El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
I wanted to do a sitewide link exchange with someone today and this is
what he said:
"I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
weak to rank if I have on every one of them 6 outgoing links. That's
why I don't use sitewide links and you shouldn't too. Google this: how
blogroll can kill your pagerank"
So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
it?
"If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
loads of internal links to retain some (hopefully most) of your
pagerank, and make sure those people you give a link to on your
sidebar reciprocate.
If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."
Every new outgoing link lowers the power of all other links on a page.
Of course that doesn't lower your PageRank directly, just your
internal links pass less PageRank to your other pages. In theory
reciprocal links can keep the PageRank balance, because they give some
PageRank back. In real life however that's not going to work, because
both sides aren't identical, and they live in different environments.
Although it makes no sense: when you consider the theory only, the
concept is flawed, because due to the dampening factor you eliminate
PageRank with reciprocal links between two nodes.
So yes, having the blogroll on a dedicated page is a good idea,
because that saves screen real estate for stuff that's more useful,
for example lists of popular/related/... posts. Services like
Technorati which crawl only the main page and the feed ignore your
blogroll links then, but that's not really a drama.
Bear in mind that site-wide links pass another weight than editorial
links within posts. They might pass a portion of PageRank on every
page, or they might pass PageRank only once, and link juice is more
than just PageRank; what search engines actually do with your blogroll/
Ros/footer/... links depends on many parameters. Anyway, if you don't
know what you do (and obviously you don't) then don't bother with
PageRank sculpting (on blogs) and don't throw rel-nofollow like
confetti. Just make sure that you link enough to your most valuable
stuff to get these pages crawled and indexed, and promote it to
attract deep inbound links that keep them in the index.
Consider your blogroll a networking tool. It tells (blog) search
engines that's you're connected to your peers, and how. That's a
ranking factor. Maintain your blogroll with reputation in mind, put
blogroll links when you think that the other site is interesting for
your readers (regardless whether it's closely related or not), don't
be afraid to link out to your friends, family, business partners ...
and by all means don't think that the other site owes you a link back
when you blogroll it. Cyber sixty niners are worthless when used more
or less exclusively, and that goes especially for reciprocal links
that appear quite simultaneously.
The sort of link exchange you've in mind is a waste of resources.
Smart search engines nullify these links. For example at Google such a
link swap will not help with rankings, more likely it will raise a red
flag. Just link out to great places, then when you provide great
contents yourself, natural links will flow in. Some of them will be
reciprocal, but that's fine because natural reciprocal links do count
for rankings.
I'm not discussing Andy's article, just answering your question.
> I wanted to do a sitewide link exchange with someone today and this is
> what he said:
> "I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
> weak to rank if I have on every one of them 6 outgoing links. That's
> why I don't use sitewide links and you shouldn't too. Google this: how
> blogroll can kill your pagerank"
> So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
> website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
> it?
> "If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
> loads of internal links to retain some (hopefully most) of your
> pagerank, and make sure those people you give a link to on your
> sidebar reciprocate.
> If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
> their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."
So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
launched a new site.
> Every new outgoing link lowers the power of all other links on a page.
> Of course that doesn't lower your PageRank directly, just your
> internal links pass less PageRank to your other pages. In theory
> reciprocal links can keep the PageRank balance, because they give some
> PageRank back. In real life however that's not going to work, because
> both sides aren't identical, and they live in different environments.
> Although it makes no sense: when you consider the theory only, the
> concept is flawed, because due to the dampening factor you eliminate
> PageRank with reciprocal links between two nodes.
> So yes, having the blogroll on a dedicated page is a good idea,
> because that saves screen real estate for stuff that's more useful,
> for example lists of popular/related/... posts. Services like
> Technorati which crawl only the main page and the feed ignore your
> blogroll links then, but that's not really a drama.
> Bear in mind that site-wide links pass another weight than editorial
> links within posts. They might pass a portion of PageRank on every
> page, or they might pass PageRank only once, and link juice is more
> than just PageRank; what search engines actually do with your blogroll/
> Ros/footer/... links depends on many parameters. Anyway, if you don't
> know what you do (and obviously you don't) then don't bother with
> PageRank sculpting (on blogs) and don't throw rel-nofollow like
> confetti. Just make sure that you link enough to your most valuable
> stuff to get these pages crawled and indexed, and promote it to
> attract deep inbound links that keep them in the index.
> Consider your blogroll a networking tool. It tells (blog) search
> engines that's you're connected to your peers, and how. That's a
> ranking factor. Maintain your blogroll with reputation in mind, put
> blogroll links when you think that the other site is interesting for
> your readers (regardless whether it's closely related or not), don't
> be afraid to link out to your friends, family, business partners ...
> and by all means don't think that the other site owes you a link back
> when you blogroll it. Cyber sixty niners are worthless when used more
> or less exclusively, and that goes especially for reciprocal links
> that appear quite simultaneously.
> The sort of link exchange you've in mind is a waste of resources.
> Smart search engines nullify these links. For example at Google such a
> link swap will not help with rankings, more likely it will raise a red
> flag. Just link out to great places, then when you provide great
> contents yourself, natural links will flow in. Some of them will be
> reciprocal, but that's fine because natural reciprocal links do count
> for rankings.
> I'm not discussing Andy's article, just answering your question.
> Sebastian
> On Mar 3, 10:24 am, Mark S wrote:
> > I wanted to do a sitewide link exchange with someone today and this is
> > what he said:
> > "I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
> > weak to rank if I have on every one of them 6 outgoing links. That's
> > why I don't use sitewide links and you shouldn't too. Google this: how
> > blogroll can kill your pagerank"
> > So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> > about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
> > website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
> > it?
> > "If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
> > loads of internal links to retain some (hopefully most) of your
> > pagerank, and make sure those people you give a link to on your
> > sidebar reciprocate.
> > If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
> > their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."
one of the things links do seem to do and i could be wrong in this
method of thought, the more links you have coming in the more often G
seems to recrawl the pages
> So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
> they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> launched a new site.
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Every new outgoing link lowers the power of all other links on a page.
> > Of course that doesn't lower your PageRank directly, just your
> > internal links pass less PageRank to your other pages. In theory
> > reciprocal links can keep the PageRank balance, because they give some
> > PageRank back. In real life however that's not going to work, because
> > both sides aren't identical, and they live in different environments.
> > Although it makes no sense: when you consider the theory only, the
> > concept is flawed, because due to the dampening factor you eliminate
> > PageRank with reciprocal links between two nodes.
> > So yes, having the blogroll on a dedicated page is a good idea,
> > because that saves screen real estate for stuff that's more useful,
> > for example lists of popular/related/... posts. Services like
> > Technorati which crawl only the main page and the feed ignore your
> > blogroll links then, but that's not really a drama.
> > Bear in mind that site-wide links pass another weight than editorial
> > links within posts. They might pass a portion of PageRank on every
> > page, or they might pass PageRank only once, and link juice is more
> > than just PageRank; what search engines actually do with your blogroll/
> > Ros/footer/... links depends on many parameters. Anyway, if you don't
> > know what you do (and obviously you don't) then don't bother with
> > PageRank sculpting (on blogs) and don't throw rel-nofollow like
> > confetti. Just make sure that you link enough to your most valuable
> > stuff to get these pages crawled and indexed, and promote it to
> > attract deep inbound links that keep them in the index.
> > Consider your blogroll a networking tool. It tells (blog) search
> > engines that's you're connected to your peers, and how. That's a
> > ranking factor. Maintain your blogroll with reputation in mind, put
> > blogroll links when you think that the other site is interesting for
> > your readers (regardless whether it's closely related or not), don't
> > be afraid to link out to your friends, family, business partners ...
> > and by all means don't think that the other site owes you a link back
> > when you blogroll it. Cyber sixty niners are worthless when used more
> > or less exclusively, and that goes especially for reciprocal links
> > that appear quite simultaneously.
> > The sort of link exchange you've in mind is a waste of resources.
> > Smart search engines nullify these links. For example at Google such a
> > link swap will not help with rankings, more likely it will raise a red
> > flag. Just link out to great places, then when you provide great
> > contents yourself, natural links will flow in. Some of them will be
> > reciprocal, but that's fine because natural reciprocal links do count
> > for rankings.
> > I'm not discussing Andy's article, just answering your question.
> > Sebastian
> > On Mar 3, 10:24 am, Mark S wrote:
> > > I wanted to do a sitewide link exchange with someone today and this is
> > > what he said:
> > > "I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
> > > weak to rank if I have on every one of them 6 outgoing links. That's
> > > why I don't use sitewide links and you shouldn't too. Google this: how
> > > blogroll can kill your pagerank"
> > > So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> > > about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
> > > website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
> > > it?
> > > "If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
> > > loads of internal links to retain some (hopefully most) of your
> > > pagerank, and make sure those people you give a link to on your
> > > sidebar reciprocate.
> > > If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
> > > their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."
> > > Look forward to your thoughts :)- Hide quoted text -
> So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
> they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> launched a new site.
Define "now" and "still". Ok, I use my time machine to do that for you
and choose a definition from 1998 for "now" and 2001 for "still". ;)
Seriously, Google filters reciprocal link swaps since ages. Even the
very first issue of the Webmaster guidelines (Dos + don'ts back then
in 2002) told us that they dislike artificial linkage like that
(archived copy: http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/help-google-revealing-the-secret-sauce/ ). The filters were improved over time, and with every update more
reciprocal links that exist for the sole purpose of manipulating
search engine rankings hit the dust. Extremely simplified, Google
nullyfies reciprocal links that appear quite at the same time on both
sides, and that goes for triangular link schemes and stuff like that
too. But don't think one is safe with traded/exchanged links when
parts of the link swaps get delayed. For more in-depth information
search the "risky linkage" category of my blog.
> So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
> they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> launched a new site.
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Every new outgoing link lowers the power of all other links on a page.
> > Of course that doesn't lower your PageRank directly, just your
> > internal links pass less PageRank to your other pages. In theory
> > reciprocal links can keep the PageRank balance, because they give some
> > PageRank back. In real life however that's not going to work, because
> > both sides aren't identical, and they live in different environments.
> > Although it makes no sense: when you consider the theory only, the
> > concept is flawed, because due to the dampening factor you eliminate
> > PageRank with reciprocal links between two nodes.
> > So yes, having the blogroll on a dedicated page is a good idea,
> > because that saves screen real estate for stuff that's more useful,
> > for example lists of popular/related/... posts. Services like
> > Technorati which crawl only the main page and the feed ignore your
> > blogroll links then, but that's not really a drama.
> > Bear in mind that site-wide links pass another weight than editorial
> > links within posts. They might pass a portion of PageRank on every
> > page, or they might pass PageRank only once, and link juice is more
> > than just PageRank; what search engines actually do with your blogroll/
> > Ros/footer/... links depends on many parameters. Anyway, if you don't
> > know what you do (and obviously you don't) then don't bother with
> > PageRank sculpting (on blogs) and don't throw rel-nofollow like
> > confetti. Just make sure that you link enough to your most valuable
> > stuff to get these pages crawled and indexed, and promote it to
> > attract deep inbound links that keep them in the index.
> > Consider your blogroll a networking tool. It tells (blog) search
> > engines that's you're connected to your peers, and how. That's a
> > ranking factor. Maintain your blogroll with reputation in mind, put
> > blogroll links when you think that the other site is interesting for
> > your readers (regardless whether it's closely related or not), don't
> > be afraid to link out to your friends, family, business partners ...
> > and by all means don't think that the other site owes you a link back
> > when you blogroll it. Cyber sixty niners are worthless when used more
> > or less exclusively, and that goes especially for reciprocal links
> > that appear quite simultaneously.
> > The sort of link exchange you've in mind is a waste of resources.
> > Smart search engines nullify these links. For example at Google such a
> > link swap will not help with rankings, more likely it will raise a red
> > flag. Just link out to great places, then when you provide great
> > contents yourself, natural links will flow in. Some of them will be
> > reciprocal, but that's fine because natural reciprocal links do count
> > for rankings.
> > I'm not discussing Andy's article, just answering your question.
> > Sebastian
> > On Mar 3, 10:24 am, Mark S wrote:
> > > I wanted to do a sitewide link exchange with someone today and this is
> > > what he said:
> > > "I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
> > > weak to rank if I have on every one of them 6 outgoing links. That's
> > > why I don't use sitewide links and you shouldn't too. Google this: how
> > > blogroll can kill your pagerank"
> > > So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> > > about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
> > > website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
> > > it?
> > > "If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
> > > loads of internal links to retain some (hopefully most) of your
> > > pagerank, and make sure those people you give a link to on your
> > > sidebar reciprocate.
> > > If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
> > > their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."
> > So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
> > they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> > launched a new site.
> Define "now" and "still". Ok, I use my time machine to do that for you
> and choose a definition from 1998 for "now" and 2001 for "still". ;)
> Seriously, Google filters reciprocal link swaps since ages. Even the
> very first issue of the Webmaster guidelines (Dos + don'ts back then
> in 2002) told us that they dislike artificial linkage like that
> (archived copy:http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/help-google-revealing-the-secret-sauce/ > ). The filters were improved over time, and with every update more
> reciprocal links that exist for the sole purpose of manipulating
> search engine rankings hit the dust. Extremely simplified, Google
> nullyfies reciprocal links that appear quite at the same time on both
> sides, and that goes for triangular link schemes and stuff like that
> too. But don't think one is safe with traded/exchanged links when
> parts of the link swaps get delayed. For more in-depth information
> search the "risky linkage" category of my blog.
> Sebastian
> On Mar 3, 2:06 pm, Mark S wrote:
> > Thanks for your in depth reply.
> > So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
> > they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> > launched a new site.
> > On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > Every new outgoing link lowers the power of all other links on a page.
> > > Of course that doesn't lower your PageRank directly, just your
> > > internal links pass less PageRank to your other pages. In theory
> > > reciprocal links can keep the PageRank balance, because they give some
> > > PageRank back. In real life however that's not going to work, because
> > > both sides aren't identical, and they live in different environments.
> > > Although it makes no sense: when you consider the theory only, the
> > > concept is flawed, because due to the dampening factor you eliminate
> > > PageRank with reciprocal links between two nodes.
> > > So yes, having the blogroll on a dedicated page is a good idea,
> > > because that saves screen real estate for stuff that's more useful,
> > > for example lists of popular/related/... posts. Services like
> > > Technorati which crawl only the main page and the feed ignore your
> > > blogroll links then, but that's not really a drama.
> > > Bear in mind that site-wide links pass another weight than editorial
> > > links within posts. They might pass a portion of PageRank on every
> > > page, or they might pass PageRank only once, and link juice is more
> > > than just PageRank; what search engines actually do with your blogroll/
> > > Ros/footer/... links depends on many parameters. Anyway, if you don't
> > > know what you do (and obviously you don't) then don't bother with
> > > PageRank sculpting (on blogs) and don't throw rel-nofollow like
> > > confetti. Just make sure that you link enough to your most valuable
> > > stuff to get these pages crawled and indexed, and promote it to
> > > attract deep inbound links that keep them in the index.
> > > Consider your blogroll a networking tool. It tells (blog) search
> > > engines that's you're connected to your peers, and how. That's a
> > > ranking factor. Maintain your blogroll with reputation in mind, put
> > > blogroll links when you think that the other site is interesting for
> > > your readers (regardless whether it's closely related or not), don't
> > > be afraid to link out to your friends, family, business partners ...
> > > and by all means don't think that the other site owes you a link back
> > > when you blogroll it. Cyber sixty niners are worthless when used more
> > > or less exclusively, and that goes especially for reciprocal links
> > > that appear quite simultaneously.
> > > The sort of link exchange you've in mind is a waste of resources.
> > > Smart search engines nullify these links. For example at Google such a
> > > link swap will not help with rankings, more likely it will raise a red
> > > flag. Just link out to great places, then when you provide great
> > > contents yourself, natural links will flow in. Some of them will be
> > > reciprocal, but that's fine because natural reciprocal links do count
> > > for rankings.
> > > I'm not discussing Andy's article, just answering your question.
> > > Sebastian
> > > On Mar 3, 10:24 am, Mark S wrote:
> > > > I wanted to do a sitewide link exchange with someone today and this is
> > > > what he said:
> > > > "I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
> > > > weak to rank if I have on every one of them 6 outgoing links. That's
> > > > why I don't use sitewide links and you shouldn't too. Google this: how
> > > > blogroll can kill your pagerank"
> > > > So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> > > > about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
> > > > website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
> > > > it?
> > > > "If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
> > > > loads of internal links to retain some (hopefully most) of your
> > > > pagerank, and make sure those people you give a link to on your
> > > > sidebar reciprocate.
> > > > If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
> > > > their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."
> So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> about myths on this subject. Can someone please have a read of the
> website I'm just about to quote and tell me if there is any truth to
> it?
Howdy,
Let's look at what Google and the other search engines can see and
count.
If another site adds a link to you on 100 different web pages, the
search engines are going to see a fast jump of 100 links. They are
also all from the same domain. That tells them you've been busy
arranging a Link Farm connection. They know that link exchanges
normally only happen a few at a time and only one or two from each
domain name.
Just what they will do about that is still guesswork. However, you
can bet they will not like what either site involved is doing.
|
