Perceived pros and cons of using Co-Op

My impressions after perusing this forum, and using the co-op for a little while:

Pro:

- 000's of free backlinks;
- Free adverts on 000's of websites;
- Quick and easy setup, control and maintenance;
- Boost to SERPs;
- Did I mention free?

Con:

- Backlinks are from websites unrelated to your site's theme;
could trip an SE filter, unlikely to bring much business direct.

- Links can decline/disappear if Co-op goes down, or you leave it,
or weight decreases drastically; could trip an SE filter;

- 000's of backlinks quickly; could trip a SE filter.

- Putting Co-op on a website you also point weight *to*
could trip a filter (i.e. 000's of outlinks to sites on themes unrelated
to your site's content and 000's of backlinks from unrelated sites
to yours)

Solution:

- Weight strategy should try to reflect how links accrue naturally;
Spread weight to different pages, using different anchor text, start with low weight percentages.
- Don't point weight to a website you treasure.
- Don't point weight to a site you're running the Co-op on.


I'm believe I've read some people's experience contradicts the 'cons', but ...


---->
Thanks to Shawn for developing this. I envy him the excitement
and pride he must feel for developing a genuine 'hit'.
<-----

 

Definitely Kudos to Shawn for trying something different, why should it just be money that talks?

 

Shawn, there is no doubt about the fact, that your tools are great.

 

My compliments to the chef. I know that if you took a different turn earlier in life and ended up cooking Italian food it would be the best...man I love pasta

I really enjoy your tools and forum, Shawn. Glad I stumbled across you as I did.

 

Another con (in the latin sense):

- Co-op links to your site are temporary; they won't be there on the same page when the SE spider comes back.

I've read that Google puts new links (as well as new sites) in a 'sandbox' (quarantine), to stymie 'pump and dump' webmasters. If nothing else, Co-op links look anomalous, compared to regular links; the latter last a lot longer.

 

I've posted my ideas about it here. With a bit of preparation and thought, none of the potential triggers you mentioned will affect you negatively.

 

It would be nice if we could allocate x number of sites for our links to start with, such that we had better control over natural linking numbers. Example, week one, allocate xx links to this add. Next week, you allocate a slightly higher number and so on.

Of course, this is all dependent on the assumption that google currently (or in the future - according to the recent patent information posted here) penalizes sites for acquiring links to fast.

If we had control to better distribute weight, it would be a huge bonus to the program by allowing us to increase links in the network progressively.

 

1. This is an ad network, not a link-exchange (thought I'd get that in, before certain other parties did )

2. You can increment weight; assign a page the value 1 on the dropdown weight menu, then increment it once a week, or as you see fit.

 

Assigning the value of 1 is only relative to your other links you're running through the Co-op. If all your links have a value of 1, they all run the same amount. So if you want to more slowly add links, you have to point links to multiple sites.

 

Perhaps I'm not communicating as well as I could be. I don't argue the co-op is an ad network. Seen it raised to a response hundreds of times here. Point five ads with a weight of 80k and it's going to trigger a flag (if, in fact, google is currently or chooses to monitor for this type of activity in the future). That's the point I'm trying to make. Whether it's an ad network or a link exchange makes no difference. By pointing this kind of weight to a few ads (or even many ads on a few sites), the potential to raise a flag with numerous overnight links is still the same, whether it's an ad network or link exchange. If we had a mechansm to control that better, it could prevent such flags being raised.

My problem was, I didn't have enough sites to point that kind of weight to, even in small incremental percentages. People with large amounts of weight, can expect the same kinds of problems.

 

* Whether it's an ad network or a link exchange makes no difference.*

Have to disagree, Shawn has given for free an advertising network that rivals others that cost $ 000's a month.

But just as some of those network advertising links appear discounted by Google for ranking purposes, so must members of the Coop accept it may well happen to them.

You can't have it both ways .. ;-)

 

Taken out of context from the paragraph I wrote, you might have a point. Putting:

* Whether it's an ad network or a link exchange makes no difference.*

back into the context of which I presented it, in that, some suggest too many links too quick, can have a penalty. In that context, whether a link is an ad or link exchange, or a link you worked hard to get with another webmaster makes no difference. The link is a link, and too many, too quickly, can (as some have suggested) have a penalty. Put 80k weight on 5-10 ads and there's a potential problem, whether it's an ad or link exchange.

 

Surley you portion your weight off, and introduce it slowly to your site(S)

ie

Week 1 10% to jim bob 90% to google.com week 2 20% to jim bob 80% to google.com

 

LOL, well, it's sort of where I was going with: If we could assign a number of links to start with, as opposed to a percentage. With 80k weight, and a handful of sites, it's not easy to assign it without mass flooding your domains with links.

Which brings up another interesting point...if members put a good deal of weight on google to start with, will google abide by it's own linking penalties (if in fact they exist) and give itself a penalty for too many links too quick?

 

If they did abide by there own rules it would be worth trying to sink Google, think of the viral advertising for DP, god damn.

 

This is true. However there needs to be benefit for COOP members. This tool may require some tweaking to provide benefit...http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=12518&highlight=google+patent

It seems that Google IS putting more weight or importance on permanent linking amongst many other patented (pending) algo changes.

If these types of changes render a tool like this useless, my bet is you will see changes.

 

There is a difference between more importance on permanent linking (which is what I took the google patent to be saying) and penalizing for temp linking. I did not see anywhere in the patent where they said sites would be penalized for it, so I don't see how that is a concern.

 

True, but I am thinking seriously devalued, possibly


If it ends up there is no gain, well you know what that would mean. Time for changes .

 

Yeah, there is a chance they would be seriously devauled to the point of there being little to no benefit. and you're right, onto other things

But I know that msn still strongly used anchor text, so the co op would be useful in other search engines, although I know google is one of the most important due to size.