Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
A Linking Strategy.. Will It Fail In The End?
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:16 PM
Been reading for a LONG time now .. Finally decided to jump aboard and get into some actual conversation now.. Gettin kinda lonely
Anyways.. This recently happened to me from about 5 different webmasters in the same website "theme"..
I own a few websites in the "home business" theme.. Two at pr5 and one at pr6 ..
I do have a linking relationship with all 5.. In fact, I do index page link exchanges with those 5 as well..
They asked me if I was willing to let them take my link of their sites (the ones I was linking to) .. And in exchange, they will add me to one of their other pr5/pr6 sites instead... They said this way, we will be both be getting non-reciprocating inbound links, which will weigh more according to google..
To elaborate even further..
My sites are A & B
Webmaster 1 owns : D & E
Webmaster 2 owns : F & G
Webmaster 3 owns : H & I ... (ok.. you get the point )
A links to D, F, and H on the index page ..
D, F, & H links to A on their index page..
They say they are moving A's link to their other sites: E, G & I even though their other sites D, F, & H on A's index page..
Following me here? lol I'm almost lost myself!
I guess my question is.. Is this an ethical seo to do? I know google will weigh more to those links because I don't reciprocate, but how long before google changes their algo and makes this obsolete?
Am I making any sense? Sheeshh.. I start reading it and now I don't even know if this makes sense.. lol
Ah well.. A beginner is entitled to sounding this way anyways, right?
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:21 PM
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:25 PM
Does google go that far for sure? I can see how they'd spider the reciprocal links and maybe have a formula to deal with it that way, but the whois/ip scenario is alot of manual work for someone
Google can generally figure out if sites are owned by the same company by looking at ip address, who is information etc.
The initial (complicated) scenario i just can't analyse (maybe tomorrow when i'm fresher), but it starts to sound a bit suspect the later on you get. I hope someone else can come up with a more logical answer than that though!
Sorry I can't help more!
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:36 PM
Sounds to me like you're going to an awful lot of trouble with your linking scheme. Just link to and from where it makes sense to do so and don't worry about who links to whom and where and when and how many and A, B,C,D Z, blah blah blah...
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:45 PM
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:48 PM
Thanks for the welcome..
I don't think there's any evidence that reciprocal links are any less valuable with Google than any other link. Has anyone actually proven this anywhere?
So does this mean google won't weigh an article (publsihed on anothers site) with my link in the resource box more or less than a reciprocated link?
I was always under the assumption that inbound are always better than reciprocated.. But like I said, I'm a beginner, so I won't agrue that!
Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:48 PM
Posted 03 May 2004 - 10:11 PM
P.S. Sorry, I gotta edit your sig. 2 lines only please.
Posted 03 May 2004 - 10:14 PM
I just don't know because I don't think there's anyone who can prove it either way. If you know of someone who has some hard evidence, that would be great! Bring it on!
Posted 03 May 2004 - 10:36 PM
Only believe half of what you see and little of what you read.
I did read, (don't remember where) that...
A lot of things may be assumed to be true, but aren't, especially stuff that is written in articles by SEOs trying to, surprise surprise, build links for themselves.
Really, the whole "What is better" argument is pointless, IMHO. Links fullstop are what are important, and the best links of all are prominent reciprocated links from related businesses where your relationship is one of mutual benefit.
Posted 04 May 2004 - 07:41 AM
To look at it in another way... (just to be my contrarian self)
Let's say one site has a ton of incoming links but very few outgoing links. That could land them an Authority Site designation. Because, judging strictly from links, it would appear that lots of people seem to think they're an authority on the subject matter of their site.
Let's also say there's another site that doesn't have nearly as many incoming links but has a ton of outgoing links. That could get them a Hub Site designation since they make it easy for people to find good information on a given topic.
Who's to say which is better for SEO purposes. The search engines seem to value both highly. Which do they value the most? IMO, a site that is both a Hub and an Authority. Or in other words a site that has content valuable enough that others link to their site as a resource, but also links out to other sites about the same subject.
Hey! That's reciprocal linking isn't it?
Posted 04 May 2004 - 01:53 PM
There is no problem with it per se, but the only reason to do it is because someone believes they will gain an advantage that outwieghs the effort involved.
I don't think the theory is valid, personally. This system won't "hurt" you by itself, but be warned that there is sometimes a catch.
This type of linking scheme (which by itself is ok) is being used more and more by people who have managed to create "bad neighbourhoods" for themselves and their little link farm and are trying to recruit others to help pull them out of it.
This means you may find that you are linking to one site in a known bad neighbourhood and then having another site in the same neighbourhood linking to you. My concern (and it may not be founded) would be that instead of having a relationship with one member of a bad neighbourhood, you now have relationships with two.
I don't know if this is a problem (my gut tells me it is, or will be) and of course this would not matter if there wasn't a bad neighbourhood to begin with. Just because spammers use a system doen't mean the system is bad - it just means you look for spammers before using it.
I am reminded of a Dilbert observation: No manager ever goes through the effort of a change in how your paycheck is calculated because they want to give you *more* money.
So why do these guys want to go through all this effort?
Posted 06 May 2004 - 05:51 PM
Posted 06 May 2004 - 07:12 PM
ACK! Would that be why a couple of my clients sites disappeared from Google awhile back...say November? Their rankings are still great on Yahoo, etc but in Google their #1 rankings for their keywords just disappeared. I have made many changes on their sites from adding more content to changing title tags, code, etc. yet they have never came back up in Google.
as long as the sites involved don't share the same IP block you'll be ok. Those sites that share the same block are flagged and looked at closer
I design websites and at times offer hosting (although hosting is not my bread/butter and is actually just for my own convenience). I will design a website and host it, also putting a link to my client's website on my portfolio and a link on my client's website at the bottom saying "Website Design by yada yada"
Is the problem of them being dumped from Google because we are reciprocal linking and have the same IPs?
Posted 07 May 2004 - 08:12 AM
...not to mention that there are hundreds of thousands of sites out there hosted on shared accounts (i.e. shared IP addresses) -- and two of those might link to each other naturally, not even knowing that they're using the same hosting company.
So I don't think that shared IP addresses would necessarily be the problem...
Now, if you started linking all of your clients' sites to each other as well as linking to yours, then you might have some troubles with everybody being on the same IP block... but even that's just a "maybe."
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users