Link Sharing

[Help Desk]

Has anybody played around with Link sharing? This is not referring to the cheesy linksharing programs out there, but to just a few people getting together and placing links to each other's websites.

There have been a few experiments where this was shown to be very affective.

[ferret77]

what experiments?

what are you talking aobut?

[Help Desk]

This is what I am talking about.

Click Here for the five site Google Bomb story. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/25/fivedomain_googlebomb_explodes_in_boardroom/)

[Smyrl]

Sounds and smells like Lindberger cheese to me.

Shjannon

[Help Desk]

Sounds and smells like Lindberger cheese to me.

How so do you mean?

[ferret77]

umm what are you talking about, someone bombed google so what

now you what to bomb google go ahead

rock out playboy

[Help Desk]

The question is "Has anybody played around with link sharing?". It is an attempt to open up a discussion on the topic.

[GuyFromChicago]

The question is "Has anybody played around with link sharing?".

Just with my own sites :)

I think the closest I've come to any sort of "link sharing" is my participation at www.ipagerank.com. It's kind of link sharing, but not really. It's more like linking with the honor system.

[compar]

We discussed this already on another thread in this forum. The concept was that instead of us just putting up reciprocal links back and forth to each other from the same sites, that you put up a link from your 'A' site to my 'B' site and I in turn put up a link on my 'B' site back to your 'C' site. Or I might put up a link on my 'D' site back to your 'C' site.

In fact I suggested this in another thread and since that time several webmasters on this forum have exchanged links with me on exactly that basis.

Your suggestion sounds like you would like webmaster 1 to link to webmaster 2 who would link to webmaster 3 who would link back to webmaster 1. I don't see any inherent advantage in this over the A, B, C and possibly D scheme I outlined above.

[steve sardell]

In the past i believe this type of linking scheme has been called a *daisey chain* As long as you are not restricting it can work. But I believe the jury is still out as to its effectiveness. It fails if the sites become islands or it becomes considered manipulative.

[Help Desk]

Do search engines restrict non-visible links. By "non-visible" I mean a link with a font the same as the background and/or in such small font size that no user could effectively click on it.

[GuyFromChicago]

Do search engines restrict non-visible links. By "non-visible" I mean a link with a font the same as the background and/or in such small font size that no user could effectively click on it.

I've seen them work (same color, never the microfont) even though Google says you're not supposed to do it.

[Smyrl]

If you are not willing to show the link it indicates a deceptive practice.

Shannon

[compar]

The only problem I see with the scheme is that there aren't any, or at least not many, automated systems for assuring that the links stay in place. Most reciprocal link checker assume the reciprocal link can be found on the same site that you are linking back to.

[Dominic]

What was the other thread? I'd like to know more about this.

What I had in mind was creating a faction or voting block within a search result.

If you got 10 sites together all competing for the same search term, to each link to the nine other sites - not only would you have 9 new localranking inbound links, but those sites would further strengthen what they can offer eachother by collaborating.

Of course the same could be said for sites which are completely unrelated (minus the benefit of localrank) - I guess I'm thinking of what would constitute the most effective alliance.

Would such a strategy trip any wires? (duplicate content...?)

Was the a,b,c, linking model based on gaining links that were not reciprical?

[compar]

I'll try and find the other thread.

Was the a,b,c, linking model based on gaining links that were not reciprical?
Well they were reciprocal but didn't appears so in the normally understood way. And yes it grew out of some people unwarranted concern, in my opinion, about the SEs devaluing reciprocal links.

However, it is also useful for maintaining PR parity between linking sites. If I want a link from your PR6 page to my brand new page you are probably going to be reluctant because the normal reciprocal link back to you will not pass much PR your way. But if I link to you from one of my PR6 pages in return for this link then PR parity or equality is maintained in the linking exchange.