|
|
Crawling, indexing, and ranking |
Thanks for your in depth reply.
So reciprocal link exchange are now worthless to Google? I thought
On Mar 3, 10:39 am, Sebastian wrote:
> 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 :)
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.
> 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."