I understand that GOOGLE does not like the exchange of links solely
for the purpose of increasing page rank. Can it accurately determine
which sites are abusing their guidelines? I have a number of websites
that deal with similar products and services and I am reluctant to
exchange links because these sites might run the risk of being
penalised. I know that I can include rel="nofollow" to overcome this
problem but am I being over cautious?
I myself, (and many others) find this side of things somewhat
confusing (not to mention irritating).
There are some that automatically jump to the label of "Link Farm"
etc. as soon as they realise that a busines has more than one site and
is linking the two... no matter what the reasoning is behind it (and
in many cases, I think it is legitimat).
If you are really lucky, some one from the Google Team will pop in and
offer some advice/opinion on this, as it is something that could do
with "clearly stating" what is permissable.
So long as the links are legitimate, and not done solely for gain in
the Search Engines (e.g. the links would be of use and interest to the
site visitors), then thechnically it is fair to do it.
But I would hold off a little in the hopes of a more 'definitive'
answer.
Oh, and in for warning, ignore any immature comments or accusations.
;)
Many thanks for your observations -- clearly GOOGLE technicians, on
this particular issue, need to be able to inspire confidence in their
search engine's ability to accurately identify legitimate websites.
They should offer reassurance that websites will not be mistakenly
penalised -- we'll wait and see if someone in authority can verify
this!
> I myself, (and many others) find this side of things somewhat
> confusing (not to mention irritating).
> There are some that automatically jump to the label of "Link Farm"
> etc. as soon as they realise that a busines has more than one site and
> is linking the two... no matter what the reasoning is behind it (and
> in many cases, I think it is legitimat).
> If you are really lucky, some one from the Google Team will pop in and
> offer some advice/opinion on this, as it is something that could do
> with "clearly stating" what is permissable.
> So long as the links are legitimate, and not done solely for gain in
> the Search Engines (e.g. the links would be of use and interest to the
> site visitors), then thechnically it is fair to do it.
> But I would hold off a little in the hopes of a more 'definitive'
> answer.
> Oh, and in for warning, ignore any immature comments or accusations.
> ;)
I don't see how Google can make any guarantees that sites won't be
mistakenly penalised, rather it is up to us to link only to those
sites that add value for our visitors.
Link exchanges are considered suspect because, on the whole, it's not
a natural pattern. I refuse any kind of link exchange, whether it's
some spammy seo trying to persuade me that it would be beneficial for
my site (oh yeah?) to participate in one of these scams, or someone
who advertises with me offering a link back. As far as I know, I don't
have any reciprocal links, though they occur serendipitously when
those I link to think I add value to their site and reciprocate.
The majority of my links are no-followed and that is really best
practice. There is still a hangover of the belief that exchanging
links is a "good thing" - once true, of course, but once it was abused
became quite the opposite. I give unconditional links to sites who
have real worth and add to my user experience.
Not the reply you're waiting for, I know! But it's my understanding
of the whole linking business ;-)
> Many thanks for your observations -- clearly GOOGLE technicians, on
> this particular issue, need to be able to inspire confidence in their
> search engine's ability to accurately identify legitimate websites.
> They should offer reassurance that websites will not be mistakenly
> penalised -- we'll wait and see if someone in authority can verify
> this!
> On Apr 11, 11:45 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > No, you are not being over catious.
> > I myself, (and many others) find this side of things somewhat
> > confusing (not to mention irritating).
> > There are some that automatically jump to the label of "Link Farm"
> > etc. as soon as they realise that a busines has more than one site and
> > is linking the two... no matter what the reasoning is behind it (and
> > in many cases, I think it is legitimat).
> > If you are really lucky, some one from the Google Team will pop in and
> > offer some advice/opinion on this, as it is something that could do
> > with "clearly stating" what is permissable.
> > So long as the links are legitimate, and not done solely for gain in
> > the Search Engines (e.g. the links would be of use and interest to the
> > site visitors), then thechnically it is fair to do it.
> > But I would hold off a little in the hopes of a more 'definitive'
> > answer.
> > Oh, and in for warning, ignore any immature comments or accusations.
> > ;)
> I don't see how Google can make any guarantees that sites won't be
> mistakenly penalised, rather it is up to us to link only to those
> sites that add value for our visitor
And that's the problem. All my sites add value to visitors but what
guarantee is there that GOOGLE recognises that fact? If GOOGLE can't
make guarantees on its ability to identify legitimate sites then it
shouldn't be surprised if many of us don't trust it when dealing with
certain important isssues involving links from and to legitimate
websites. It's one thing to establish rules and regulations and
another thing to administer them efficiently.
Cheers
I guess you only get guarantees with something you pay for;-) The
guidelines are constantly morphing as algos become more sophisticated,
so there aren't any rules, just pointers. We just have to interpret
them.
> > I don't see how Google can make any guarantees that sites won't be
> > mistakenly penalised, rather it is up to us to link only to those
> > sites that add value for our visitor
> And that's the problem. All my sites add value to visitors but what
> guarantee is there that GOOGLE recognises that fact? If GOOGLE can't
> make guarantees on its ability to identify legitimate sites then it
> shouldn't be surprised if many of us don't trust it when dealing with
> certain important isssues involving links from and to legitimate
> websites. It's one thing to establish rules and regulations and
> another thing to administer them efficiently.
> Cheers
> Many thanks for your observations -- clearly GOOGLE technicians, on
> this particular issue, need to be able to inspire confidence in their
> search engine's ability to accurately identify legitimate websites.
> They should offer reassurance that websites will not be mistakenly
> penalised -- we'll wait and see if someone in authority can verify
> this!
Howdy,
The word "legitimate" is not a word computers understand. They can
only do character matches and count them. It is impossible for
Google's programmers to tell the difference between links. They can
try to establish that the source of a link *looks like* a Link or
Domain Farm. Even then, they cannot tell if money was paid for it.
Google depends on exchanged links to establish popularity. For SEO,
you need to know what may trigger the program code limits. Exchanging
links with a site that MIGHT look like a Link Farm is not good idea.
All other links are only going to help boost the sites ranking.
> Google depends on exchanged links to establish popularity. For SEO,
> you need to know what may trigger the program code limits. Exchanging
> links with a site that MIGHT look like a Link Farm is not good idea.
> All other links are only going to help boost the sites ranking.
'So are you saying that exchanging relative links with my other sites
is likely to boost a site's ranking? And that this procedure *will
not* incur a penalty from GOOGLE?
Leon
> 'So are you saying that exchanging relative links with my other sites
> is likely to boost a site's ranking? And that this procedure *will
> not* incur a penalty from GOOGLE?
Howdy Leon,
Linking dozens of sites to each other is one of the ways I ensure the
sites I look after stay profitable. Been doing it for years and it
works well.
> > 'So are you saying that exchanging relative links with my other sites
> > is likely to boost a site's ranking? And that this procedure *will
> > not* incur a penalty from GOOGLE?
> Howdy Leon,
> Linking dozens of sites to each other is one of the ways I ensure the
> sites I look after stay profitable. Been doing it for years and it
> works well.
I just wanted to jump in here and comment on this subject because it
does come up every now and then. In general, if you can provide
relevant links for users of your site, feel free to link to them.
That's how the web works :-), even if those links partially come from
sites that you also own or work on.
That said, if those links are not relevant to the site, it's generally
safe to say that they will not provide any significant value to your
users, even if the sites you're linking to happen to be owned, made or
run by the same owner. If you own or have made a group of fairly
unrelated sites, it might be best to keep them on a portfolio page.
In general, thinking about where and how you would link to these sites
will provide a good guideline. Would you want to keep this link
visible in your main content? Or would you prefer to keep it in 5pt
light-grey on white text on the bottom of your pages?
> In general, thinking about where and how you would link to these sites
> will provide a good guideline. Would you want to keep this link
> visible in your main content? Or would you prefer to keep it in 5pt
> light-grey on white text on the bottom of your pages?
> Hope it helps!
> John
Many thanks for your input and well respected expertise.
The relevant links from my site would be in text of 10pt or larger and
would be highly visible and placed appropriately within a page of text
to provide further information on a particular subject for the benefit
of the visitor/reader. It would serve no purpose and pointless for me
to hide the link in an obscure way merely for the robots benefit.
That's what I want to do and I am grateful for the clarification -- so
I will go ahead and do it.
Sometimes create business partnerships for which depending on which
page you must show reaches the user or other content, it is usually
the top of the site with your navigation menu. Do these links are
penalized? How would be the best way to do it? Could be penalizable by
cloacking?
For example the Wall Street Journal Online and smartmoney
> I just wanted to jump in here and comment on this subject because it
> does come up every now and then. In general, if you can provide
> relevant links for users of your site, feel free to link to them.
> That's how the web works :-), even if those links partially come from
> sites that you also own or work on.
> That said, if those links are not relevant to the site, it's generally
> safe to say that they will not provide any significant value to your
> users, even if the sites you're linking to happen to be owned, made or
> run by the same owner. If you own or have made a group of fairly
> unrelated sites, it might be best to keep them on a portfolio page.
> In general, thinking about where and how you would link to these sites
> will provide a good guideline. Would you want to keep this link
> visible in your main content? Or would you prefer to keep it in 5pt
> light-grey on white text on the bottom of your pages?
|
