| LED Digest 2640: Denotative Linking |
|
|
|
==================================================
The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom http://www.AudetteMedia.com : the LED's Publisher Boutique Internet Marketing: SEO, SEM, Social Media http://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 .............................................. May 6, 2008 Issue no. 2640 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Triangular Linking ==-- ~ David Spahr "...reciprocal may be a good description for voluntary, relevant, denotative links." ~ Dirk Johnson "...ignore the SEO aspects of reciprocation." ~ Angela Booth "Joel, thanks for the great post..." --== SEO for Flash ==-- ~ Michael Linehan "...I recommend text-based pages with Flash used as a spice..." ~ John Smart "A person who codes in flash would be a 'flasher'." ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: David Spahr Subject: Linking > 1. Denotative - two pages / sites that link > between each other. > > 2. Connotative - the common usage is used > to mean "a page full of links to people who > agree to link back to me" style reciprocal > links. - Michael Motherwell, LED 2638 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2053/190/ I like that there should be terms that make this distinction. Connotative and denotative are certainly descriptive enough but the actual words will cause a lot of head scratching and looking up to see what each one means. I think reciprocal may be a good description for voluntary, relevant, denotative links. I think "ransom linking" is a good term for the other type. "I'll link to you if you link to me and my link will do you whole bunches of good." Usually these types of link requests will say "Dear webmaster" and may be peripherally related at best. They always explain what a great favor they are doing for you (and they will remove your link if you don't reciprocate). I reject virtually every one. This is a common SEO tactic. It certainly seems to work for increasing ranking. When this type of strategy is used correctly by keeping link solicitations directly on topic and absolutely germane to needs and interests of the customers of the website, it is a good thing. Those kinds of links are likely to be happily accepted and the links list is likely to be appreciated by both customers and the searches. Many cast a far wider net though getting close to the spam area requesting from sites that are only remotely related (and forgetting customer interest). You end up with a rotund link list that may boost rankings but be more of "here is a list of semi related webmasters desperate enough to link to us to improve their rankings" kind of a list. Reasons I reject reciprocation: 1. Poor or no description of listed links. No description is the worst sin. 2. Poor organization. The norm. 3. Links are only peripherally related to either their or my site (and links to crappy sites). 4. Too large to want to look at. I hate multi page link sites and really don't care to be one line in an ungainly list of 3000 links. 5. "Dear webmaster" spammy greeting and explanation of benefits. Obvious evidence they did not read my page. I explain at the top of the page exactly what I will and will not accept. Links I accept or create: 1. Links absolutely germane to the needs and interests of my visitors. Reciprocation not necessary. When I do solicit a link, I am accepted 95% of the time because I have relevant, excellent content. David Spahr http://www.stereoviews.com/links.html -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Triangular linking > What's the current thinking about > "triangular linking"? Since reciprocal > links have been devalued, does this > strategy make sense? Are there any hidden > dangers? Is there a right and wrong way to > do it? - Scotty West, LED 2638 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2052/190/ Hi Scotty, Thanks for allowing me to shed some light on this subject. I think that what I have to say is not the "mainstream" thinking that you'll see elsewhere on this subject, but it is based on a lot of direct experience with proper reciprocation, over ten years and hundreds of sites. First, let's tackle the "reciprocal links have been devalued" statement. I am sure that you have read this from some "expert" somewhere. Several, in fact. Maybe they are even a "famous" SEO guru. In the SEO world, people can say anything, and they do. There is no requirement to back up anything, or that it even hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Just make it sound good. What's missing from this "reciprocal links have been devalued" argument is any proof whatsoever. I've been asking for this from the anti-reciprocation crowd for years. It NEVER materializes. From my own experience with hundreds of sites, old and new, reciprocation works the same now as it always has. If it has been devalued on it's face, it does not seem to have made any difference in real search results. I've seen virtually no evidence of that in my work here. None. Scotty, you are in the guitar business. We have a client in the guitar business, with two websites, and they have reciprocated in the music/guitar realm very actively, for well over 5 years now. That's how they have built their link foundation. For their primary terms, they outrank sites that are much more well-known, and they have enjoyed first page rankings for years. I can point you to sites in other realms of interest that have the exact same kind of link profile and results. Now, let's also realize that proper and gracious reciprocation between two sites that have a legitimate reason to do it is one of the original and fundamental marketing methods on the WWW, and it predates EVERY search engine. In that context, our guitar client gets a SUBSTANTIAL volume of traffic directly from these reciprocated links that have been placed on other guitar/music sites. That traffic is wholly independent from their search traffic. But it is a huge percentage of overall traffic. Reciprocation-based traffic for a site that is in a hobbyist/enthusiast realm of interest is a HUGE source of traffic, links, awareness and branding. It is directly reflected in the traffic stats, as referrals. Forget about the SEO aspects. That is not really what proper reciprocation is about. I find it astonishing that people who call themselves "marketing professionals" would advise someone like you to avoid this rich, independent, and free source of relevant traffic from other sites in the guitar world. You'd be fighting the fight with one hand tied and denying yourself a substantial traffic benefit. That kind of advice is outright malpractice, and, worse, it is all based on unfounded and misguided theories about how search engines evaluate reciprocated links. It's the world turned upside down, for some kind of convoluted SEO gaming. 'nuff said about that for now... Three way linking....One good question to ask about any linking tactic is this...Would you do it if Google did not exist? With reciprocation the answer is often, (but not always) yes, since it is a very good way to brand a site within a realm of interest. It is very straightforward. With three-way links, NOBODY would ever bother to concoct such goofy schemes if they weren't trying to game a search engine. Do you think that the search engine engineers want us to pursue these kinds of things? Of course not. They want to see valid links. Think about it in this way..if someone asks you to link to their primary site, but they want to give you a link from some garbage site that they own, would you take that deal.? Of course not. Nobody wants that deal. You will find that the honest reciprocators will run away from three-way link offers, and rightfully so. You'll be left trying to get links from game players. In the guitar realm there are probably few, if any, legitimate sites that are interested such three-way link schemes. It should be no surprise that guitar site owners are remarkably down-to-earth and they are uninterested in SEO games. I've been doing this for years. I do know the lay of the land here. Three-way linking is rampant in the bigger traffic categories, like pharma, gambling, etc. Not in guitars and music. If some SEO advisor is trying to send you down this path, then they are a first-class fool, and they are completely unaware of the real world situation in guitar-related reciprocal linking. It's a dead end. To avoid the "fairness" issue with tree-way linking that I mentioned above, you could concoct a "four-way" link scheme. That is, both parties in the exchange each have a primary site and a garbage site. They place their links on their garbage site, and try to get links back to their primary site. In this way, both parties are treated "equally". This is actually a common scenario with three-way linking, so technically, it's often "four way" linking, in practice. Now, if you analyze this ridiculous scenario, you will realize that BOTH parties have expended A LOT of effort to each get themselves a link from a garbage website. I can't think of a bigger waste of time. Yet, this is what passes for "good advice" in many corners of the SEO world, in order to avoid reciprocation. Scotty, ignore the SEO aspects of reciprocation. Go and get as many links as possible from legitimate music/guitar sites that make public offers to reciprocate. That is called BRANDING yourself within a realm of interest, not SEO gaming. Treat your link partners fairly, and present their link responsibly, just as you want them to do for you. It has worked well, since the beginning of the WWW, and continues. The SEO world is chock full of total nonsense. Theories that are made up out of whole cloth, then promoted by so call "experts", many of whom have name recognition that far exceeds their skill and true understanding of SEO issues. It's a real mess. When someone comes along takes the time to stop fantasizing about what the search engines might like, and applies some common sense and an experienced perspective, combined with an analysis of actual search results and a knowledge of how this plays out with real sites over a long period of time, most of these complicated SEO games and theories fail miserably to hold water. This is not that hard. Don't over-analyze links. Just get as many links as possible from music and guitar sites, and keep doing it indefinitely. That includes reciprocated links, but it also includes forums, blogs, social network sites, etc. etc. Get ALL that you can. In the end, that is called good, solid branding. That is what is rewarded by Google, for good reason. Best regards, Dirk Johnson DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Angela Booth Subject: Triangular linking Joel, thanks for the great post, especially for: > Yahoo! and Google's guidelines does NOT > state "do not reciprocal link". Their > guidelines only state to avoid "excessive > reciprocal linking". - Joel Lesser, LED 2639 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2054/190/ I've always been timid about reciprocal linking - I don't do it at all, because I though it was cheating. Your post has given me a whole new perspective. It makes great sense - so now I'm going to approach a couple of sites where linking would benefit all of us. Great stuff. :-) All best wishes Angela Booth http://angelabooth.com/ -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Michael Linehan Subject: Flash SEO > As a printing company online... we have > been using Flash successfully for many > years: we call it the Design-it-Yourself > section so that people who are design > challenged can create their own direct > marketing postcards online, and proof it > before it goes to print. - Barb Sybal, LED 2638 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2053/190/ Ah yes. Another use. Good one. There are probably more. > In fact if it wasn't for google loving text so > much my viewers would love to have all my sites > completely flash based! - Richard Graham, LED 2638 And if the search engines didn't love text so much, I wouldn't have written that post, and the whole topic would be irrelevant. So there is the overarching context, "On *today's* Web, with search engines working how they do, for anyone who cares at all about search engine rank, I recommend text-based pages with Flash used as a spice - i.e. for specific functions such as a slide show, or a game, or an interactive teaching tool with sound." Michael Linehan, Marketing Alchemy www.marketing-alchemy.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: John Smart Subject: Flash SEO There is another angle on the flash debate - many sites do not have elegant work arounds for non flash users. Non flash users? Surely there are no non flash users are there? (maybe just the Lynx text browser in Linux?). Iphones and I touches, which are starting to make a (small) impact in my site statistics, and those of my clients do not support flash - I do not know if this is true for the Voyager. Also not sure how important this is going to be - will the engines penalize sites that do not work optimally on mobile devices? Google is embracing hand held devices (giving a different version of Google to those on the pda/cell phones (Google.com/m if you are curious) It is clear that Adobe are very concerned that apple won't integrate the flash player - based on comments from Mr. Jobs and some other high-ups in the Apple tree, it appears that they don't care. So maybe, finally, we will see the end of flash. I have to be honest - I quite like flash - but in moderation. If I am at a musicians/game companies/TV station/new movie site, I am disappointed if there is no flash. If I am trying to buy a memory stick, or research a car or some software, leave the flash out of the way, especially the 'growing' flash that interferes with my reading. There is also the element of humor - this may be British humor, if so, I hope Adam edits it out! A person who codes in flash would be a 'flasher'. Isn't a 'flasher' someone who goes around parks wearing only a trench coat and surprising people in the park? Maybe that prevented it catching on as much as it should. :) John Smart InternetDesign.com A Human Touch in a Digital world. (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens -- and then everybody disagrees." - Boris Marshalov |
