Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Its got to be a snow ball effect, but how do you really get that ball rolling. For example, lets say you set a goal to get to 2 Million links, how do your realistically put a plan together to achieve it? And how long, realistically, whould it take?
Oh, one other thing, If I have 5000 pages on my site and each has a link to the home page, should I have the link in a relative form such as ../../default.htm or is there an advantage to explcitly linking to it such as http://mysite/default.htm?
Thanks,
Why not just use "/" or "/default.html" instead for all the links back?
such a huge number of links can't be good, i always recommend to my clients not to reciprocate links with anyone lower than a pr of 4.
Gibble,
Same question, /default.htm or http:/mysite/default.htm
The reason I ask is that I would expect 5K links from my own site on each search engine, yet, I do not see this.
Thanks,
When considering link popularity, what steps should you take with regard to the links on your own pages? Do .asp pages affect things? THey are pseudo static pages. For example: mystie.com/page1.asp. None of this sort: mysite.com/template?=456rt8
One other thing, I noticed that google returns different results for
link:www.mysite.com
versus
link:mysite.com
That seems very odd to me.
Thanks,
Yes, I have found the numbers to be a bit "out of kilter" when you do checks on each search engine separately at their won url, at least for our sites. For some of the search engines they poll, you frequently get these very large unaccounted for link counts, possibly to do with the scripts not parsing correctly maube becuase the SE's themselves update their methods for counting links?
so 1.8 million can be reached :) however I don't know how.
we have only 3 thousand and need about 100.000 to 200.000 to be amoung first :(
I always like it when I find someone has linked to one of my sites without asking for it!
The good thing is that you don't have to have millions of links to succeed. I've seen targeted, well-designed sites with only a few hundred links compete successfully with mega-linked (100K+) sites.
I don't know why either. One thing I have noticed about the "Link Development" forum is that there are quite a few threads, but there are very few answers. Oh, there are responses, but still no real answers. I read back through several pages of posts looking for the answers. All I found was the same recurring questions.
One thing is clear, the folks who have the sites with the huge number of links know the answers.
I suspect in the case of my competitor, they have paid their way to the top. They have done this through every means possible; Banners, adwords, affiliate programs, etc.
telsa,
i have the same problem. I have many internal links and only a few show as google backward link. Why?
Oh, one other thing, If I have 5000 pages on my site and each has a link to the home page, should I have the link in a relative form such as ../../default.htm or is there an advantage to explcitly linking to it such as [mysite...]
One small advantage I have found of using the full url is that when someone puts your pages in to their frames it counts as a link back to you.such a huge number of links can't be good, i always recommend to my clients not to reciprocate links with anyone lower than a pr of 4.
I just found a niche directory that gave me links with my choice of anchor text from thirteen different on topic pr 3 pages that have only two other outbound links per page. This directory even let me deep link to the proper product pages. Another case is when someone with a pr 3 page approaches you for a reciprocal link. Unless your site is the only one that is worthy you can bet that the webmaster is approaching other folks as well and will soon be rid of his pr 3 stigma.
Google will only show backlinks from pages with a pr of at least four.
I checked the few links listed, and each was at least a PR4. POWdork, you appear to be correct.
This in some ways seems like bad news. This means in order for my own pages to help me, they need to be at least PR4....not good.
Also, this means that there is no point getting a link from others if there link page is less than PR4.... not good.
This link business is tough and discouraging!
This little insight is a gem! Thank you!
This tag in your header can make the internal links become absolute for less bandwidth than changing each one individually :
<BASE HREF="http://yoursite.com/">
Better still, you can specify the BASE TARGET so that if a link is clicked while your page is framed it will get out of the frame.
<BASE HREF="http://yoursite.com/" TARGET="_top">
Watch out for the trailing slash on the URL because the browser adds the first part of the link from the header tag and the last part of the link from wherever it appears on the page. If you omit the trailing slash in the header tag you'll need to include it at the beginning of the other links so that things "add up" correctly. If you use it in the header tag you can omit it in the other links.
If your BASE HREF is "http://yoursite.com" a home page link would need to be /index.html or whatever.
If the BASE HREF is "http://yoursite.com/" the rest of the link could be just "index.html".
I don't think it matters which way you do it as long as your links end up with the correct characters. Some software makes that decision for you.
Also, this means that there is no point getting a link from others if there link page is less than PR4.... not good.
No, no, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that Google doesn't list the link when you check for backlinks on Google. It does NOT mean you don't get all the typical good things that come with the link.
<added>One more thing about low pr links. People can't see them when they check backlinks on Google so they won't get the linklead from checking your backlinks.:)</added>
'linklead' is copyrighted by powdork. ;)
you are right.
you are a big help.
Does that mean I need put all my files in the root directory if my site rank is 5 (-1 each directory deeper as I know)
regards,
Does that mean I need put all my files in the root directory...?
I think you'll find that PR transfer is governed more by your linkage structure than your directory structure. Often these are in sync due to a hiearchical directory structure that matches major navigation topics, but IMO the linkage pattern is most important.
good point powdork
my biggest competitor had 1.8 Million.
I’m the type of person where a comment like that brings up dozens of questions. You are talking heavy competition. Is that a realistic look at your industry? I wonder about the information and the statistics.
I’m cynical I suppose. Let’s say the keyword you are targeting and the site you believe is the company you want to compete against has
… on the order of 9000 times more links.. .
Again, I’m the type of person that would suggest you take a step back and evaluate where you believe you are and compare it to where you want to be. Seriously, look at those 1.8 million links for one, 9000 times more than yours, are you seriously suggesting you are ready to compete with that? Or, if those links are contrived, are you seriously ready to compete financially against that.
I’m not saying it isn’t possible to compete against those dreams but do you have the content or the money to back it up?
Paynt,
What kills me about this competitor is that I was on the scene, on the internet, about a year before they were. But when they came in, they came with lots of $$$. It was not long before I saw their ads everywhere. As I poked around on Overture, I found that they were the high bidder on nearly all the keywords I was after. In fact they were often bidding way more than necessary to be #1. Essentially they bought into every means possible to get visibility. And they appear to have been successful in their efforts. However, I once calculated what they were spending on Overture and I could not understand how they could find a ROI.
Anyway, yes, I'm serious, there must be some way, some method, some plan, that will allow us to compete against such a competitor. At this point I believe the only way is with a affiliate program. Essentially paying for links, paying for links that actually bring in sales. Without links, I don't see how I can compete, no matter how much SEO I have done. In fact, I compared my competitors main page against mine, from an SEO perspective recently. My competitor was missing a lot of the obvious common sense optimizations. Yet, they are number one with respect to the important keyword searches.
That is when I began comparing their links against mine. I mentioned that they had 1.8M links. Well, I was mistaken...sort of. Their results are actually:
www.competitor.com - 1.8M
competitor.com - 8.5M!
Again, this is the sum of eight different search engines, but my 2K is also the sum of eight different search engines.
So Paynt, what should be my action plan to get even a few 100K links within a year? I'm all ears!
It would appear that links with from pages with a page rank of less than 4 are not displayed by Google, but presumably they still count when calculating page rank.
If you want to verify how many sites are actually linking to your site, rather than use Google, try alltheweb.com (Of course you won't see results from the Google index but it may be informative nonetheless).
Kaled, I guess you mean flaky for the website owner, not for the user, from reading your post in context. Freshness is on balance good for the user, but makes its harder for webmasters to work out the algo! Google has everthing to gain from making their main search index flakey for webmasters as much as they have everything to gain from making their adwords system very dependable.
This tag in your header can make the internal links become absolute for less bandwidth than changing each one individually :<BASE HREF="http://yoursite.com/">
BUCKWORKS,
I played around with this and I wonder if this really helps. I'm sure it helps with code size, but not sure if it will help with links. I was thinking that it would cause the HTML to be changed everywhere to include the "base". Instead the HTML is unchanged, which makes sense. So I wonder if the search engine will read the page for the raw HTML rather than as a browser would. In which case, this change might not help at all. Not sure.
I'm thinking that the most absolute means would be to use dynamic page generation to get the absolute URLs:
<%Root="http://mylocalmachine"%>
<img src="<%=Root%>/image_dir/image.jpg">
This would yield:
<img src="http://mylocalmachine/image_dir/image.jpg">
This may make my pages load a little slower, but it probably will not be perceptable. And it would be worth it, with out question, if it could help my link potential.
I don't have a problem with Google's page rank system - it seems ok to me. I don't have too much of a problem with monthly dances. The everflux system however which appears to be a bolt-on is another matter.
Currently, I have a program that we'll call GeeWhizz (not its real name). The home page is indexed by Google. If you do a search for a program like GeeWhizz (like searching for GEES WHIZZES) GeeWhizz might turn up on the first page or on the tenth. When at its lower ranking, the page cached by Google is at least one dance out of date. (The period of oscillation is typically 7-10 days and after a dance it always appears to be high rather than low.)
Given that the quality of GeeWhizz is good (websites that I've never even heard of have linked to it) this wild fluctuation does not serve Google users well. I estimate that Google generates around 75% of GeeWhizz traffic - that's a lot of people who don't find GeeWhizz but might later wish that they had.
Everflux is a system that's supposed to add freshness, why then does it appear to add staleness (remember what I said about cached pages being out of date).
PS
For comparison, equivalent searches using FAST consistently place GeeWhizz on the first page.
