|
|
Crawling, indexing, and ranking |
y/w
Seriously, Google filters reciprocal link swaps since ages. Even the
Sebastian
On Mar 3, 2:06 pm, Mark S wrote:
> So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
> On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Every new outgoing link lowers the power of all other links on a page.
> > So yes, having the blogroll on a dedicated page is a good idea,
> > Bear in mind that site-wide links pass another weight than editorial
> > Consider your blogroll a networking tool. It tells (blog) search
> > The sort of link exchange you've in mind is a waste of resources.
> > 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
> > > "I will not leak pagerank from my inner blog pages which will be too
> > > So I Googled it but naturally with a skeptical mind as I always hear
> > >http://andybeard.eu/2006/11/how-a-blogroll-can-kill-your-pagerank.html
> > > "If you have 100 external links on every page of your site, you need
> > > If you can't get a reciprocal link, use nofollow, or stick them on
> > > Look forward to your thoughts :)
> So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
Define "now" and "still". Ok, I use my time machine to do that for you
> they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> launched a new site.
and choose a definition from 1998 for "now" and 2001 for "still". ;)
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.
> Thanks for your in depth reply.
> they were still good to go up the rankings, especially if you've just
> launched a new site.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > > what he said:
> > > 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"
> > > 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?
> > > 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.
> > > their own seperate page so they don't suck your own site dry."