Britecorp Linking Program

So they will be relevant. Not that it has been proven G looks at this thoroughly but might be safe for the future indeed.

 

I would have thought its very easy for G to compare the pages content or even the sites content with the link and the destination sites content.

In fact in the webmaster guidelines it even says that it does check surrounding pages where a link to your site comes from.

 

This is changing the subject slightly, but where is your proof of that statement? Many of us feel that this will eventually be true, but that there has been very little evidence to support that in the past.

The evidence has been that the most important element of a backlink was the anchor text, and the theme of the page on which the link is placed had little or no impact or importance.

 

If google has the ability to place relevant google adsense ads on website based on its content, I'm certain it can disregard non theme links when updating. I am sure it can not penalise you for having all these links, its just a case of how much will they help?
Low PR = less spidering


My understanding of SEO is that we need to try and predict how google is going to change its algo in the future and apply these changes, instead of applying SEO techniques that worked 2-3 mths ago.

 

No you don't. There's no importance given to the "theme" of a link at this point in time.

 

Hi Guy,
unless you have G's algorythm you can't say that for certain either.

YOu may have links from non-relevant sites you may have links from relevant sites - how do you know which one's are giving you points?

There are so many factors to ranking that you might think - I'll add a non-relavent link - and in a few days time your site ranks higher.

How do you know G just didn't change some minor thing their end?

 

about a year and half a go when I first started messing with seo I took my resume page and I got a bunch of links pointed at it from the most irrelevent sites I could find

viagra , home and garden , pets pretty much everything but web design

low and behold a little bit later I was number one for "my city state web design"

it was an eye opening experience ,

you should try it some time , actually trying out your theroies

 

Of course, we all do try out our own theories, isnt that what being in the business of seo is?

But my point was you dont know for certain it was your links that gave you added pr or G changing its algo.

P.S. That was a year and a half ago by your own admission so may not be working today!

 

Google have stated that they take into account the text surrounding the link, but not that they actually check on the theme of the anchor page.

It is obvious that eventually this is the way to go as more and more pages get added, and the serps get less and less relevant. Currently there is no proof that it makes a difference. Of course, having them on related sites is going to push traffic your way also.

Brian is an OK guy, I doubt if he would be out to make a fast buck at the expense of others, it goes against his beliefs. I don't know enough about the scheme to comment on it however, but like I say, as a bloke he is OK!

 

Some may be interested in this white paper by Prof Jon Kleinberg and others. It is old, presented in 97 to IBM, but it is part of the foundation of the work by P & B and their Pagerank theory. You may recognize the name Kleinberg as he has become more associated with "topic distillation" It is well worth a read and will inform you of things if not already instituted then perhaps things to come

analyxing hyperlink structure and associated text

Brian good luck wth your venture. You know you get my vote as a stand up individual

 

As with any business arrangement, you jump in too early and get burned, you've only yourself to blame. The way I read this thread, there's a few people who either have, or are going to get involved.

I'll be interested to hear what they have to say. My outlook is simple. If you don't see the same benefits you would see otherwise (regardless of the so called sandbox effect), then there's questions that need asking.

If on the otherhand outcomes are consistent with previous experience, be sure to post it here - I'd love to hear about it.

 

I understand your line of thinking John but I suppose it depends on your own SEO experiences and understanding.

Personally, I don't believe in any 'sandbox' theory dampening existing links when you add a whack more links to your site simply because I've never seen any evidence. I do believe in a 'sandbox' theory (for want of a better expression) that it can take anywhere between 5 minutes and six months for G to actually find and recognise a new link to your site.

I don't believe that PR has any more relevance to assisting me in childbirth as it does for increasing my ranking in the SERPS. It's totally useless. 1 link from a PR6 site (with no other links) could give me a PR4. 100 links from 100 PR0-3 sites could give me a PR3. If the second example has keyphrase anchor text backlinks, that will get me the rankings.

So, my line of thinking is the same as I, Brian's and I'll be giving this a go too please Brian if you don't mind

I do have one question though, '50 links a day'? Does that mean on any given day I will have 50 links or does that mean that every day you will add a further 50 links so that by day 3 there are 150 links? I apologise in advance for such a daft question but forgive me, it's a blonde girl thing, I just want to be sure I understand it correctly.

Jane

 

Well, I know G has picked up brand new pages that link to some of my sites, but when you do a link:www.domain.com the numbers are still the same!

 

Thanks for the personal comments.

Personally, I can't wait to see what happens in about 12-14 weeks after the sandbox lets the links impact Google's rankings. I know some people targeting more competitive search terms are not going to see any fast results - they know this - but I should expect a lot of people have at least something to get excited about.

As with all SEO, though, it's not a business of fast results.

I am also trying to make the whole system much more sophisticated - wholly owned themed networks, filled with keyword rich static HTML pages. The whole purpose is to make the entire campaign as effetive as possible. Ultimately, the more successful the clients are, the happier I am.

And, Jane, yes, that's 50 a day.

 

I certainly can't wait to see the results.....

 

Brian,

Any idea when the new system, and, in particular, the monthly reporting will commence?

 

Still in development.

 

I run quite a few sites and have seen some of those sights rank very well, and have a decent PR, all stemming from completely unrelated links.

 

So you know for a fact that you have NO links from related websites? Just because teh Se's don't show them doesn't mean they aren't being counted.

I think the thing here is No-one can say they know anything for certain, except the search engines themselves.

We can all make judgements based on experience, but you can't say 'I know for a fact' etc.

 

Well said, the ONLY thing we know for FACT, is that we can not be certain about anything within the Google Algorithm. Ok we know that somethings work well, while others seem to not do much, but this can be changed at the drop of a hat if the SE's decide to do it.

Thinking and knowing are different things entiremly IMO.