Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Triple Linking


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Emad

Emad

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 15 November 2008 - 06:16 AM

Hi all,
I'm new to this forum. I used to write in webproworld.com but this site is filtered in my country! hope to find good friends here.

my question is: if I got 3 domains called A, B and C, is it better to build links among all three (A to B, B to A, A to C, C to A, B to C and C to B) or linking rotary (A to B, B to C and C to A)

please advise,
Warm regards

Emad



#2 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 15 November 2008 - 09:23 AM

No it's not better. Just more work.

#3 MikeAR

MikeAR

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 December 2008 - 05:36 PM

I wish I would have known that prior to setting it up. sad.gif


QUOTE(Randy @ Nov 15 2008, 09:23 AM) View Post
No it's not better. Just more work.



#4 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:02 PM

Well, all ya had to do is ask. wink1.gif

#5 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 05:08 AM

Hmm, I'm forever being approaced these day for '3-way' links , and they normally have blurb about how 3-way is better than recipricol.

Now on first thought, it sounds feesable, as I was under the impression G! detects recipricol links and so devalues or discounts them, it's even in their webmaster guidelines that recipricol linking is a breach.

3-way linking to me sounds a good way of achieving 1-way IBL's and not fall into the recipricol guideline breach.

Is this not so Randy?

#6 MaKa

MaKa

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Location:Llantwit Major, Wales, UK

Posted 05 December 2008 - 06:26 AM

Where does it say on Google webmaster guidelines that reciprocal links are bad? I couldn't find it in a quick search.

#7 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:05 AM

smile.gif you didn't look very hard... http://www.google.co...py?answer=66356

infact if you request a link or indeed add a link to your site, attempting to manipulate PageRank in any way, shape or form (which is what link building is basically about!) , you are breaching the G! guidelines.

But I won't tell them if you dont wink1.gif

Of course every link you ever request or place on your site is purely for 'Targeted Traffic' isn't it whistling.gif

#8 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:15 AM

There's a huge difference between placing reciprocal links because two sites happen to attract the same general type of user and placing a link (reciprocal, 3-way, etc) solely for the purposes of obtaining link juice. The former benefits real users because they'll be exposed to additional offers or info that very well may interest them. The latter is nothing but a linking scheme that is designed solely to fool the search engines, with no thought given to whether the links actually benefit users.

If anyone thinks the search engines, especially Google, can't see through those 3-way linking scams they're living in a denial. From the beginning Google has placed emphasis on links, which is what made them so different from all of the rest of the engines when they first came on the scene. Because of this and because they knew it could be artificially manipulated they have also developed some fairly complex link mapping applications. In short, 3-way links that are just there to fool them are as easy for them to detect as reciprocal links doing the same thing. Once these are detected devaluing them or even penalizing for the attempts to fool them are easily applied.

#9 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:22 AM

I still don't see how G! can tell how many websites without even realising have 3 way , 4 way or any other way linking?

For example...

I put a link from my site to another because I like the site, fair enough, that site has a link to another site they like, a site I had never even heard of, but luck would have it this 3rd site happens to have a link to me , because they liked my site.

Now explain how that can be detected vs deliberate, I can't see it myself, what with the JS trickers I found earlier this week, I'm begining to think that the G! spider / algo is rather a dumb animal indeed!

or quite simply some tactics cannot be distinguished between genuine and fake, which is a real problem.

#10 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:38 AM

You're talking about one single round robin link 1dmf. This can happen naturally.

With a 3-way link scheme they'd see several dozen or several hundred such links. It's much easier to determine Intent when the same thing is done over and over and over again.

#11 MaKa

MaKa

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Location:Llantwit Major, Wales, UK

Posted 05 December 2008 - 09:08 AM

QUOTE(1dmf @ Dec 5 2008, 12:05 PM) View Post
smile.gif you didn't look very hard... http://www.google.co...py?answer=66356


You're right I did not look particular hard smile.gif
I presume you mean the bit (emphasis mine):

QUOTE
Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")


I interpret this that there is nothing wrong with reciprocal linking, as long as you keep it relevant / high quality. It's with most things you can over do keywords in your page's titles and it becomes spam. Same with reciprocal linking, it's find as long as you don't bring it down to a spamming level and starting reciprocal linking to every page online.

#12 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 09:10 AM

Cheers Randy,

Now I've got another type of linking campaign to consider, 'Round Robin Linking' , cool I don't see a mention of that being against G! WM Guidelines wink1.gif

I guess I think about these things too hard and in too much depth.

I'm not out to fool, manipulate , game, trick or any other 'black hat' nonsense, so I guess I shouldn't worry about it.

I can't help it though, it's in my nature!

[edit]

Maka, what's funny is i'm sure it never used to say Excessive, I guess they relaxed the rules as it was a bit OTT before.

#13 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 09:37 AM

btw, on this bit

QUOTE(1dmf)
Hmm, I'm forever being approaced these day for '3-way' links , and they normally have blurb about how 3-way is better than recipricol.


Expect this to continue and get worse.

The better you do your job and get your site built up so that it's an authoritative resource that ranks well across hundreds of phrases, the more of these vapid link requests you'll get. Ones that have absolutely no bearing on what your site does and ones you'd never approach yourself.

Just fair warning. I know I'm not alone in getting dozens of these each and every day, and rejecting 99.9% of them without even looking at the other site or doing more than quickly scan the email. Last time I bothered to compile any data on the subject each of my well established, authoritative, high ranking and high PR sites averaged 2.8 such silly linking requests per day. Every day. For each of the 20+ sites I run, meaning I get waaaaaaaay too many of them. So even though I try really hard to give each request a fair shake, after awhile it's quite easy to become jaded and skip over some that might actually be worthy.

#14 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,982 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE
Now I've got another type of linking campaign to consider, 'Round Robin Linking'


Don't forget to try out the trapezoidal linking matriflux. It's completely undetectable wink1.gif

#15 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 09:43 AM

Jill: hysterical.gif I knew you'd say that appl.gif

Randy, sounds like you got far too many sites, PR , ranking and IBL's , wanna trade? lol.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!