Google push back

Call to arms!

[wheel]

Google's reliance on links for it's algo, and our (webmasters') resulting hunt for links has completely screwed up interlinking.

Used to be if you had a good resource, you could actively hunt and find good quality links.

Today, that's pretty much dead. Quality websites either ignore link requests, or demand cash - the end resource is no longer a factor in people giving out links.

In short, this merry go round has distorted every webmaster out there, turning links into currency. And all of Google's guidelines and nofollow crap and everything else has only made things worse.

The only way to reverse the process is if you actively participate. And the only way I know of to turn links from currency into quality, is for you to actively provide links without currency.

To that end, I now give out free links when I have the opportunity and a relevant website to put them on - with no expectation of anything in return. The only thing I want is a general attitude that links are currency instead of citations.

And I'm suggesting you do the same. In fact, I'm challenging you, this week, to find 3 worthy recipients and give them a nice big fat juicy link. Find some friends, some competitors, whatever. Just give out 3 free links.

[sublime1]

This is a most optimistic and human appeal, and I salute it!

I have been working recently in a far more naive, and less mercenary world, where people link to other sites because those other sites provide actual value in their content. They also are doing Facebook and Twitter stuff that provides a nice mechanism for forward linking.

The sites in our domain "pay it forward" without any expectation of reciprocation, and without thinking of links as currency, but as value to users.

It sounds incredibly simplistic, doesn't it?

But it works, at least today. We're in a market that we're hoping will exist some day soon. (Really soon would be nice :-). The link love is phenomenal. Many of us know each other. Emails are discussions about the state of our business, not about tit-for-tat.

Having come from the more normal mercenary world where any outbound link, or even non-critical inbound links would be nofollowed in order to maximize juice, I think: isn't there indeed a kinder, gentler world where even competitors could recognize that you get what you give?

Yet as our business grows, and our visibility improves, and our SERPs rise, and all gets better, the flow of stupid link requests increases. While all my positive, new age feelings of goodness make me want to reward those with restraint, my more base instincts of years of "links as currency" makes me want to do whatever I can to penalize the idiots who think they will get anywhere with formulaic link requests.

Google has the power to discredit all but the most relevant outbound links, and also to identify and penalize the bogus links (like the ones I used to buy and sell). I would love to see then wield that power.

Great post, Wheel.

Tom

[atom42]

If any of you are struggling to fulfil your quota of "giving away free links" - feel free to use my site.

I'm always happy to help...

;o)

[willybfriendly]

I have never considered myself a futurist, and generally resist blowing my own horn. However...

It is becoming increasingly difficult to consumate such arrangements. That is the distortion of the web. 4/17/2003 [webmasterworld.com]

PR has irreversibly changed the nature of the Internet. Sad...
'twas a time when sites were interlinked because they had some innate value to the person doing the linking...Now links are commodities to be traded and sold. Page Rank is something that is hoarded via JS, CGI and other tricks.4/12/2004 [webmasterworld.com]

What was once a symbiotic relationship is becoming a parasitic relationship. Google, via their dominance, has twisted the "natural linking" of the Internet...Google has turned virtually all links into commodities. Understand that. Links are now a commodity just as surely as eggs, pork bellies and operating systems. Google did not create links, but they have pretty well cornered the market on commoditized links, and they are using their market share in ways that are very much aimed at controlling others ability to trade in the commodity. 4/19/2007 [webmasterworld.com]

[directwheels]

I agree that this has been a big issue for a while. There are even the big sites that link out, but only do so using a nofollow to a redirect/link condom that's blocked off with robots.txt. This is probably what their "SEO experts" are telling them to do to preserve PR.

I have also worked for a content site where the team decided to nofollow and use link condoms on all outgoing links due to the fact that "everyone can be a competitor" (ex. if you have an article on widget and you link to widget.com, it will help to ensure they rank better than your article)

I guess that's why Bing wants to use the Facebook "Likes" to rank websites instead. Sooner or later, everyone is going to stop linking to other sites.

[incrediBILL]

This isn't the same internet of 1996 where you needed to share links on every site just to find your way around the web. Search engines show people where to find things today and new sites can easily be discovered via new domain registration alone. If you put it online, some search engine will find it, or you'll submit it, but it will get indexed.

Getting traffic to that site is a whole different issue.

What you call link building today, I call paid advertising, it pays the bills.

People that seriously want advertising and the resulting customers pay for it.

Just for a giggle I "helped" someone a while back because I knew they were trying to SEO their way into the top 10 for a related term. Sit back and wait a couple of days and BOOM! they were in the top 10. Let it sit there for a week or two so I could be sure I did it, and their SEOs would be all proud, then pulled the link. WHOOPS! it dropped like a rock.

With great power comes great responsibility, and a small fee to taste that power ;)

[wheel]

Just for a giggle I "helped" someone a while back because I knew they were trying to SEO their way into the top 10 for a related term. Sit back and wait a couple of days and BOOM! they were in the top 10. Let it sit there for a week or two so I could be sure I did it, and their SEOs would be all proud, then pulled the link. WHOOPS! it dropped like a rock.

And you're proud of this behavior?

[incrediBILL]

And you're proud of this behavior?

Sure.

I proved they could get to the top 10, they just needed my help.

I was willing to leave the link, money talks.

[tangor]

Am I odd guy out? I don't worry about Google. Links are for value (out from me) and welcome from out to in... Maybe I am behind the times (and that's possible) but as far as I can tell any link is a link and that's all there is and whatever Giggle (sic) is doing makes no difference since the LINK EXISTS and voila! it EXISTS.

I never "give" anything away. I WORK at linking and get the same in response. The Gorg is not making me do it, nor do I spend much time with Gorg these days because the Bing is doing so much better (results). All the Gorg has at the moment is "pennyanny bucks" and a "rep" that is falling by the wayside. The Bing is catching up... don't put all eggs in one basket (and moan about it later).

Wheel is correct. Link out when it makes sense. That is what "hypertext" is all about. Do that. Don't do it for the Gorg because they have an "algo" for that. :)

[Robert Charlton]

...Google needs to request a patent which updates the citation model, where the website's importance is determined not only by who links to it, but also who it links to.

After all, a well researched academic paper points to authorities.

I don't know that I've seen a Google patent that mentions this point specifically, but I would be very surprised if Google did not already reward relevant outbound links to high quality material which is helpful to the user.

[londrum]

i agree with wheel that using links to weight page quality is out of date, but i think that its time they just scrapped the whole thing and moved over to weighting pages by user behaviour.

its like this: did you see in the paper the other day that world cup guy offering to sell his vote for money? thats what links are like. that is how 'corrupt' links are. websites sell their links for money. so its not really a vote at all. their site could be a load of rubbish but as long as they stump up 20 pound a month then who cares.
and that is before we get onto things like people dropping their own links wherever they can find a spot -- voting for themselves. and links swaps -- vote swaps.

i think it was a flawed idea in the first place because only certain types of sites attract links.

ecommerce sites dont attract links as easy as information ones. and even if they do, what does that mean? lots of people have bookmarked it, which might just mean that they have the cheapest price on the net -- but is their website any good? is their service any good? you cant tell any of those things just by the price. or maybe they bookmarked it because its the nearest shop to where they live. but that is not a vote either, its just geography.

its time to dump links from the algo!

[vivalasvegas]

Most of my websites have a "Related resources" page where I link to quality websites in my industry. While I do actively search for inbound links to my website, I never ask these sites to link back (maybe because I know they wouldn't:-)

[guod]

I agree. This is crazy. We have been trying to get some links for our site and people are charging ~300 for 3 or 4 months. Why should we almost be forced into buying links like this.

[Vamm]

Because you are planning on getting money by these links (links -> SERP#1 -> money). Even if you particularily are in the wemastering not because of money, there are a plenty people who are. There is no reason not to sell the links to the highest bidder.

However, if you are not for money, the links are much easier to obtain (at least for us).

[Robert Charlton]

There is no reason not to sell the links to the highest bidder.

Playing devil's advocate here... if you limit your outbound links this way, you put a limit on the quality of your outbound linking, thus making your site less useful to your visitors and conceivably less attractive as a resource to Google.

[creative craig]

Playing devil's advocate here... if you limit your outbound links this way, you put a limit on the quality of your outbound linking, thus making your site less useful to your visitors and conceivably less attractive as a resource to Google.

People dont always think that way and only see the money coming in!

[MrFewkes]

Guys, why worry?
Simply use all the well known bots available to spam the hell out of blogs, forums, wikis, web 2 sites and anything else you can stuff a link on.
Then - simply watch as goof picks up your links in its own time and raises your site in the serp.

All this talk of link exchanging is "nice" and all - but the world is what it is - times have changed and goof set the bar.

Link spam the hell out the web and watch the cash roll in.

Id like to see it how it was - but it will NEVER be the same again.

Ive got a lovely little bot that harvests blogs by the millions, sorts, filters, posts, checks the links there, re filters, stores etc etc - then the sites I link to rise.

Goof implemented this linking algo - they can clean it up if they know how - or leave it - or whatever they like.

I gave up trying to be nice. New content - nice emails - link requests and all that crud.

Give it some spam - let em have it their way is my motto.
:)

[wheel]

Mr. Fewkes, I appreciate and understand your sentiment. But let us cling to our dreams in vain for a bit longer please.

I actually had a conversation with someone today about being so conservative that we miss opportunities to rise in the serps. The ones many label as spammers do quite well these days, and have for years. There's no glory in being white hat these days. It's like someone's senile old grandfather carrying on about 'Why when I was younger we used to get links with AUTHORITY...zzzzzzzzzzzzz".

That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try to stem the tide. Webmasters can if they're so inclined to do so.

[Bentler]

I do this all the time, though links have to fit a tight editorial scope to remain on-topic. I hemmorhage PR yet rank well in prime keyphrases... just moved up to #2 for a very popular one out of 90 million results.

[directwheels]

I have always been afraid to admit to doing anything boarder line shady on here since I don't own a flame suit. But the fact is that (at least for me), it's just so much easier to succeed.

Tricks like emailing sites that link to your competitors and having them swap it out with your link just works so much easier than asking those same sites to link to you.

[incrediBILL]

PSSST! hey buddy, I got a site-wide link to sell you ...

That's the other thing I find odd is Google seems to credit each link from each page, not just a link from the site total, so if you can get a site-wide link let the good times roll!

Google's WMTs claim I have about 2.8M inbound links and Yahoo claims it's more like 240K.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[ken_b]

I hand out unsolicted out bound links all the time. But for this conversation I wonder why not do both of these at the same time? Is there some functional conflict between the two that means a webmaster has to choose on or the other?

find 3 worthy recipients and give them a nice big fat juicy link.

Link spam the hell out the web and watch the cash roll in.

[humblebein]

As an SEO I must say there are many ways to attract links other than to pay for them. Also, Google seems to take into account the quality and type of links out from your website, so it behooves you to link to quality organizations.

I'm down to let my link love flag fly!

"Link and Let Link"

[graeme_p]

I have always linked out when it helps my readers, and the majority of my inlinks are not requested.

I occasionally even get people asking for permission to link to my site.

It is tempting to sell links though. The last offer I got was $200 - $250 for a single text link for one year.

[tangor]

Anytime I'm offered $x to let someone link to me I first ignore it, second say no if persistent. Usually means THEY are up to no good. Yet, such has been made about "link juice" (particularly via Google) that this kind of behavior is expected. Pick your poison and go from there.

Oh... just hit 2,500. Beginning to creak at the knees. :)

[Planet13]

I wouldn't mind sharing the link love with others.

I have a directory that I am slowly working on, and I don't know if I am allowed to mention this, band I apologize to the moderators in advance if not, but it is related to Asian spirituality (such as yoga studios, meditation centers, Buddhist and Hindu temples).

They are followed links and they are free - no reciprocal needed. I just ask that the site you want me to link to is on topic, good quality, and that you can write a brief description of the site.

If you are interested, then sticky mail me.

[cijay]

Well.... stingy with those backlinks to other sites is because we have to follow certain algorithm laid down by google. Guess is all about the real world... you pay you get, lol!

[graeme_p]

we have to follow certain algorithm laid down by google

You mean guesses about certain algorithms.

If there any evidence that linking out to relevant high quality sites will harm my site's ranking?