- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Excellent! :hattip:
Good one Simon…
So what do you do if you have employed all the old tactics like reciprocal link exchanges?
I am guilty of using the old techniques, however I am still a strong believer as long as you are relevant it should not harm, but knowing what is considered good and bad in google is devils play.
Thanks Simon this is some good stuff that you are posting
Karim
I read that the other day , but im still in the habit of linking with any decent site , even if they are off topic .
That Ben kemp does write some informative stuff , for you guys really interested in Seo take a look at his articles , http://www.comauth.co.nz/the-seo-guys-blog/
@Simoneaton 136921 wrote:
Reciprocal Links – Almost a Waste of Effort
Reciprocal links are still of some value, providing the link titles are
explicit, and if the page they link to you from has a higher Page Rank
than the page from which you link to them. The concept of a link to you
being a vote for you, and being added to your site’s Total Vote Count
has a flip side. A link from you to someone else essentially deducts one
vote from your total vote count… meaning its value is minimal when
compared to a 1-way incoming back-link!Now I realise that you’re talking about Google …
But in terms of ongoing success for a website this headline is so far wrong that it merits comment.
I get 90% of my traffic from reciprocal links – and for my main site that means around 120,000 visitors a month !!!
:inlove:Reciprocal links with quality and related sites is the best possible way to grow your site exposure – and surely is the sort of thing that google thinks this mythical “3rd tribe” you mentioned should be doing ?
This creates clusters of related content – as as I see it is EXACTLY THE WAY THE NET SURFING EXPERIENCE WAS MEANT TO BE.
IMO : Reciprocal links to quality related content is our ONLY linking strategy, and we display around 1.5 million pages a month now.
:hattip:Your analysis saying that a one-way outbound link is toxic is an oversimplification and is just plain inaccurate. And the paranoia about reciprocal links being bad for your site is just silly and misses the point entirely.
You should link to websites that you think will benefit your users and will make them consider your site a resource, a good place to go for site recommendations. If you can get them to link back to you, that’s great too, but it shouldn’t be a precondition for linking to them.
People try so hard to look natural that they forget how to be natural. It’s perfectly natural to link to websites you like, and for those websites to link back to you if they like your site. So just do that and quit trying to second guess whether or not a one way link to another site is going to hurt you, because it won’t.
Have to agree with Randy.
Reading the Google forums, it was clear that they would try and catch out 3-way, reciprocal and unrelated links eventually. So when I started linking, I took the radical strategy of building a links page that I thought my visitors would appreciate – one that linked to complementary and authority sites, many of which don’t (and probably won’t ever) link back to me.
For a while, that seemed pointless, but the recent Google algorithm tweak has seen me ranking in the top 20 for most search terms, and visitor numbers have trebled.
The Gooner is right, of course – if the majority of your traffic comes from referrals then recip links are great. But if you rely on search engines then you’ve got to play by their rules.
And Google’s rules are fairly simple – build sites for users, not search engines.
@TheGooner 136952 wrote:
Now I realise that you’re talking about Google …
But in terms of ongoing success for a website this headline is so far wrong that it merits comment.
I get 90% of my traffic from reciprocal links – and for my main site that means around 120,000 visitors a month !!!
:inlove:Reciprocal links with quality and related sites is the best possible way to grow your site exposure – and surely is the sort of thing that google thinks this mythical “3rd tribe” you mentioned should be doing ?
This creates clusters of related content – as as I see it is EXACTLY THE WAY THE NET SURFING EXPERIENCE WAS MEANT TO BE.
IMO : Reciprocal links to quality related content is our ONLY linking strategy, and we display around 1.5 million pages a month now.
:hattip:Wow, your impressions/uniques ratio is almost as good as hotornot.com. Not quite as good obviously but everything above 8 is pretty good I would say.
This topic started with original content from the entireweb newsletter (I posted this one too), I am not looking for credits here, so if they are right about linking to other non-related content sites is bad, why are (non-gambling related) pages with a PR6+ asking me for linkexchange (I had a PR3+ now a PR2 thanks to Google) ?
These guys must know what they are doing, even risking a PR drop according to the new Google fundamentals?
Regards
RickA very good article, well written. But, I totally disagree with this statement:
1-way Outward Links Are Toxic –
there are many sites who’s content is 99% links and the have great PR, google, other search engines, guides for particular industries.
for example this site: http://www.allwindsor.com/ It’s only outbound links, it has PR (i can’t see right now because i don’t have toolbar on this maching) and it ranks for local businesses that it features.
@TheGooner 136952 wrote:
Now I realise that you’re talking about Google …
But in terms of ongoing success for a website this headline is so far wrong that it merits comment.
I get 90% of my traffic from reciprocal links – and for my main site that means around 120,000 visitors a month !!!
:inlove:Reciprocal links with quality and related sites is the best possible way to grow your site exposure – and surely is the sort of thing that google thinks this mythical “3rd tribe” you mentioned should be doing ?
This creates clusters of related content – as as I see it is EXACTLY THE WAY THE NET SURFING EXPERIENCE WAS MEANT TO BE.
IMO : Reciprocal links to quality related content is our ONLY linking strategy, and we display around 1.5 million pages a month now.
:hattip:I am strong believer for linking, yet when I saw this email that was forwarded to me from an SEO newsletter (can not recall the name or I would give credit) it needed to be mentioned.
Is linking bad or does it work? can it harm you or not? what is considered good linking and not?
AmCam, the site you listed shows as a PR3 on my toolbar today.
I don’t totally agree with everything that has been said about outgoing links being toxic.
Yes, I think linking to bad neighborhoods can certainly be bad for you, but linking to relevant sites and sites that provide good information for your visitors is a good thing.
When linking to a relevant site, you also need to make sure the outgoing link’s anchor text is 1) relveant to the content on the page you are linking from and 2) anchor text must match the content on the page you are linking to.
An example of that would be, if I have a slots page and I have an outgoing link to a friends slots page with the anchor text more slot machines this would be a good thing provided the linked page contained slots information. However, if the linked page contained mostly info about blackjack, then the relevance of that link has lost value for both my site and the recipient of the link. (not to mention it does nothing to increase value to my visitor)
Rick
Universal4
