Say I have a top 10 post on my site for some sites and after each description of each site I want to link to that site with my affiliate/referral URL. Is it a good idea to mask the URL or just use as is? I use a php file and just use something like this within it <?php header("Location:[URL]http://arandomsite.com/refid123[/URL]"); exit(); ?> Code (markup): Then save it as site1.php etc and link to that. If I do that, can Google still see the URL? Would it be better to do that so that I don't have x amount of OBL's on the page? As far as Google sees them, they would be internal links? Thanks.
I would rather be safe than sorry.You want to always mask you affiliate links. You can just forward a domain name to point at your affiliate link.This makes the link look more professional,and it keeps people from editing your link and possibly stealing your commissions.
You should leave the URL as it is. Not only it looks bad, google also can possibly drop it down, it's also makes the site looks infected.
What do you mean? Why would Google "drop" my website for having some affiliate/referral links on it? Is there any evidence or something you can back this up with??? That doesn't make sense. You're saying leave the URL as it is. But that leaving it as it is makes it "look bad" and that the site "looks infected" What do you mean by this? Why does it "look bad" to have affiliate/referral urls and what about that makes it look infected? So leave as they are or mask them? What are you saying? And why would Google "drop it down" for having them? If you're going to say something like that people, at least back it up with something to validate what you are saying?
Not having affiliate urls by itself, but shortened urls usually have a bad rep. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm saying leaving urls as they is preferable to shortening them. (Not only you will get more clicks, since even your average joe knows to avoid them, if not for anything else, in that they will just be a waste of his time.) Shortening urls makes the site itself look... unethical. Think of it like this: 1 out of a thousand shortened urls take the user where they promise. It'd be like you wearing a black mask over your face for kicks, another category of people already do that, and it stands for something completely different then you intend. It's also bad about logarithms about searching, but let's not get to that. It is also why I can "figure" what google would do without having statistics about how google will actually react. It wouldn't be strong, because your are not making any infringement, but there is such a thing as loosing out of not beeing chosen as the prefereed.
Alright thanks. That sort of helps. I don't believe in using shortened URLs everywhere either. Especially not for a long term thing on a website. Unless its a stupid long URL. Usually short URLs are used on things like social networks and other temporary things. But what about using the php redirect method? Then link to it like site.com/go/link1.php Can Google still see that as an external link or it will think it's an internal link?
Google HATES affiliate links. Google HATES affiliates. Cloak your links. Listen to the old guys when it comes to this.
Thanks. Interesting you to say this. Do you also have any evidence you can show that confirms that Google HATES affiliate links and affiliates? I get what you are saying that we should "cloak our affiliate links". But when it comes to cloaking, like the above poster has said, it can bring question to the site and the visitor you know ? Like why are they trying to cloak the link? And also what type of cloak should you do? Which link cloaking method is best? How far can you go before the link truly is cloaked? And if Google hates affiliates and aff links and those that cloak them then isn't it the same thing trying to cloak a link as it is just dirty affiliate linking? Is there a full proof way of cloaking links so that they look natural to visitors and safe to mr google?