| LED Digest 2455: Link Schemes |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom www.GetWebContent.com/LED : the LED's Key Sponsor The Web's Most Experienced SEO Content Providers. www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. July 24, 2007 Issue no. 2455 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ======= NEW ===================== --== RSS - Syndicating Content ==-- ~ Steven Birk "...how would a search engine spider react to this?" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Google's Guidelines on Linking ==-- ~ Eric Ward "For me the operative word is 'scheme'." ~ Greg Vinson "...I found the written policy itself to be balanced and practical." ~ Dirk Johnson "Throwing up roadblocks to new sites...is a real cause for concern." ========== NEW =================================== From: Steve Birk Subject: Integrating RSS Feeds into a Site Because of a lull of sorts and Adam's call to action so to speak, I guess I wouldn't mind throwing a few things out there for a response. I am one of those DIY's, but I have learned most from the contributors of the old I-Sales, I-Design, Help-Desk and this LED Digest, so please be 'gentle' if you see something I am doing wrong regarding the points below. I don't do this for a living but wouldn't mind something to keep me busy when I hope to early-retire in a few years down the road... and if you do happen to check out my one-man band attempt at a site, giving me your first impressions comment would be greatly appreciated. Not asking for a full site review, just a very quick comment to see if I am going down the correct road (ya know, the one without the cliff at the end!). http://MedicalNewsCenter.com/contact.shtml THANKS! #1 - Integrating RSS Feeds into a Site: I have a site at http://MedicalNewsCenter.com that I have been slooowly working on for sometime now and it is getting close to initial completion. My main feature is I take various medical rss feeds from many, many sources, and using SSI and a program that coverts rss feeds into html, I display the rss feeds on my site as html, and link out to the actual source site for the story. If you look at the source code for these type pages, you just see the html code for each articles title and description with the link out, and this code changes daily, sometimes hourly depending on how often the rss feed changes. My question regarding this is how would a search engine spider react to this? Would it look to the spider like most pages change daily because of the rss feed being constantly updated by the source, which would mean the spider would visit more often? Would the search engine know the page is changing daily due to rss feeds, or would it think I am banging away at my keyboard all day long updating these pages, or would that even matter? Look at http://MedicalNewsCenter.com/recent/medical-conditions-news.shtml for example... On that page alone there are internal-links to 300 different medical conditions that each have their own page, and each of those pages have 20 of the latest news articles relating to that condition. I am just trying to understand how a search engine spider would view these pages? #2 - Linking to Other Sites: Like I said, the main feature of my site would be linking out to lots of different sites for the actual news and information articles that are medically related. I do have a check-box feature on all my pages on whether or not to open this news link in a new window. It's default is to be checked to open the news link in a new browser window. My first thought was to open all links in a new window automatically (as many sites seem to do), but decided on the check-box approach so as to not alienate some of my visitors. What's the feeling on clicking on a link and a new browser window opens up, either automatically or by giving my visitor this option? Is this starting to be an accepted practice? Also, I experimented a little bit with framing the content in a frame with a small logo of mine and a 'remove frame' link above the actual content site. But after searching around about framing others content, I decided that, a) I don't want the bad publicity that could go along with doing that, b) I would rather not be threatened with a lawsuit by a major news organization, and c) It's just pretty cheesy to do so in my mind... However, during my experimentation, I was amazed at how many of the bigger news sites (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, USA Today, UPI, etc...) that do NOT have that simple script installed to automatically break their sites out of frames. Incredible!... That would save them lots of lawyer fees if they did that instead of having to go after sites that frame their content! Google 'break out of frames' and put that little piece of code in the head section of each of your pages and you won't have to worry much about whether someone is framing your content. Sorry about the length! Regards, Steven Birk http://MedicalNewsCenter.com ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Eric Ward Subject: Link exchanges Joel Lesser commented on Google's linking guideline: > I will cautiously presume this guideline is more targeted towards > some webmasters who participate in full duplex (fully automated) > link schemes where links are obtained in high volume with little to > no editorial control. This has been my experience. There are many scenarios where nearly 100% link reciprocity would make complete sense and not be suspicious. Then again there are scenarios where nearly 100% link reciprocity could indicate a link scheme. For me the operative word is "scheme". An example is fan sites. If 47 people around the world have each created a site / blog / forum devoted to the old TV show "Bonanza", then it's perfectly reasonable that the reciprocity of links between these 47 sites could approach 100% with no cause for concern. See http://bonanzaworld.net/links.php My guess is many of these sites link to each other with no intent to garner pagerank favor or rank improvement. It may not be 100% reciprocity on their links pages, but it's logical and natural that all these Bonanza fans may want to communicate and congregate online, given their shared interest in a very specific topic. These types of links pages can be far more useful to Google than a links pages about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. This search - TV show "bonanza links" has 27 results But this search - "Paris Hilton " "web links" has 269,000 results If you were Google, and you took these two examples, examine each ones collection of inbound links, reciprocated links and/or possibly paid / negotiated links, which example's links would you trust and use for ranking purposes, and which would you be suspicious of and ignore? Bonanza links? Probably trustworthy Paris Hilton links? Probably NOT trustworthy This is an extreme example and I freely admit I have absolutely zero empirical data to support it. It's just based on studying links and rankings for so many years across so many sites that certain results and conclusions become easier to evaluate and feel confident about. Eric Ward ============ Sponsor Message =========== At GetWebContent.com, the price of quality is always right. Not always the same, but always reasonable without ups or extras. Just ask for a free, no-obligation proposal and we'll quote an exact price for precisely what you want. Don't be fooled by bogus fixed-price offers for drag-and- dump generic copy. Visit www.GetWebContent.com/LED where our copy, and our prices, are custom-tailored for you. ============ Sponsor Message =========== -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Greg Vinson Subject: Google Going Overboard on Links? Hi Adam, I haven't written in ages but haven't stopped lurking. I've had google ads (guidetobeadwork.com) for over almost two years now so I scan your google related items. I read the full document at Google and this item (see below) seems out of context and misleading to me. The quote is accurate but it is in a section about what NOT to do. Just though you should know. Please look for yourself. > A brand new webmaster guideline specifically mentioning > link exchange has been published over at Google: > http://snipurl.com/1omxu [google.com/support] > Is this Google webmaster guideline over-reaching? > Will this guideline affect how you link with other sites? > Do you think this guideline is fair? Is Google dictating > how webmasters obtain relevant traffic...? - Joel Lesser, LED Digest 2454 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1862/190/ This item is very misleading IMHO. I strongly disagree and cannot help but wonder what Mr. Lesser's agenda is in submitting it. Maybe I am just not getting whatever it is he is concerned about. Google writes at length about editorial control over links by webmasters. The quote from google above refers to undifferentiated reciprocal links, without regard to content, linking for linking's sake alone, including automated linking schemes and, again, listed in the section about what NOT to do. Whatever one might think about google's enforcement practices concerning its own policies, I have to say that I found the written policy itself to be balanced and practical. Greg Vinson, Webmaster GuideToBeadwork.com "Integrity is gold in an information economy" -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Link exchanges Joel Lesser brings up some very important points and questions. I'd like to add another perspective, since I have been involved with link exchanges before Goggle even existed. Gracious link reciprocation between two sites in the same realm of interest is a web marketing practice that predates EVERY search engine. In fact, the power of most niche websites in the early days of the World Wide Web was often in part, (and sometimes completely), based upon the strength of the link directory that the site provided to it's visitors. The most ambitious sites provided the best resources and, likewise, they were likely referenced from many of the sites that they listed in their directories. They were called hubs. In fact, those were exactly the kinds of sites that Google rewarded, from their inception. I witnessed it first-hand. The World Wide Web is, quite literally, based upon links. When two sites have a good reason to link to and from one another, they should be able to do it, without hindrance or consideration from a third party. The new Goggle guidelines are very confusing. Are they going to punish sites that have been reciprocating properly for years and years, even before Google existed? Or will they apply this only to just new sites? How fair is that? A very careful read of the page that Joel referenced makes it clear that relevant and proper reciprocation is still within Google's guidelines. As a business owner, do you really want your site to have be reviewed by a self-appointed Google compliance specialist, whose advice may or may not be accurate? I'd think not. What if you have a real business need to link to a site with PR0? Should you do it? The easiest and safest thing of all for any business to do is to simply refuse to link any other site. Is that the WWW that Google wants to foster? They seem to be headed in that direction. I don't think that the pioneers who conceived of and developed the tools for the World Wide Web would be happy to see a private entity wielding so much influence over how and why sites link to each other. Linking should be based solely on relevance and business need, and nothing else. Anything that forces a business owner to look beyond those considerations adds unwelcome interference. BTW - to the "one-way link vendors" of the world and the SEO consultants that employ them, you all should look at all of this very cautiously, and avoid any gloating. Most one-way link vendors are selling paid links, one way or another. Google has already made waves that they are chasing this kind of thing down, as well. They want you to turn in your competitors who are buying links, as well as the sites where they buy them. Yes, content is king. Good content is the foundation of a good site. But new sites have a HUGE disadvantage to well-established sites. For example, a new real estate agent in Las Vegas has very little opportunity to get their site linked gratuitously, regardless of the quality of the content that it presents. There is just so much noise and indifference out there that "great content" can now be easily ignored, while mediocre content that is already well-established in terms of references to it will continue to rank very well, indefinitely. Quelling the legitimate opportunities that do exist simply adds to the that advantage. Throwing up roadblocks to new sites, in the form of scaring them away from legitimate and relevant linking opportunities, and also forcing them to evaluate every link that they place, is a real cause for concern. Or is should be. Best regards, Dirk Johnson DomainDrivers LLC ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by: GetWebContent.com The Web's Most Experienced SEO Content Providers. Free no-obligation proposal: http://GetWebContent.com/LED SEOToolSet.com Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification Join the certified SEO directory: www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ The Archives: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/126/189/ Subscribe: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/52/187/ Unsubscribe, Change Email, or Hold / Resume Delivery: http://www.led-digest.com/content/category/4/17/201/ (c) Copyright 1995-2007 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Xenophon |
