways to get links (networking etc), but in some cases high quality content will do nothing for you.

[amythepoet]

hmm, ok, well, too pooped now, long day on the web here, now I am going to have a blog, very excited

and I will read more tomorrow

and happy 4th you all!

[micklearn]

I have to agree with what wheel stated above about having quality content that will generate links on it's own. It just doesn't seem to happen as much anymore on most occasions. I wish I could be more helpful with my response, Amy.

Self-placed links on forums and profile pages/links seem to be boosting pages towards the top of SERP's these days. I have seen it happen over the last few months with a site that I've watched for a while now, and much to my dismay, that site is ranking higher and climbing the rankings each week for certain terms with ease. Those seem to be the one way links that count now, and that's just disturbing to me. Can't stop shaking my head about seeing those results...and it's for a one-word term search.

[Mark_A]

happy fourth ? happy fourth .. a right mess you have made of it since we left you in charge !

:-)

[triggerfinger]

No space. If you add a space to it its no longer the link: command operator, but rather just a search for the text string "link: www.example.com".
Link operators don't really work... I would use Yahoo! Site explorer, while it's still around.

[amythepoet]

Yes, what you said is happening in that the people are just placing links on their site without my knowledge, sometimes I know, but sometimes I don't, it's ok, I just want those links