| LED Digest 2054: The Reciprocal Linking Thread |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. December 14, 2005 Issue #2054 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== NEW ======================= <Moderator Comment> ~ Schedule Changes ==== CONTINUING ================= --== The Reciprocal Linking Thread ==-- ~ Michael Martinez "The average business site needs fewer than 100 inbound links..." ~ Tom Aman "...the low-life types end up ruining things for legitimate businesses and sites." ~ Dirk Johnson "...it may be helpful to talk directly to the site owner / managers out there on this list." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== LEDer Feedback ==-- ~ Mike Banks Valentine ~ Ronni Rhodes ~ Warren Walminski ~ Peter D'Aprix ======== NEW ===================================== <Moderator Comment> Greetings LEDer, Tons of feedback on the schedule -- thank you so much. So far it looks like we're going back to 5 days per week, which is best in my opinion. Sure it's more work to produce, but there's a flip side to that: when the LED is more frequently published we seem to get more active discussions, which generates more posts, which makes compiling the LED much quicker. We'll continue this week as normal, then get back to 5 days/ week starting next Monday. Let me gather this feedback together and put it into a Special Issue for Friday. Thanks again for your support and feedback -- it's been greatly inspiring! Best wishes, Adam ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Michael Martinez Subject: Linking - Article directories > My question...is how you see these [linking] issues > affecting article directories? ... since an article directory > like ours can add hundreds (if not thousands) of back > links in a weeks time... how are the major search > engines going to view us in comparison to link farms? - Thom Reece, LED 2053 My view is that article writing as a means of building linkage is fast becoming overheated. It's only a matter of time before Google views article distribution as spam. As recently as January I was still advising people to publish RSS feeds, but by March the practice had become so popular I felt it was abusive. In July, Google cleared thousands of RSS-feed driven sites from its index (sites built solely for the purpose of ranking so people would see their Javascript ads). A few of the RSS originators claimed to have lost rankings, but most of them were not harmed by the filters. I think that, as Webmasters lose their self-discipline once again and start loading the various article distribution services with duplicate content, there is a risk that secondary users of those articles (the sites that accept the distribution) will be filtered. I don't believe the distribution services will be filtered. But competition from new directories may make it more difficult for people to rank for terms like "article directory", "article distribution", or whatever expressions you guys compete for. I still occasionally write a free article to be distributed through one service. I don't do it for the linkage. I am tracking the progress of my articles as they work through the system. A large number of the free articles are of such poor quality in terms of useful information, technical writing, and uniqueness that I seriously doubt many people spend their days browsing these directories in euphoric states. There may well be some Webmasters who search the archives for those rare gems that say something different, say it well, and haven't yet been spammed to death. The distribution services are probably cutting their own throats with their RSS feeds. I would strongly recommend to anyone who operates an article directory to NOT offer an RSS feed. Spammers more than anyone else will want to use it. The RSS feeds are therefore causing more harm than good for all parties concerned. Every popular idea gets overused and abused because the SEO community is stuck in a link-building rut. As long as Webmasters are wrongly advised to pursue link building as their primary strategy for ranking in search results, they will continue to do everything possible to build their linkage. Every site needs SOME linkage. We need it to be crawled and we need it so the search engines will see where our content is naturally classified by the Web community. The average business site needs fewer than 100 inbound links in order to accomplish these goals. The average business site can rank in the top ten for its most important keywords on the basis of on-page content. Most business Web sites are badly designed, don't rank for anything, and are almost never found except by determined people who, like me, have learned to refine their queries to seek out specific industries with almost surgical precision. I don't exaggerate. If I want to find Web sites for pharmaceutical companies, I pretty much have to find directories that specialize in them. There are plenty of pharmaceutical companies out there with Web sites. They just don't bother to put something like "We are a pharmaceutical company" on their Web sites. My point is that article directories are useful, but their usefulness is being abused by Webmasters who don't know what they are doing. Now is not the time for people to bring new article distribution services online. Now is the time for a little innovation. The press release distribution services are also being abused. I think what Webmasters need is a way to create content on other sites that people will actually read and visit, and that search engines won't see as abusive. Create a business profile service that offers unique content which is NOT distributed (don't offer the articles to other sites, don't provide RSS feeds) and you may create a useful tool that will stay around for a long time. But don't load the pages up with Google or Yahoo! ads. I abandon sites that make the advertising the central focus of the visitor experience. I am sure other people do, too. I expect ads on a news-oriented site, but I prefer the sites that don't make the ads intrusive. I don't expect ads on sites that supposedly make their money through other means. If you sell stuffed toys, why do you need Google ad revenue? Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ ------- new post - same topic ------ From: Tom Aman Subject: Linking > Avoid irrelevant linking. In the Google patent, they > specifically talk about how irrelevant linking can... > be detected... And linking to irrelevant sites > serves no benefit to the end user. - Joel Lesser, LED 2052 And using this as a general "rule" proves why this kind of "rule" is bad. I sell link checking software. Until fairly recently, I maintained a page of links (about 100) to the sites of various users of that software. Many of these sites to which I linked had reciprocal links back to my site. On the surface these links (both to and from other sites) would appear totally irrelevant. But the links to these sites let my potential customers get an idea of the variety of sites for which the software was useful. The links back essentially said to visitors to those sites that the reason they did not find any broken links was because of the software used to regularly check the site and here is a link to check out that software. Too bad the low-life types end up ruining things for legitimate businesses and sites. Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.com ------- new post - same topic ------ From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Linking Adam, much luck to you in sorting out what you want to do with LED Digest. We need it. It's a balanced, well-moderated forum where business owners can get information without a lot of noise. Of course, in this business, there are always a wide range of opinions, even among the "experts". Certainly, the subject of linking is one of those. I am not here today to argue if reciprocal linking is dead or alive. The true facts are obvious and public, for anyone who wants to look close enough to see them in an objective manner. Instead, it may be helpful to talk directly to the site owner / managers out there on this list. As a business owner or manager, whatever you decide to do for your own site has consequences. Taking that one step further, sometimes there are unintended consequences that result from what you DON'T do. For an example that is practical, but unrelated to reciprocal linking, some site owners actively run an email newsletter, and use it to announce new products to their subscribers. Other site owners in the same line of business may have decided to skip the task of maintaining and working an active email list. As time passes, it will become much more difficult for the second site owner to "catch up" to the established email base of their more diligent competitor. That disadvantage is the unintended consequence of deciding against an email newsletter program, and it may not expose itself for months or years down the road. Running a website presents a large number of similar decisions to the site owner/manager. So it goes with reciprocal linking. Some sites do it. Other do not, for a variety of reasons. Reciprocal linking may not be appropriate for a site, or the site owner does not want to commit their limited resources to doing it. Choices must be made. Those are legitimate reasons to not do it, and the owner also accepts in advance that their competitors may not be so constrained and may gain some form of an advantage. In other cases, deciding against it may be due to the advice of "experts" who tell them that it is not effective. That's a case where the owner is also believing that they are yielding no advantage to a competitor. When they find out months or years down the road that the advice was flawed, they may well regret such a decision. Catching up may be very difficult, for a number of reasons. Website marketing strategists who claim that legitimate reciprocal linking is ineffective are certainly entitled to their opinions, but the site owner who is looking to them for guidance must also realize that they are not being provided with any definitive proof of such statements. When the site owner looks around the Web landscape for that proof, they will inevitably find an endless series of circumstances that contradict those pundits. The site owner will need rationalize the discrepancies, and decisions must be made. Those decisions may well provide a competitive advantage to a competitor who is not so constrained. After being in this business for over 5 years, I appreciate that many sites don't do it, and never will. That's what makes the world go round. For sites that do decide to reciprocate with other relevant sites, it may be to their advantage that some of their competitors choose to follow the advice of the anti-reciprocal pundits. For those who decide to do it, they would be well advised to follow the practical guidance of Joel Lesser, in LED 2052. He describes how to do it properly. In all cases, consider the unintended consequences of following advice that may be passionately presented, but it also yields a legitimate competitive advantage to a less-constrained competitor. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Mike Banks Valentine Adam, I believe I've subscribed to LED since 1997, before Microsoft bought LinkExchange and have gained a good deal of my knowledge from list discussions. I imagine that many other list members have been with it from the beginning and, like me, look forward to receiving every issue. The loss of the list would be extremely saddening to those of us who are long-time fans. I've been a long time proponent of posting archives and still refer to them when I'm seeking solutions to web issues I know I've seen discussed in a recent issue of LED-Digest. Too bad they only go back to 2003, since there is a lot more there from the previous 5 or more years. I can't believe the list could end! Have you considered guest moderators when pressed for time? I'm up for that roll if you'd consider me for it. As a former moderator of the (short lived) Adventive-owned "I-Privacy" discussion list, I'd be happy to contribute to LED in the some way if it will keep it going. I'm sure there are others here that would also consider doing so. Let's not let it die due to a lack of time from our esteemed moderator. Thank you for all you do Adam! Mike Banks Valentine http://realityseo.com ------- next post ------- From: Ronni Rhodes Hi, Adam! I noticed immediately that I wasn't getting LED - so there! <g> It's a great forum chock full of information - and the only one left standing that encompasses all aspects of the Web. It's also a nice community.:-) Is there anything WE can do to help? Be guest moderators to help lighten the load? Let us hear from you. We really need LED. Warm regards, Ronni Rhodes Ignite Your Site with Sound and Motion! http://www.wbcimaging.com ------- next post ------- From: Warren Walminski Useful? You bet it is. I have not participated in any of the discussions but to read the exchanges among the few out there that actually are making money off of the Internet is priceless. There is so much theory out there that is absolutely useless. Experienced web folk that are putting their knowledge and experience out there for us is a God send. Seeing examples of their knowledge in a working environment is terrific. The discussions are not being conducted by blowhards or companies trying to sell us something. Keep up the good work if you can. Warren Walminski ------- next post ------- From: Peter D'Aprix Dear Adam I'd be devastated if the list fell by the way side. I rely on it. And yes, I have missed it. I do understand that it is a commitment of time and energy both physical and mental. Perhaps, if you can't manage it any more, there is someone else amongst the readership who would take on some of the burden. Perhaps have several editors, one taking a week a month or divide it up by topic according to each editor's area of expertise. Not a novel idea. Maybe make a web site out of it with some Google AdWords to help cover the cost. I can hear booing in the background. Do like some of the newspapers do, email a link to the new page so we know when there is new content rather than emailing out the page itself. Perhaps make a few specialty departments such as SEO, Blogs, Tech Tips, Shopping Carts, RSS Feeds etc. and make it so each editor can upload their latest stuff directly. If you trust them, it would take a lot of the work load off of you. Just some thoughts. Peter D'Aprix - Visual Communications http://peterdaprix.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Happy Birthday to the world's greatest Mom!  |
