Here's an idea I found on another forum and thought I'd share. Do a search for inurl:.gov.xx "add link" (where xx is the country extension or just .gov for US) or you can use a site:*.gov.xx "add link" where "xx" is the country code. Remember to do this using .edu instead of .gov also. Believe it or not there are some of these sites that do let you add a link on, however they usually have strict criteria. Anyway just thought I'd share, let me know if anyone has any luck getting any links this way.
What benefit will this have? Seeking out .gov / .edu and links from other non-related sites may have short term PR value, but this will be devalued greatly by Google, and hopefully the other major search engines in the future. I fail to see why many people continue to spam such sites, when time can be better utilized seeking out relevant links, establishing partnerships and developing strategic mechanisms that will boost SEO, not harm it such as what these types of links will eventually do.
So by this theory a link from cnn.com is worthless if your site isn't about news? I don't think so. Like it or not Google puts a lot of weight on .gov and .edu sites.
I'm not saying that currently Google doesn't value them. But I do question the amount of value given. Google has gradually started to look more at the value it's placing on all links, and it depends totally on the context of the link, the relevancy of the page that the link is on, and how it all relates to the keywords within the tag. If you look at Matt Cutts latest blog article when he asks what should webspam concentrate on in 2009, there have been those that have aske to have .edu & .gov links examined. The gradual shift that we have seen to date, and the fact that many sites have seen major drops in PR and ranking in the SERPS is a clear indication that there is filtering being applied as the reputation of links comes more and more in question.
Well if you want to look at it that way then to hell with all links. Probably 99% of links using a keyword for anchor text is either exchanged, bought, or spam. All 3 techniques are not supposed to have much value. After all, how many normal sites do you see actually getting "organic" links on mass? If you really want quality then start basing rank by actual visitor usage and not inflated links such as bounce rate, average time spent on site, return visit rate, and average page views per visit. Obviously when 2 sites are competing for serp rank the one with the lower bounce rate and higher return visitor rate is more likely to be a better quality site. Obviously this can be manipulated as well but not any more than the current link system which everyone knows is widely gamed. In fact if you don't game Google to some effect you will probably never gain a first page ranking for any keywords with any kind of competition.
I agree ! The old school never dies! Although it is essential now in your link building strategy to keep it themed and relevant, it is also very helpful for you to get a few auth backlinks! Although web 2.0 was although the rage and high PR sites passed on a shed load of juice things have now have moved onto web 2.1. So essentially yes these links are quality they are always going to change in popularity and cloat! Where as the old school of .edu & .gov auth links arent going anywhere and still and always willto a certain extent help to increase the enignes trust in your site and its link profile.
I think the people who are drinking haterade on .gov and .edu backlinks just lack the talent to find a means to place there links on such high pr 3+ inner pages. I personally don't havethat problemm. =) so I the law of supply and demand. Just my 2 cents.