Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Se Guidelines & Link Building
Posted 19 July 2010 - 08:28 PM
Here are the things on my mind:
1)Does sticking to their guidelines matter a whole lot? Ive heard of cases where people were flushed down the toilet despite sticking to google's guidelines for an eternity.
2)Is link bartering (Ill give your community my product for free as a prize of your contest if I get a link for it ..or.. Ill write reviews for related businesses but only those willing to give me a link in exchange - kind of stuff) a violation of their guidelines -e.g. a form of paid linking?
3)If you have useful content that gains links naturally on your website, but that content isnt overly related to your business's purpose...is this natural linking to Google? Think a cartoon making fun of all the big name folks in the SEO industry on my website with a focus on "local SEO". Is this way of generating buzz "alright" with google? (If I read their guidelines I'd say yes..). As in links clearly aimed not to get traffic but to boost overall site authority..
thanks for any replies..
PS: Actually, Im wondering about Google & BING, too.
Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:43 AM
In a different perspective, you pay to join an article or press release distribution. You do your due diligence, submit some great articles that get accepted and picked up. You paid money to join, does that make it manipulation?
Posted 20 July 2010 - 11:41 AM
You could say the same thing about paid links. Who is going to "rat" on you? How will they know, find out? Are you.....
They might be able to detect paid links algorithmically...maybe they arent great at it, now but maybe they will.
same could happen with obvious bartering
It reads like youre against the whole search engines controlling what webmasters "have to" do on the web. if I read into that correctly, Im with you..... However my opinion doesnt matter, only ROI and risk do
Edited by PatrickGer, 20 July 2010 - 06:57 PM.
Posted 20 July 2010 - 05:28 PM
Since that's not going to happen, Google will settle for having everyone who publishes a link tell them whether or not there was any reason other than that editorial decision about wonderful content behind the decision to link. The problem with that is that it indicates an assumption that any time one fails to tell Google about the nature of a link, it's an attempt to deceive Google, and of course that's not always the case. Sometimes people fail to put nofollow on a link because they're not SEOs and they've never heard of nofollow. It's Google's job to figure out which links ought to count. It's up to you, as someone who knows something about how links work and how they may be treated by a search engine, to decide how much you want to comply with Google's wishes and how much of a risk (either that they'll catch you trying to deceive them or that they'll make the mistake of thinking you're deceiving them when you're not) you're willing to take.
Posted 20 July 2010 - 05:43 PM
If someone else came to me and said they wanted to sponsor another section of the site, that would be another matter. I'd be accepting money in exchange for that sponsorship, and then I'd have to decide whether or not I was willing to put nofollow on the link (and whether I was going to charge extra to refrain from putting nofollow on the link). It would be up to me to decide whether or not I wanted to help Google in their effort to determine whether or not that link should be treated as an advertisement.
Now, for all I know, Google is already treating those free banners as ads. They certainly look like ads. For all I know, both my friend's site and her friend's site are being penalized because of these deceptive links (I kind of doubt it, though).
I asked Matt Cutts about it once, in a comment on his blog. He didn't reply.
Posted 20 July 2010 - 07:00 PM
Posted 21 July 2010 - 09:24 AM
Speaking of no-follow, I have been tinkering with a Joomla link-exchange component. I could possibly request and get an RFE implemented to add a no-follow option (yes/no) to the admin form. As a one-liner tip to explain the option to administrator-types, what might this read? Feedback please?
Posted 21 July 2010 - 11:14 AM
How about this...
"If you want Google to know that you have an awareness of SEO, then use this attribute on your pages."
Posted 21 July 2010 - 01:38 PM
Guidelines are interpreted by different people in different ways, but where Google's guidelines are concerned they're more like secret rules since only Google's interpretation matters.
It is impossible to adhere to a search engine's guidelines 100% because they don't tell you all the little details that can make the difference between good behavior and bad behavior.
And that is one of many good reasons why the best SEO advice is to design a Website for people and not for search engines.
If you want to exchange links, why do you need to embed "rel='nofollow'" on the links? If you assume your visitors will always click on the links you put on your site, and that those visitors will judge the quality of your site (and its reliability) on the basis of where those links take them, will you still be exchanging links with the sites you want to nofollow? If so, then you don't need the nofollows.
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:50 AM
You just made me think of SE "guidelines" in a completely different way.
You reminded me of pirates of the caribbean...and that there's a significant difference between "rules" and mere "guidelines"
Posted 31 July 2010 - 10:23 AM
To some degree Matt Cutts role is to use his influence to persuade SEOs to follow the Google mantra (suggesting that Google will smile on them if they do). Don't get me wrong I like Matt Cutts and he has mostly great stuff to share, but he is the head of the web spam team at G, so consider that.
Posted 17 August 2010 - 12:54 PM
Isnt that the primary Google guideline Michael?
The nofollow is not for the visitors, but to tell Google that the link is either not relevant to the topic or is a 'For Profit".
Without the personal connection to the owner, the link would never have grown organically and the big G is looking for organic.
Visitors do not know if link is nofollow or not.
Posted 20 August 2010 - 02:23 PM
Not according to the original proposal for the attribute. Nor is there any way to distinguish between a nofollow on a paid link and a nofollow on a highly relevant link that just happens to be auto-nofollowed. The nofollow attribute provides no information whatsoever on the quality, relevance, or user-acceptability of a link.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users