Would be getting your link on more sites (home-page only) be much better than getting your link on fewer sites (site-wide) with thousands of pages indexed? I'm just debating whether I should put up the big money for site-wide links or if I should just sift around getting my link on as many different domains as possible. Thanks in advance!
Well I guess its a good thing I posted a thread before spending $100 a month for some site-wide links
I am Google does not count the value of multiple links from a site to another site. One link of value. Or do you know elections where it is okay to vote for the canidate more than once?? But lets see what Google says Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links. Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?" No! Sign me Convinced!
In some sense I agree. In another sense, I'm not convinced that the heightened cost is born out in results either. I think a single page link is more cost effective than a sitewide.
I think state-wide links are bad in Google's eyes, but good in Yahoo and MSN. And oh, EMZ, I like your avatar of tony little.. he is a personal friend of mine. -RonMo
I guess I have a differing opinion from some here. I fully agree that Google does not count a sitewide as more than one link, and I am fine with that. Since MSN and Yahoo do, that is a plus for it. Plus, I am more likely to get direct traffic from a site if my link is on all pages versus one. So, if I have an option between sitewide and homepage only, most of the time I will go sitewide (unless cost is a big difference).
Yeah aslong as it is worth it then go for sitewide as there is a much higher chance of getting direct traffic from it. Yeah ok Google dont reward you for having more than one link but that is not everything. As mystikmedia it is just a bonus that MSN and Yahoo give you any extra for having sitewide links. The main benifit of sitewide links is simply the increased chnce of direct traffic.
Ummm who told you MSN & Yahoo count the links and that they are what improves rankings?? Neither one uses link popularity to base results that I know of. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- emz While sitewide links may drive traffic... it will be incemental at best....in other words maybe one or two visitors.....not enough visitors to support your website as a valid business. You would be better off buying a front page text link from a relevant site like webmd.com or other high ranked diet health related website. Lastly any site that would participate in site wide cross linking.... would probably be of such poor quality... it would hurt you more than help you. I read over your site, continue to write quality original content. work in your niches forums and blogs, submit articles, and put in the time needed. This will bring you high quality inbound links and traffic that over a year or so will actually surpass traffic from search engines. Peace
You are kidding right? the evidence for it is plainly (and I mean plainly) obvious, especially in MSN.
I have been told that before (I don't remember who), but I have also seen the same from my own experience. MSN values sitewides in all cases, it seems. With Yahoo, you never know. They are fickle. As for neither one using link popularity, sorry, but that is just false. MSN uses frequency of anchor text as a link very, very much. Yahoo some too.
well lets see...having placed over 200 clients at the top 3 positions of msn search results for 1000s of highly competitive keyword terms, I am in no way a link builder, and I can guartantee you I do not use sitewides anywhere, nor would I work with a client who did, I would have to say with some certainty... that rankings do not come from sitewide links. It is not the link counts that count on MSN.. Maybe you should look at page relevancy mixed with relevant anchor text links. Inner page linking will do more for you than sitewides. Again you may see link counts greatly exaggerated on MSN...but that is the number of links.....nobody has said MSN values them all. Bill Gates and his team are not stupid enough to fall for such...
I have 100% proof that MSN and Yahoo are basing rankings on links more than anything else. I started a white label site which was exactly the same as 15,000 other sites and got it to the first page of both Yahoo and MSN just using anchor text. It was above all the other identical sites. And a lot of its links were sitewide.
I am #4 in MSN for "stock market". How did I get there? Is my on-page optimization REALLY that great?? MSN is 98% link based. And by the way - I get a whole 4 visitors from MSN a day for that term - pretty sad...
I'm willing to put money on that fact that MSN values sitewide links. I've tested placing a bunch of links, no variation, on a few sites and seen number one rankings in MSN. Not easy words and phrases either. I doubt that will hold up though. Anyone here have any tested proof of the effect of sitewides on gg. Havn't had time to test. Also, how about the idea of only 10-20 seperate page links? How does gg handle that? I believe there is a upper limit, that is more than 1 link, that they count. But, we have not tested so it's all guess work...which amounts to crap in this business.
In my personal experience with link building for a variety of sites, MSN and Yahoo seem to value sitewides much more than Google does. But I have not seen any disavdavntage to having sitewide links in Google, as long they are not added to quickly. Known sold sitewides will have little effect though.