70 replies to this topic

[Robert813]

Bottom line:  You need links.

The 11th Commandment!

[Jill]

They (Matt) also seems to indicate that a site selling links will lose its authority to give reputation.

Correct. So what? Again, that's within their right.

[incrediblehelp]

Is this supposed to be something new? Artificial links have always been a bad idea, and I'm pretty sure Google has always spoken out against them, as have all of us here.

Read our [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5941]Link Building Articles[/url] for creative link building ideas that will bring REAL links and REAL traffic, as opposed to artificial links.

Isn't this link building resource link basically describes what the thread author has stated as "possibly" debunked techniques by Matt with the exception of two:

Link Popularity and Search Engine Optimization - I wrote this one way back at the beginning of 2001, but updated it this Aug 2004.

--Being in a specific niche is not always possible for all websites

Link Building Revisited - A Q&A about link building from my old RankWrite newsletter.

--directory and article links, possibly debunked

How to Start Building Link Popularity - This one was written by our linking moderator, Debra Mastaler and was a case study in linking, for RankWrite.

--reciprocal links, possibly debunked

Should One Request Links From Inner Pages - A Q&A from the High Rankings® Advisor.

Finding Free Niche Directories - This is a guest article written by forum member K.S. Katz. A must read if you're looking to get some links quickly!

--directory links, still counts

Links Are All About Reputation - This is an interview that our own Scottie Claiborne conducted with Mike Grehan during an SES conference.

--links without asking, quality content

Press Release SEO - Media Kit Linking Campaigns - This article by Mike Banks Valentine describes how to obtain links to your site in ways you may never have thought about.

--press releases, possibly debunked

When it comes down to it, you basically need to convince or show the visitors to your website that you are the expert and leader in the industry by providing to them with best possible information content and resources online.

Of course like I posted in an other thread viral or word-of-mouth marketing is the best possible way to attract real in-bound links.

[randfish]

Jim got it right - http://www.jimboykin...cant-find-them/

[qwerty]

Buy ‘em under the radar. Buy ‘em where Matt can’t find ‘em via association.

Find "Virgin sites" (non-SEO’d sites), and put your 1 link there, and move on. Better yet, blend that link right in so even if Matt’s prying eyes saw it, he wouldn’t even know it was placed there by an SEO. Under the radar I say.

Well..... That would probably work, at least for a while, but it doesn't really answer the question of how a search engine defines an advertisement and what they do about it.

I'm not sure "blending it in" is a good way to hide it, though. If some site has a page full of text and the only outbound link on it is in the middle of a sentence, anchored by a two-word keyphrase that happens to be the top phrase of the page to which the link is pointing... We don't have a sore thumb smiley in here, do we? Who links like that for a reason other than getting paid for it?

I'd be fine with paying for a link from a relevant site that wasn't snuck in there. If your page about Joyce links to my review of Dubliners, then I'd rather you didn't hide it. Tell you audience something like "That brilliant scholar Bob Gladstein weighs in with his <a href="me">review of Dubliners</a>." I don't want you to link to me like "Joyce spent almost his entire life in Dublin, and is arguably one of the most famous and controversial <a href="me">Dubliners</a> in the city's long history."

[Michael Martinez]

Isn't this link building resource link basically describes what the thread author has stated as "possibly" debunked techniques by Matt with the exception of two:

Except for the PageRank articles, everything in the articles in Jill's link list is still pretty valid. For example, the discussion of press releases doesn't tell people to run out to PRWeb and other free press release services and submit tons of press releases. It describes a specific case of a company whose Webmaster was putting press releases in a hidden (password-protected) section of the company site. The SEO persuaded the company to open up that content to spiders and redesign it so that it would help boost their visibility. The approach worked and by all indications should still work today.

--Being in a specific niche is not always possible for all websites

All Web sites fall into some sort of niche, even megasites like my own that address 100+ different topics. Niches can be broad and general or narrow and specific.

Link Building Revisited - A Q&A about link building from my old RankWrite newsletter.

--directory and article links, possibly debunked

That article does not advise people to toss articles out to a dozen free distribution sites. And true directory links are still helpful (or hurtful) today.

How to Start Building Link Popularity - This one was written by our linking moderator, Debra Mastaler and was a case study in linking, for RankWrite.

--reciprocal links, possibly debunked

Debra is not talking about managed reciprocal links. She advocates the "Link First" method, which allows the potential reciprocators to opt-out of the arrangement. No one is obligated. Linking first offers advantages in that it gives you an opportunity to add content to your site and make it a useful resource for your visitors.

She also advocates customized approaches. They get canned too easily, and that is why I personally stopped participating in reciprocal link programs. But I exchange links with other sites today. Many sites, when they see I link to them just link back naturally. I never ask for links back. I occasionally notify other Webmasters when I have mentioned their sites (they usually appreciate the exposure from a site like mine).

Of course like I posted in an other thread viral or word-of-mouth marketing is the best possible way to attract real in-bound links.

There is no "best possible way" to attract links. People have to find what works best for them, because different people strike gold in different ways.

Jill and I don't agree on everything, but we both agree strongly that building content and making your site a great resource for visitors is a positive method for attracting links and visibility.

[Jill]

Jill and I don't agree on everything, but we both agree strongly that building content and making your site a great resource for visitors is a positive method for attracting links and visibility.

That we do!



I personally wouldn't do a link building campaign if ya paid me!

[isoseo]

Because by asking us to use nofollow, they're basically admitting that, while it's their game, they need some coaching.

No, they just need you to tell them if your "opinion" (i.e. outlinks) is sincere or was paid for.

It's like you have a friend whose opinion you trust. If he says, this or that product is good, or, I like this or that guy, you base your own opinion partly on what he says. Then one day you realize sometimes he said things to you because he was paid for it, and he didn't warn you about it. His opinion will immediately lose any weight with you. You can't trust that guy anymore.

If your site has good rankings, it means Google trusts you, it's a friend of yours. If you make your unpaid, "sincere" links undistinguishable from paid ones, you are betraying someone who trusts you. And if trust is gone, it's gone, i.e. you may not be able to pass PR anymore, because you squarely lost Google's trust.

This is why Google needs you to use nofollow. Not primarily to help them, but to insure yourself against a backlash.

[Scottie]

The people this "directive" is aimed at are the ones selling links for link popularity. If they follow this advice, they are no longer selling the same product.

While it's a nice thought that everyone who buys advertising is simply looking for exposure, I think it's pretty naive to expect that to be the case. A link has value on many levels and throttling one of the most visible benefits (link popularity) is not something a publisher is going to willingly do. I'm not even sure they should!

A publisher works hard to create good content and they are rewarded by link popularity of their own. If they choose to then sell ads on the site that they have worked so hard to build... why should they have to proactively devalue those links?

[isoseo]

why should they have to proactively devalue those links?

They don't get devalued - those links are still as valuable as a link should be: you can click on them and they take you somewhere. That's the value of a link.

Any additional value you attach to links (and we're obviously talking about PR-passing potential here) was created by Google, not inherent to links. It's a value that solely exists because of Google. So, when people sell this kind of value behind a link, they sell a value that was created basically by Google, not the site.

Small wonder Google doesn't like it.

[qwerty]

I agree that the site owner shouldn't have to tell the search engines, "this is an ad, so please don't pass any link pop through it," but I still think I'd like the SEs to be able to figure it out for themselves and act on that. I'm fine with there being a dichotomy between link ads and link votes, but if they leave it up to site owners it's never going to work. It's an open invitation to hide things.

[isoseo]

It's an open invitation to hide things.

True enough. But if those hidden things are discovered, you're out of favor. And there's nothing for you to complain about, then.

That's what I'm referring to, because people began to cry out loud (including ones like Danny Sullivan) that it is unfair and stupid to strip a site of PR-passing potential if it sells links. It is not unfair and not stupid at all.

[isoseo]

Or, so to say, what Google gives, Google can take away.

[qwerty]

True enough. But if those hidden things are discovered, you're out of favor. And there's nothing for you to complain about, then.

I put up a link to your site because I think you offer a great resource that will be of interest to my readers. Google finds the link.

I put up a link to your site because you sent me a check for $50. Google finds the link.

I know Google has access to a lot of information, but until I find out that they can crawl through my bank's records of my accounts, this is the sort of hidden thing that will remain hidden. And that means that in order to find out that the second link above is an ad, they either have to figure it out, or I have to decide whether I'm going to tell them.

[Jill]

why should they have to proactively devalue those links?

Exactly. If I buy or sell a link for the advertising benefit, and just happen to also get some link pop. out of it, then that's a great added value. I'm certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot and proactively make that link not count. That would just be dumb, imo.

Regarding Google taking away that link pop. benefit, that's another story. If they can figure it out and do that, then more power to them. I'm just not going to provide any help. That would be like taking a Title tag and removing the keywords from it just because Google decided that it was too hard for them to rank pages when Titles had keywords in them.

It's their problem not mine.

And no, they're not going to penalize or ban sites that happen to buy or sell advertising because it would be bad for their index as a whole, so I wouldn't be in the least bit concerned about that.

Worst that would happen is they might decide you have some paid links and your page wouldn't be able to pass any link pop. Not a problem if they do that.