145 replies to this topic

[Janet21]

Block level analysis is one way they can tell.  It's pretty easy to tell which "chunks" of code include the navigation, which are the <paid> footer links and which lists of links are simply reciprocal link pages.

If, if someone sold you a single link on a page of editorial content that was somewhat relevant, you'd have a "natural" looking link that was paid.  Most are too lazy to do that though, because that would also mean really thinking about a way to make the link useful!

Compare:
with this
See a difference?

However 1) it's too much work and 2) sites would have to actually screen their advertisers and only accept those that they could make work with the site in a way that didn't make them look too stupid.

You are right, I suppose that people that sell and purchase links on sites don't give it that much thought. Therefore, a true natural looking content link as you describe above would probably be very hard to find in a purchase type of situation.

Since you brought it up, what is with all these site footers I am seeing lately? Do sites pay to be in a sitewide footer? Drives me nuts. I find a potential link exchange partner and they have a nice directory with all relevant sites. Then, I take a look at their footer and they have gambling sites, medication sites, etc. Why oh why?

[Debra]

Since you brought it up, what is with all these site footers I am seeing lately? Do sites pay to be in a sitewide footer? Drives me nuts. I find a potential link exchange partner and they have a nice directory with all relevant sites. Then, I take a look at their footer and they have gambling sites, medication sites, etc. Why oh why?

Easy money.

[Janet21]

Easy money.

Do you know how search engines view these unrelevant site wide footers?

I have heard that se's are starting to not index links pages with unrelevant sites on them per Matt Cutts recent article, but with unrelevant sites in sitewide footers, what do you think they will do then?

[Debra]

Janet, I think they do/have been ignoring them on Google; the other two engines don't appear to be too concerned at this point. (especially MSN)

Since it's common knowledge site wides (like those we're discussing) are paid links, and since Google takes a dim view of paid links, stands to reason they'd ignore the link.

I have heard that se's are starting to not index links pages with unrelevant sites on them per Matt Cutts recent article

Can you point me to where this article is? thanks.

[qwerty]

A client of mine tried out purchasing those footer links last year. After six months, their reported backlinks went through the roof, their toolbar PR went up one point, and their ranking for the term in the anchor text, which had been vacillating around in the top 10, was still vacillating around in the top 10. And of course they never got a single clickthrough. Isn't that just shocking

Within a couple of months of dropping the links, everything was back to normal. It was a complete waste of money.

[Debra]

and their ranking for the term in the anchor text,

was it a competitive term?

[qwerty]

Only in the sense that a couple of their competitors were busy marketing themselves online long before my client was. If you want numbers:

phrase (two words): 35,800,000 results
"phrase": 50,600
intitle:word1 intitle:word2: 14,700
intitle:"phrase": 9,280

[Janet21]

Can you point me to where this article is?  thanks.

Here you go,
http://www.mattcutts...exing-timeline/

What do you make of it?

[projectphp]

Which bit? Long article, and not sure what you are referring to. Wanna provide a lazy man with a quote

[Debra]

Thanks Bob - interesting! I've been involved with a couple sites who bought s/w links, used secondary terms in the anchors and hosted them on "moderately" topic relevant sites. It worked for a while but then....

They slipped. They're not spam sites or terms, just business people in a competitive space. What I got from it was - linking is a constant, never ending thing if you're in the more competitive (keyword) areas. And that's probably true in the middle of the road areas as well.

You have to constantly come up with ideas and secure links to keep up and/or get ahead. Just keep feeding the rat link cheese if you want to avoid serp oblivion. I'm not suggesting s/w links are the answer but I do get why they're used and believe they still work, especially on Y and MSN.

Janet, thank you for the link. That post was discussed here and here ; I personally don't think anything new came out of it, it's basically the line Google's touted all along but others didn't agree.

It did help that Matt Cutts spelled things out clearly and in one spot but IMO, it didn't say anything new.

[Janet21]

Which bit? Long article, and not sure what you are referring to. Wanna provide a lazy man with a quote

The section is 'Reading Current Feedback' . He discusses how some sites were asking why fewer pages of their site were being reported. He analyzes a few of these sites and comes to these conclusions,

_______

The first is a real estate site,

Linking to a free ringtones site, an SEO contest, and an Omega 3 fish oil site? I think I’ve found your problem. I’d think about the quality of your links if you’d prefer to have more pages crawled. As these indexing changes have rolled out, we’ve improving how we handle reciprocal link exchanges and link buying/selling.

______

He then analyzes another real estate site,

This time, I’m seeing links to mortgages sites, credit card sites, and exercise equipment. I think this is covered by the same guidance as above; if you were getting crawled more before and you’re trading a bunch of reciprocal links, don’t be surprised if the new crawler has different crawl priorities and doesn’t crawl as much.

_________

The question I have regarding the second analysis is, since when are mortgage sites unrelated to real estate sites??

[Janet21]

Janet, thank you for the link.  That post was discussed here and here ; I personally don't think anything new came out of it, it's basically the line Google's  touted all along but others didn't agree. 

It did help that Matt Cutts spelled things out clearly and in one spot but IMO, it didn't say anything new.

I figured this article had to have been already discussed on this forum, that is why I didn't include the link originally.

Anyway, thanks for your insight! I appreciate it.

[projectphp]

I have heard that se's are starting to not index links pages with unrelevant sites on them per Matt Cutts recent article

He didn't actually say that, from your quotes. He said:

I’d think about the quality of your links if you’d prefer to have more pages crawled.

That is not "we won't index link pages with irrelevant links". Rather, it is saying "if the quality of your links out are poor, good luck getting pages crawled".

For most small businesses, this really hasn't changed a heck of a lot, because link buyers stand out like dogs balls. Imagine if you looked at a site that had 1,000,000 inbound links, all from Blog comments. What would that likely indicate? What about links to sites that had that pattern, that were reciprocated?

I think the lesson is pretty clear: link wisely, and too people you actually trust, not any old body!

[glengara]

*I’d think about the quality of your links if you’d prefer to have more pages crawled.*

Must say I was also confused by his link analysis, he picks them up for their off-topicality and then goes on about reciprocal links.
Thing is, those links could just as easily have been bought as reciprocal, which makes me wonder just how much their off-topic factor affects their quality one...