The Truth about linking -- Dirk Johnson

I think google's pretty much got it right now.

And even if it came down to links on trusted sources...google is never going to be able to stop people buying links on PR7 websites...There are alway ways round perfect search results...

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I don't have a discount tires site

 

I totally agree - but if they only count relevant trusted links in the future then that narrows the pool of PR 7's you could buy a link from. In fact it could be a very narrow pool.

Also you might slip up and by those links in a link box with many other sites...this is sooo easy to find or it may say sponsored sites about your link another easy thing to find, or maybe its in the left sidebar or footer instead of the main content area...see what im saying.

Think into the future and use tactics that you think will work longterm and you will reap the rewards when another Florida hits etc.

 

Hi Linkster, you seem to know what you are talking about.
Compar says

I can't really say whether I agree or not, I haven't seen enough evidence to completely support it 100% either way. One thing I can say is, linking rules have changed BIGTIME, no doubt...and I think we all agree on that.

I am not trying to manipulate anything or anyone but rather feed my children. Google makes guidelines and rules that are unchallenged and sometimes unfair. As I see it Google has developed more enemies with this whole Jagger mess than any other update. The baby AND the bathwater were gone then IMO and progressively got worte. I am still seeing some pretty spammy results. I am seeing folks completely banned from Google's index without ANY understanding as to why . THAT's CRAP. To be punished without explaination or apparent logic only breeds anger and rage, turning the business side of the internet into a war zone...that ain't good for anyone.

I understand the reasoning behind such algos but they must perform as intended once you pass beta testing, I don't see that. What I do see now is my ability to get my competitors banned with suspicious link bursts. Many have joked about this...'go ahead pile it on' it ain't gonna happen, I beg to differ.

My anger about this whole mess doesn't really effect me as much as others, some of my associates are crying the blues right now. I actually have developed other sources of income that don't envolve this volitile environment.

As long as these Se's (Google in particular) run their ship unchallenged this will only compound.

I guess the question that is important is WHY do you think Google applied for the patent? I'll give you a hint it's not entirely false manipulation attempts. Funny enough that part of it I agree with .

 

thats because its was an example compar not directed to your site lol. Im saying why would an engine want to give you credit for a nonrelevant link.

 

Spiritwalker I hear you man - I dont engage in Google worship, they are for profit business so I am all bout doing what you have to do to rank. However, just take the time to think "where are they headed" what will work long term and then when they change the algo you will be much better positioned.

IMO - You want links in the main section of a webiste not the footer and sides - You want links from ontopic sources - and you want those sources to be valued by the engines ie ranking in the top 500 at least. You do not want to be in a link box or an an exchange page and you want many of your links to be one way. Also dont use the same text over and and over thats just obvious link spam.

If a link exchange fits those criteria then go for it...but think how many actually do. You usually get a link on a page called /link-partners4.html

 

You know I was think today about whole lemming thing, and I realized what linkster says makes absolutly no business sense what so ever.

Why would anyone pass up something that is almost gaurenteed to make a return. Lemmings my ass, personally right now I see more return on reciprical links then almost any legal business I can think of. Even without google.

Its dumb to count any one thing, but its seems really dumb to pass on something that is almost a sure thing

Secondly checking thru my sites, I have something like 30 sites that still rank well in google, for lesser competitive terms because of crap link exchanges. So even if they are devalued they aren't negated. Maybe new recip links are negated but appernently some old ones arn't at all.

Why wouldn't it? If I link to the tire site and said this were i bought my tires, and they are freaking great tirees, why wouldn't a search engine want to count it.

Everything you are saying is the same thing every white hat seo has been saying for 5 years now , and yet still all the top moeny spots on the internet are controlled by sites that have tons of unrelated links.

I am just curious if anything you are saying is coming from actually studing the serps?

 

I don’t think your understand what I am saying. The key thing you said was "right now". Look im a capitalist so sure game them if you can, but you are admitting you’re seeing Google devalue the tactic you’re using. So all im saying is it’s obvious that this is an easy spam tactic and it will be closed. So if your in it long term its best to take a long term approach.

I have several hundred sites that do nothing more than spam the engines and they work decently well. However, given time they work less and less or get banned. So.....if you want to use link exchanges, do it. IMO is that a long lasting approach – of course not.
I just hate

 

I think this is something you need to figure out, and when you do I think it will go a long way to helping you think like a search engine - When you do its much clearer what you need to be doing - again im talking long term

 

I agree with this logic. I have recently been really checking who is linking to me. There are so many crap, spam sites pointing to me it's sickening. In all these cases they are trying to either capitalize on my domain name or keywords I promote. I simply have no control over this . These links probably should be devalued, but are we suggesting penalized ?

This new Google is leaving many thinking 'what do I need to do to feed my children, nothing works anymore?' Bob started this thread 2 years ago, the truth then is NOT the truth now . Hopefully we can gather some info here. Personally, the quote in this post is one I'm writing down...it make s sense .

 

I did a pretty heavy duty analysis of potential link partners the last two days and think that G has a bit of tweaking to do. Here's the issue, supposively PR is Google's measure of importance of a particular page (site). One would think that G could differentiate between an authorative domain/page and not. Well in my industry there are regional, country specifc and international bodies that are the authorative bodies (sites) for my industry. Yet ALL of these authorative sites have pr3 or less, right across the board. I personally don't care about PR but you would think that these authorative bodies would then have a better PR than my or other sites within the industry. It makes no sense!

 

PR is simply a meassure of link popularity and has very minimal effect on rankings. If they are all PR 3 then it prob. just means your area is very niche and if you go out and get some good quality links you stand a chance to rank yourself.

Check thier backlinks in yahoo to get an idea of how many backlinks they may have

 

reading those 2004 posts and laughing..

 

reading those 2004 posts and laughing at some.. so much has changed since then..

 

Excellent post. I second that. Toolbar PR is a total zilch. Means nothing.

The only reason for toolbar PR to exist is that it allows Google engineers to hit the magic button, update it, crack a bottle of beer open and watch the forums go crazy about it...

Warkot

 

I wonder if it has really changed that much - or perceptions have just changed. The "mainstream" methods to get good rankings are probably pretty consistent. It's the tricks used to game the system that have probably changed the most.

 

That was some very useful info and thank you for the great post.

tears

 

Quick question to you all. So in order to get reciprocal links to your site. Should i create a page like - links.html or resources.html and place it either in the top navigation or at the bottom text footer links on each page of my site and then place the reciprocal links there? Should i place the links on 1 page? or should i sort them into the categories like a directory style? Please explain.

Thank

 

I think Johnson states good points. Logically they are very understandable an acceptable.
But who knows Google?

 

really good article