SEO News » Tags » Link

Feeds

2826 items (2301 unread) in 3 feeds

Google (194 unread)

• Official Google Webmaster Central Blog (194 unread)

SEO (2107 unread)

• Emily Chang (157 unread)
• Search Engine Roundtable (1950 unread)

72 items tagged "Link"

Related tags: Building [+]

Search Engine Roundtable

• 

  Are Link Exchange Emails Dead?

  Posted: August 9th, 2010, 3:45pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  The top of asking for links, is nothing new. We wrote about link exchanges dozens of times here, heck we know that Tuesday mornings is the best time to send them out to convince people to link to you.

  But in 2010, are link exchanges emails still worth it? When you get a link exchange request, do you delete the email without looking? Do you bother reading link exchange emails? Do you bother replying? Do you send them out yourself?

  Take our poll:

  Do You Respond To Link Exchange Emails?survey software

  A WebmasterWorld thread is having a debate on this topic now. Moderator, martinibuster, said:

  Virtually ever link request I have received for at least the last six years has been useless trash. If I put a rule on my inbox to permanently delete any email with typical link request subject lines, I am confident I will not miss reading them.

  Is it possible that we have reached the end of blind reciprocal link requests and it's time the industry stopped sending them?

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  How To Sell Links On Your Web Site

  Posted: August 5th, 2010, 3:42pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld has discussion around a topic I don't think I ever covered... How does one sell links on their web site without getting penalized? Of course, you can nofollow the links but what about not nofollowing them?

  First bet is to not do what we do here, because we are penalized. :)

  But what can you do to sell links to sites, make some cash on the side and not be impacted by Google's almightily PageRank penalties? The thread has a few suggestions including:

  (1) Make sure to always control the link text and URL manually
  (2) Only link to relevant sites
  (3) Link to sites that don't seem banned or sketchy
  (4) Do long term link sales, so it is less of a rotating ad network
  (5) Site wide foot links or side bar links are a red flag
  (6) Don't advertise the links are for sale

  I think I can go on and on, so feel free to add your own or discussion.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Longer Anchor Text As a Link Building Strategy

  Posted: August 2nd, 2010, 3:36pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  When doing a form on unnatural link building, you try to make it look more natural. One way is to make sure to mix up your anchor text. Another way is to make sure the sites your links are on are not linking to you in an unnatural way. Maybe that means sitewide links on some sites, maybe it means the placement of the link and maybe it means the words used in the link.

  A WebmasterWorld thread has one link builder asking how important it is to go long with your anchor text. Instead of using the prime keyword in your anchor text, why not extend it?

  Rather than using "green widgets" as the anchor I prefer using something like "consumer guide to green widgets" embedded within a sentence. The preference is to gain SERP positions of green widgets.

  The link builder asks:

  Does the added text dilute the effect on the desired phrase green widgets?

  Does it? Even if it does, it might be a good strategy to mix that up a bit? What would you do?

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  If Links Age, What Are The Possibilities

  Posted: July 27th, 2010, 3:58pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Tedster started a thread at WebmasterWorld about aged links. He said that there is a debate about if search engines, such as Google, "age" links. If they do, is aging a link a good thing or a bad thing? He came up with four possibilities of what an aged link can mean and it includes:

  (1) One is that as months go by and a backlink stays in place, then it potentially gets a bit of a boost - because it's more trusted as it proves that it's stable.

  (2) Another possibility is that as a linking page ages and show no further life, no change, and gathering no further backlinks of its own, then the links it offers to target pages have less and less value.

  (3) And yet another is that a new fresh backlink is at its most powerful when first found - part of the "freshness" obsession.

  (4) And then there's still another point of view - that the patents don't mean very much and that a backlink's value will only change as the linking page's own value goes up or down, or the number of links on the page changes.

  Do you agree that links age over time and if so, which route do they age in?

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Link Building Tip: Salvage Links by 404s & More

  Posted: July 23rd, 2010, 3:45pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread has two moderators offering some basic tips on how to garner more links for your web site.

  The easiest method is to find links you already have but might not be counting.

  
  Buckworks from the forum suggested using Google Webmaster Tools, going to the "Not Found" report in crawl errors and making sure to 301 redirect those URLs to the relevant URLs that currently exist on your site.

  Yes, this is a basic SEO tip, not just for link building but for overall good SEO practice. We know it only takes a couple weeks for a 301 to pass the link juice from the old URL to the new. But we also know there is a minor dampening factor for 301ed link juice.

  The moderator of the WebmasterWorld link building forum, martinibuster, also suggested that you look for links to pages that don't really link anywhere. Pages such like PDF files, Word documents, and other non-HTML pages and suggest the linker link to the HTML page instead.

  There are tons of tips like this, so make sure to join the thread and chime in.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  How Do You Verify Someone Is Linking To You

  Posted: July 22nd, 2010, 3:16pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread has one link builder asking other link builders how they go about verifying sites are actually linking to their sites.

  Link builders get others to link to their site. They do this by writing excellent content, providing linkable stuff, begging, asking and even paying for links. Once you get the link, you want to make sure it sticks - especially if you are paying.

  I am pretty sure the more advanced link building companies build software to check sites on a routine schedule. They build spiders that sniff out pages where the link should reside. They aren't 100% foolproof but they help.

  Other companies use other tools to aid in ensuring links are where they should be. Some use Yahoo Site Explorer, some use Google Webmaster Tools, some use advanced search queries.

  While others simply do hand checks from a list of sites they check manually.

  What do you do?

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Do Links Every Really Disappear?

  Posted: July 20th, 2010, 3:09pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Tedster at WebmasterWorld asks an excellent question. In short, he wants to know if links ever truly disappear from Google's link graph. Let me quote him:

  We've all seen URLs "fall out" of the index at times. But does Google still use those URLs as part of their web graph when they iterate link juice? Or is their web graph confined only to those URLs that can be retrieved as search results?

  I'm sure that once a URL is crawled, the data is not just gone if the URL is no longer in the visible index - Google wouldn't throw away data, right So I wonder if the publicly visible pages that can be shown in the SERPs at any one moment are only a subset of the full web graph that Google uses for PageRank calculations - and others, too.

  This idea came to him after midnight, on Sunday morning. I suspect many SEOs have thought of this in passing but never really put the concept down on paper.

  Yea, I am sure they never go away in terms of Google storing them somewhere. But do you think they continue to pass on link juice after they are long gone?

  Moderator, lammert, replied:

  One of my sites has about 50% of the pages with the "noindex,follow" robots attribute. They are not visible in the SERPs, but experience is that link juice just happily flows. That may not be fully representative for links which "fall out" of the index, but the juice graph of Google consists of definitely more than just visible URLs.

  What do you think? Take our poll:

  Do "Fall Out" Links Ever Lose All It's Link Juice?customer surveys

  Ever is a strong word, so let's say non-penalized links that simply just end up going away. Do they pass even a tiny bit of link juice? If so, answer "No."

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  SEOs Split On Buying Links From Brokers

  Posted: July 20th, 2010, 2:49pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Two weeks ago, we ran a poll asking if you would buy a text link from Text Link Ads or another link broker.

  We have well over 300 responses and I wanted to share the results.

  The bottom line is that SEOs can't agree on if you should or shouldn't.

  • 48% said they would buy a text ad from a broker to benefit their own sites.
  • 45% said they would not buy a text ad from a broker.
  • 5% said they would only buy a text ad from a broker to hurt their competitors.
  • 2% had other things to say

  This was a pretty popular poll.

  Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help and WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Are Competitors Stealing Your Links?

  Posted: July 14th, 2010, 3:51pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A paid member only thread at WebmasterWorld has outstanding discussion around the topic of competitors stealing your links.

  You have sites that you work on, continuously over the past several years. You build high quality content, attract relevant and top quality links and then your competitors just take it all away from you.

  The thread discusses methods used by competitors to easily take away those links through manual means. These are not hacking attempts but rather scare tactics. The thread discusses specific tactics that work at really high rates. I won't discuss those tactics here, since it is a private thread but I will discuss the advice given.

  It is always a good idea to keep track of your current links and then be aware when a link you acquired over time is lost. If it is lost, you should be aware of why? Was the page removed? Did they drop all the links? Did the link swap out to a competitor? So keep tabs on your links and, in this case, be reactive to changes with your links.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld (paid subscription required).

  
  

• 

  Poll: How Important Is Traffic As A Link Buying Factor?

  Posted: July 13th, 2010, 3:28pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread asks the question on the most important factors when pricing out a link buy.

  The moderator of the forum, martinibuster, makes a clear point to say this is not about the ethics of buying links to influence your rankings but rather, if you did buy links, what factors are most important.

  Martinibuster, Roger Montti, brings up traffic metrics when determining the value of a link. He said he isn't a fan of using PageRank as a metric and asks people, how valuable in terms of pricing a link is the traffic metric? I know some link builders who would prefer a high trafficked link versus a link with high PageRank, but some don't always agree.

  I have a poll below, please take it and tell your friends to take it.

  How Important Is Traffic Metrics In Link Buying?online surveys

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Really Excellent Link Building Interviews

  Posted: July 8th, 2010, 3:23pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Rae at Outspoken Media compiled one of the best sets of link building interviews I have seen, possibly, ever. She had ten or so link building experts submit one question each and then answer all the submitted questions. The other twist was that no one was able to see each other's answers until it was published, which was now.

  I won't share the long and excellent answers now, but I will share the questions. Read the full interview (or print it and read it later) at Outspoken Media.

  The questions:

  (1) What are a few emerging link tactics that you've seen in the past 12 months providing tremendous value to sites/pages? Can you give a specific example or two?

  (2) The SEO industry has become so stingy with linking to quality content to the point that many people who used to share a lot of it simply don't bother, as it is not worth the cost of doing so. Is this a trend which spreads? Are we canaries in the coal mine, or is this just an issue impacting the SEO niche because it is far too saturated? What can Google do to encourage organic linking on the WWW (outside of nepotism, hype, spin, misinformation & ego-baiting)?

  (3) What are the criteria for the "perfect link"?

  (4) How do you go about creating a link marketing plan that will A:) Get tangible search results in a 6 to 12 month period and B:) Create sustainability for the website you are creating the plan for (i.e. keeping the links clean and adding links with long term value)

  (5) If you could choose a link on a lower authority page that would provide a moderate amount of targeted traffic or a link on a higher authority page that would provide absolutely no traffic – all other attributes being equal – for ranking benefits on the site you’re developing links for, which would you choose and why?

  (6) Do you feel that you can conserve pagerank or that it's still worth the effort to sculpt your links, by limiting the number of links on a page, creating them with JavaScript, passing them through a blocked page or using nofollow?

  (7) Please discuss what link deprecation is and what impact it may have on a link building campaign.

  (8) Do you think search engines are trying to find a way to depend less on link popularity and more on other algorithmic/social media factors?

  (9) How much do you stress internal linking on your own or clients' sites? Do you have a quick rule of thumb or strategy to maximize the effectiveness of internal links?

  (10) What's a successful link development strategy many overlook or dismiss?

  (11) What have you been most WRONG about over the course of your link building/SEO career?

  There are some additional questions, plus all the great answers, so check it out.

  Forum discussion at Sphinn.

  
  

• 

  Would You Buy a Link From Link Brokers Like Text Link Ads?

  Posted: July 6th, 2010, 3:10pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Over the course of five plus years, the topic of link brokerage houses have been a popular topic in the forums. I often try to stay away from the topic, due to it being a very controversial and heated debate. But I have seen many threads over the years and two recent ones that encouraged me to post a poll asking for your feedback.

  I have some people who swear by buying links from link brokers. I have others who would never go next to a broker, not even with a ten-foot pole.

  One of the largest, if not the largest, brokers out there is Text Link Ads. I was wondering, as a show of hands, who would buy a link from them and why? Please take my anonymous poll below and have all your SEO buddies take it:

  Would/Do You Buy Links From Text Link Ads?customer surveys

  Forum discussion specifically about this at Google Webmaster Help and WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Get Link Value From Your Affiliate Links

  Posted: June 28th, 2010, 3:32pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Affiliates and SEOs don't always get along, but at the same time, some of the best affiliates are the best SEOs and some of the best SEOs are the best affiliates. They often go hand in hand, but there is often a disconnect between the two.

  Many SEO affiliates look to maximize their links by making sure those that link to them via affiliate URLs also pass link weight along with it.

  An excellent "supporters" thread (meaning, you need to pay to see it) at WebmasterWorld talks about strategies to get the best of both worlds. To get people to use your affiliate program, pay them and track them, but at the same time, keep link weight passed by those links.

  In short, ZydoSEO, a preferred member talks about three strategies. I will mention them shortly here but feel free to check out the thread after becoming a supporter. (Note, I am not making an affiliate commission by saying this :))

  (1) Use normal tracking URLs, cookie the click and commissions and then 301 redirect them back to the main URL. Once the information is passed to the cookie, it should be fine to 301 redirect those links.

  (2) Use search engine friendly based tracking URLs, still you want to cookie the click and then 301 redirect them to the proper place.

  (3) Or you can try the rel=canonical element, instead of a physical redirect, you redirect search engines that way.

  The canonical method is probably the easiest route, but not all search engines fully support it yet. Google does.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Hide Links From Google? Google Says No To SEO

  Posted: June 18th, 2010, 3:35pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A Google Webmaster Help thread started by SEOmofo is clearly out to try to get a Googler riled up. He posted on the topic of hiding links from Google in order to get "an official answer" from Google and that is what he got.

  In fact, he even wrote a blog post Hey, Matt Cutts, I’m using JavaScript to hide links from Google, cool? Matt never replied, but JohnMu from Google replied in the Google Webmaster Help.

  It is actually a fun response to read, so let me quote it:

  I think you're mixing two unrelated topics:

  1. You're hiding links from Googlebot. Personally, I wouldn't recommend doing that as it makes it harder to properly understand the relevance of your website. I also doubt that you'd see any kind of visible change with regards to PageRank. Ultimately, that's your choice, just as it would be our choice to review those practices as potential attempts to hide content & links. What's the advantage for the user?

  2. You're using late loading of content in an attempt to improve the perceived page loading time. To be honest, given your high level of technical expertise, I'm certain that you could have the full content load within a much lower time without doing that. Personally, I'd go for c) showing the user the full content within less than 2 seconds. It's not impossible -- and not only will Googlebot like it, your users will as well. I find slow loading affiliate sites (regardless of whether or not it's showing some of the content alread) a big pain and a frequent sign of low-quality content. Make your site run like lightning all the time.

  Have you seen the stats by Yahoo & Amazon on slow sites? There's some great stuff at http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/ and http://code.google.com/speed/ . Also, did you see http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2010/04/05/firefox-page-load-speed-–-part-ii/ ? They estimate 60 million more clicks by making a single late-loading image show up 2.2 seconds earlier. In comparison, you're considering delaying the loading of your affiliate content for users by up to 12 seconds (ok, looking at the waterfall diagram you included, it's not quite that long, but you get the idea)...

  So personally, instead of doing these tricks, I'd work on creating a long-term infrastructure that would allow you to serve your content at a blazing speed, all the time, without an attempt to do a short-term optimization for Googlebot.

  Seems fairly clear to me that Google doesn't think it is "cool" to use either of these tactics. The "worlds greatest SEO" posted this for what reason? Did he really not know what Google would say to his question or is he trying to cause some controversy? Either way, it worked, a Googler replied, we covered it and maybe everyone is happy.

  Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help and a hat tip to Colin for pointing me to this thread.

  
  

• 

  Reciprocal Links: Do They Still Work?

  Posted: June 16th, 2010, 3:48pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  We have talked about reciprocal links dozens, maybe hundreds, of times here already. However, a new thread at WebmasterWorld tries to understand the issue, if any with them.

  The overall understanding from the thread is that reciprocal links still work and work well. The issue comes up when you do it "excessively" where your links are coming from unrelated web sites and you are linking back to unrelated pages.

  Senior member, Whitey is asking if there is a way to automate the reciprocal link request emails to see if they don't appear to be automated and excessive to Google.

  Martinibuster, the moderator of the forum goes into the issue:

  What has changed in the last five or six years is that excessive recips became a reason for scrutiny. Prior to 2005, there was a misconception that reciprocal linking was white hat- even though Google's webmaster guidelines did not state any such thing. The thinking was that as long as your linking is relevant then Google is going to love it, even if you recip with thousands of sites.

  But let's be clear about recent history. There have been bannings of specific reciprocal link networks that crossed the line of "excessiveness." In general, I think it's a good policy to cycle through various link strategies so the backlink profile isn't heavy in any one kind of link.

  As one member said, reciprocal links are unavoidable, in a sense.

  What is your take?

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Will Twitter's New URL Shortener Hurt SEOs?

  Posted: June 10th, 2010, 3:15pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Twitter announced they will be wrapping all links through their own URL shortener. So if you post a URL, it will automatically be shortened and passed through http://t.co/ as a URL.

  I tested the URLs and they are 301 redirected, which is a good thing. But many SEOs already use a URL shortener and yes, those URLs are 301ed.

  The thing is, most SEOs prefer not to chain redirect URLs. By that I mean, you do not want to 301 redirect a bit.ly URL to a t.co URL and then 301 that to a final destination URL. The more 301 redirects, the slower search engines pick up and pass through.

  Plus, we do know that some PageRank is lost during 301 redirecting a URL to another URL. So having it go through two redirects adds to that. Plus, it takes Googler a longer time to realize chain redirects. Finally, a recent SEOmoz Whiteboard Friday with Matt Cutts said chain redirects are a bad idea.

  So if SEOs continue to use their own shorteners and if Twitter passes short URLs through their own shorteners, then SEOs may have a problem with the chain redirects.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Reciprocal Links Are Unavoidable

  Posted: June 8th, 2010, 4:17pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  There is a nice basic link building thread at WebmasterWorld on the topic of reciprocal links.

  In this thread, SEOs are talking about the right of SEO companies to require their clients to link back to them. Many believe this is not a professional practice, while others don't think it is a big deal. Either way, that topic of debate is not my point for covering the thread.

  My point for covering the thread is to say that not all reciprocal links are bad. Naturally, if you link to someone, they may take notice and link back, if it makes sense. It happens all the time over here. In fact, I may link to a thread at WebmasterWorld, say something smart (on a very limited occasion) and WebmasterWorld may link back (rarely, but they may) noting my comments or additional information.

  But when reciprocal linking becomes unnatural, that is when you have to worry.

  So don't spend too much time worrying about if it is a reciprocal link and just build a great site.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Buying Domains For Link Building

  Posted: May 24th, 2010, 3:49pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWold thread has discussion on the strategy of buying domains, expired or soon to expire domains, to build links quickly.

  A member of the forum asked if people still use this as a strategy. The SEO said:

  A few years ago I developed the strategy of buying dropped domains with good backlinks and pagerank, and either 301-ed them to one of my main sites, or host them with a bit of content, and link them to my sites. Now, years later, some of those still bring in nice traffic and PR.

  My question: Is anyone still using this strategy (for the traffic)? I assume PR indeed does not pass through anymore, as was announced? Any thoughts on retribution from Google?

  There are many articles discussing how Google handles expired domains. Danny has a nice one with Google's Matt Cutts over here, plus we have at least two pieces on this topic.

  Wheel in the forum suggested, "that there are places where you can grab a domain as it drops (i.e. before it actually drops). That's probably the way to do this." Moderator, martinibuster, agreed but added:

  Whatever backlinks dropped domains had won't count toward ranking. Backlinks get reset. This has been the case for several years now. Previous to the change the backlinks would acquire whatever PageRank they formerly had prior to the drop. After the change, which happened quite a few years ago, the backlinks got reset.

  This change also affected typos with pre-existing backlinks. The pre-existing backlinks get reset.

  I'm not saying you can't rank a dropped domain. Just that the backlinks get reset and this has been going on for years now. I remember when it happened, it was literally like overnight the expired domain market changed. I was fairly active buying dropped domains until this change happened. If I buy an expired domain nowadays it's for whatever traffic the links may bring, not for the equity.

  This is an excellent thread on the topic of expired domains and link building.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWold.

  
  

• 

  Most SEOs Believe Links That Open In New Windows Are No Different

  Posted: May 20th, 2010, 2:20pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A few weeks ago, we asked the question Do Links That Open In New Windows Pass Equal Google PageRank? Honestly, I felt the question was a bit out there and that there is no difference between links that open in new windows and just stay in the same window, but I figured I'd poll our readers anyway.

  Most of those that answered the poll said that a link that opens in a new window passes the same amount of link juice and PageRank compared to a link that opens in a the same window. I am a bit surprised that 10% of the 210 respondents said that links that open in a new window pass less PageRank than links that open in the same window.

  Here is the break down of the results:

  I did ask Google for a statement on this topic, but I forgot to follow up. The person I asked said he doubted there was a difference, but he would ask. Again, I forgot to follow up - maybe that Googler can comment below after they get the answers they need?

  Forum discussion continued at WebmasterWorld.

  This was scheduled to be posted today. I am offline today and scheduled several polls for the days I am offline. I am back Friday, May 21st.

  
  

• 

  SEOs Can't Agree on Risk of Link Buying

  Posted: May 19th, 2010, 2:01pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  About a month ago, we ran a poll asking you how risky are paid links? We all know how much Google hates sites that buy or sell links. But many SEOs are convinced the risk is worth the potential reward. So we ran a poll so that I can gauge how concerned our readers are about paid links and after about 250 responses, I thought I share the numbers with you.

  Overall, we have a wide range of responses that show me that SEOs can't agree on this topic. I asked to rate how risky link buying is on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being the very risky and 5 being not risky. Most SEOs voted on 3, yes, 93 votes or 31.42% were saying its risky, but not too risky. Then 24.66% or 73 people said it is closer to not being risky, voting on 4. Then the next most popular vote was 20.95% or 62 people voting 2, for just behind being very risky. 11.82% said it is not risky at all and 11.15% said it is very risky.

  Here is the chart:

  Forum discussion continued at WebmasterWorld.

  This was scheduled to be posted today. I am offline today and scheduled several polls for the days I am offline. I am back Friday, May 21st.

  
  

• 

  Yell Replies To Link Selling Accusations, Google Won't Get Involved

  Posted: April 16th, 2010, 3:23pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A couple days ago we reported on a public thread asking the question, is Yell.com selling links? It is a valid question and the thread at Google Webmaster Help has seriously heated up.

  In fact, a Yell representative responded to these accusations, denying that they sell links for the purpose of selling PageRank. Matthew Bottomley from Yell said:

  Great debate but it's actually based on a false assumption. Yell doesn't sell links.

  We do link to all businesses where we hold a valid website address - whether the business is a paying advertiser or not - and we do allow Google to follow them. Take a look at the businesses listed on page 6 of www.yell.com/s/plumbers-derby.html as examples of the latter - these companies do not pay for advertising with Yell.com.

  Some competitor sites only allow businesses to add their website address if they pay for advertising with them. We think this would be like paying to include a telephone number or an address. Whilst it's true that our YellDirect service doesn't currently allow business owners to add their website address, it is in our plans to do so. In the meantime, we telephone every business that registers with us to gather their website address and other additional information so that we can validate the business before publishing. Any business can also call our registration line 0800 533 433 to add their website should we not already hold it.

  Our goal is to get every single local business in the UK online. So we allow Google to follow the links. We believe this helps Google maintain an up to date and comprehensive record of all local business websites.

  Hope this clarifies things

  Matthew Bottomley
  Yell.com

  After his response, most people are still not convinced. Ultimately, it is up to Google to decide here what to do with it. But I doubt Google will make any announcement about this, nor should they.

  JohnMu from Google said:

  I prefer not discussing third-party sites. To me, it's interesting to see the different opinions on something like this, which does show that sometime things are not just black or white (please be civil even when discussing things that you might disagree about; the discussion is interesting, let's not ruin it).

  John did add:

  For what it's worth, both the contents of Matt's video ("What types of directories are seen as sources of paid links?" ) and the general paid link guidelines are still very much relevant today. If you feel that this particular site is violating the guidelines, please do take the time to submit a paid links report for that -- the reports are all reviewed and if necessary, appropriate actions are taken.

  Nothing like a link selling debate to get forum enthusiasts and SEOs riled up.

  Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

  
  

• 

  Is Yell.com Selling Links?

  Posted: April 14th, 2010, 3:19pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Yesterday we ran a poll on how risky is link buying. Well, the last thing you want is me writing about your site when it sells links. :) Unfortunately, I found an interesting *public* thread at Google Webmaster Help about a big time web site, Yell.com allegedly selling links.

  The person who started the thread clearly wanted Google to take notice and he leaded to an example of a page with "sponsored listings" that are links without a nofollow. Take a look for yourself.

  If you view the source code, you clearly see that Yell.com understands how the nofollow attribute works. They have it on their printer friendly links and links where they do not want to pass or dilute their PageRank (which we know doesn't work too well anyway). The links doesn't go through any redirect, as far as I can see. So it does seem to be passing PageRank.

  But is this a paid link?

  It seems like even the free listings are passing PageRank. It also seems like a web directory like approach that can be equated to the Yahoo Directory or Open Directory Project. Kevin in the forums said he doesn't think this is a true paid link, he explained:

  When you upgrade a free standard listing by buying a paid listing in Yell you are not buying a link. Having a link to your website on your paid advert is an optional extra - it is not what you are paying for. What you are paying for is extra pominence in Yells directory. You do not pay any extra if you have a link to your site. therefore you are not buying links when you buy a listing in Yell.
  
  If you buy a heavyweight listing at Yell and do not have a web site you don't get a discount on the fee because you don't have a link. Therefore you are not buying pagerank or paying to influence your SERP, you are doing nothing except to boost your Yell listing within Yell itself.

  Is this a paid link? See, it is not that clear. How risky are paid links? :) Oh and did I just help out a web site? Nah, it is a public thread and does go within our code of ethics.

  Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

  
  

• 

  Does Facebook Sharing or Links Help with SEO?

  Posted: April 12th, 2010, 3:20pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A Cre8asite Forums thread asks a question about the potential SEO or link building impact Facebook can have on a web site. The simple question is, is there a benefit in terms of ranking to have users share and fan your Facebook pages and for you to share information and links with them on those pages?

  This site has a Facebook page over here, links are automatically shared. But technically, although Google sees the page the links do not pass any weight. They all go through a middle page and then another redirect, which I think blocks all link passing capability.

  That being said, it does not mean that Facebook sharing doesn't help with your SEO efforts. The thing with social media is getting people to see your content that otherwise would not have seen it. If more people see your content, then more people can discuss your content and possibly link to your content on sites that do pass link juice. So although Facebook may not have a direct impact on your rankings, there may be a very strong indirect impact on your rankings.

  Let's also not forget how much traffic a site like Facebook or Twitter can send. So keep that in mind also.

  I admit it, I do a horrible job of manning the this Facebook page to answer comments and questions. I am not a huge Facebook guy, but I am trying to check in daily now and maybe I will get the hang of it. I am very active on Twitter so feel free to follow me there also.

  Forum discussion at Cre8asite Forums.

  
  

• 

  Some SEOs Use Search Operators For Link Building & Some Don't

  Posted: March 22nd, 2010, 2:35pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A few weeks ago we ran a poll asking SEOs if you use search operators to find link opportunities? Well, the results are in, and with a bit over 80 responses (not that many, which is out of the norm) we have the results. Honestly, the results are all over the place.

  Here they are:

  As you can see, 61% said they use it 50% of the time or more. 39% said they use it rarely or never. 22% said they use it all the time and 16% said they never use it.

  This is a very interesting break down showing really that link builders are very diverse on how they handle discovering and acquiring links.

  Forum discussion continued at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  What's a Link? Is It an Email?

  Posted: March 18th, 2010, 2:24pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  For all you out there that deal with clients every day, I figured I share with you a fun thread at WebmasterWorld. Let me just quote the post:

  I was doing some link building for my local sites where people need to copy a paste a link which is on our site in a textarea.

  I'm really shocked how many people don't know how to do this. Most of them don't even know the difference between an email address and a web address.

  Can anyone reading this post tell me they didn't run into a client that didn't know the difference between an email address and web address? You all have, be honest.

  I just hope those reading this all know the difference between an email and web address.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Do You Use Search Operators To Find Link Opportunities?

  Posted: March 9th, 2010, 1:23pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread started by forum administrator, engine, wrote:

  A webmaster I spoke to today was after a simple way to find new link opportunities. I mentioned something to him, which was to try using Google's related: feature

  It worked for him, does it work for you?

  The single response so far said that they do not use search operators anyone. They have other strategies to get links. This one, in particular, said he creates "a list of the biggest, baddest websites in my niche and find a way to get a link from them." Can't you use advanced search operators to discover those sites? I guess you don't need to.

  My question to you, do you use search operators, such as related and so on, to find linking opportunities?

  Do You Use Search Operators to Discover Link Opportunities?poll

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  A Living Link Building Journal

  Posted: February 15th, 2010, 2:47pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  There is an excellent thread at WebmasterWorld that is basically a webmaster's journal of his link building efforts for a specific site. Wheel, a senior member, started the thread about a week ago, saying:

  I've just launched a new website and am going to back it up with a link building campaign. I'm going to document my link building here, and welcome any comments.

  Notes:
  - link building pros will find this boring. Perhaps small indie business owners will find this useful (which is what I am).
  - I'm starting out with great content. I'm in a competitive niche and a regular old website won't cut it.
  - I'm looking for 'people' to give me links, not 'sites'.
  - I expect folks will find I don't have a lot of surprises.
  - current stats, Google has

  Since then, the thread is now 30 or so messages deep. The thread takes you through Wheel's link building journey for one of his sites. I am sure some of us can learn a thing or two from just reading through this thread.

  Let me just quote one of the responses from another senior member at the forum:

  Nice :) this thread should be printed and pinned on many many walls ..how to get links with style and intelligence :)

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Linking To Your Home Page With Anchor Text You Want to Rank For

  Posted: February 4th, 2010, 3:08pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread has a new conversation on an old topic. The topic is to link to your home page, off your home page, using keyword rich anchor text that you want to rank for. The example given by one member is:

  So I put up a paragraph on the homepage talking about say 'red widgets in oklahoma'. Then I link those words (red widgets in oklahoma) right back to the homepage. In other words, my homepage links to itself, with some nice juicy text.

  And guess what? Despite no other backlinks with text to do with oklahoma, my site ranks #1 or 2 for red widgets in oklahoma.

  I actually see this fairly often on the web. Clearly done for SEO purposes. I am surprised it works so well. Of course, the topic of the first anchor text counting or not. But Matt Cutts of Google published a video just the other day on this topic, watch it below:

  Anyway, the SEO discussion is interesting.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Tracking Back Links: How Do You Do It?

  Posted: December 30th, 2009, 2:29pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  There is an excellent thread at HighRankings Forum on the topic of how you should or could track one's link building efforts. The topic in this thread started off about how to track links accrued due to a link building contest. However, the topic moved into how to track link building efforts for a site in general.

  Many are of the opinion that no tool can accurately measure the links acquired over time. Google Webmaster Tools, Yahoo Site Explorer and the various other tools, to many, are not that accurate. As Rosemary said in the thread, "one month Yahoo would show 10,000 inbound links and the next month only 300." It is hard to rely on tools that you don't know how it works and when there is a bug, you cannot fix it yourself.

  Others say that when they build links, they store the information in a spreadsheet to report back to the client. I have seen this done. I am a firm believer that if you are hiring a link building company, they should provide you with an organized means of knowing what links they acquired for you, from where and when they acquired them. I have said this before, so I say it again.

  Others in the thread said they just gave up on collecting and monitoring this data.

  How do you track your back links?

  Forum discussion at HighRankings Forum.

  
  

• 

  Are "Web Site Designed By" Links Bad?

  Posted: November 13th, 2009, 12:46pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A Google Webmaster Help thread asks a common question in link building. The question is, are "web site designed by X," where "X" is a link to your company, against Google's guidelines?

  Both a "level 4" and "top contributor" replied to the thread. One said:

  I would think this is a matter of personal preference, and it is quite common in the industry.

  The other said:

  As far as we know - there is no harm from them. (Hope not - I use them on all my sites ;))

  What do you think? Like they said, this is done very often. My company no longer does this, we haven't in years. But we did it a lot before "link building" was so important - go figure.

  This is not a new question, we asked in in 2006 with

  Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

  
  

• 

  Should I Risk Linking To Competitors?

  Posted: October 14th, 2009, 3:48pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread has an interesting conversation about linking to competitors. In this case, the webmaster is considering giving his competitor a banner ad direct link (not through a redirect or nofollow) but without an alt text, in exchange for links from the competitor.

  The main issue is that his site and the competitor's site are neck and neck in the Google search results for similar keywords. He does not want to do anything that might give his competitor the edge in the search results, nor does he want to give his competitor a second (indented) listing in Google.

  Senior member, Wheel, said in response to the question a short but insightful comment:

  Swapping links with your competitor, when the entire point seems to be to gain an advantage over each other, is going to leave one party unhappy. Expect this to be short term.

  StoutFiles added:

  Unless you feel this would help you both move up from #2-#4 to #1-#3, this will be more trouble than its worth. Someone will likely assume they're getting the raw end of the exchange and call it off.

  What would you do and do you link to competitors? Tag our anonymous poll:

  
  Do You Link To Direct Competitors?(polling)
  

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  CNET Calls Link Exchanges Poor Man SEO

  Posted: July 15th, 2009, 3:42pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Link exchanges: The poor man's SEO from CNET discusses the pros and cons of link exchanges. The article isn't bad, overall.

  What I personally find funny is that CNET quoted Evan Duffield after Evan emailed CNET with a link exchange request. Evan got a lot more than a simple link exchange, he got a whole article with clean links to his sites on the News.com domain.

  Anyway, the article is being discussed at WebmasterWorld now, so if you are somewhat new to the SEO space, you should read the article and see the discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld

  
  

• 

  Stingy Links: I Want Stingy Links

  Posted: June 23rd, 2009, 3:39pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  WebmasterWorld administrator, Tedster, created a thread at WebmasterWorld on the topic of "stingy links." In short, he said he was watching to a presentation by a Microsoft engineer about improving the SALSA algorithm for link structure analysis - and I noticed a very casual comment that "links from authors who are very stingy outlinkers are more informative."

  Yea, a "duh" moment for Tedster and possibly others. As Tedster explains, it is not just about the PageRank funneling being worth more, but this may be something a search engine looks at. A site that is less likely to link out, when it does, it must be something worth while.

  Like those people stingy with their money. If they do hand over cash for a product or charity, it has to make you think - well, this might be worth the money. Same here with links, those stingy with links, who do eventually link out, must be linking out for good reason.

  The idea is not new but it is always nice to discuss concepts so they don't get stale.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Unintentional Reciprocal Links Are Natural Links

  Posted: June 11th, 2009, 3:39pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  I found a fun thread at HighRankings Forums that discusses what he calls "unintentional reciprocal links." What I find funny about that name is that, if you think about it, an unintentional reciprocal link, but definition, is a natural link.

  I believe this person is worried that Google or a search engine might classify his site to be in a link scheme if the people who he linked to, links back to him. In many cases, the places we link to, will naturally link back.

  How often do I link from here to Search Engine Land and from Search Engine Land back to here? Is that a reciprocal link? How often do I link to other search blogs, that link back to me?

  It is just natural to have "unintentional reciprocal links," so don't sweat it.

  In the thread, Jill Whalen, owner of High Rankings, added an other point about reciprocal links:

  In that case, the original poster is under the false impression that a reciprocal links are penalized. Since they're not, there's nothing to worry about.

  Forum discussion at HighRankings Forums.

  
  

• 

  Google's New Webmaster Tools Is Missing My Backlinks

  Posted: May 14th, 2009, 3:28pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  The other day, Google released a redesigned Webmaster Tools area. Soon after it was released, webmasters began noticing that the linkage data found in the new Webmaster Tools was out of sync with the one found in the old Webmaster Tools version.

  Google has confirmed the issue, saying:

  You may notice that your backlinks data differs between the new and old versions—this is because we're still filling in data for some sites in the new version. We hope that you'll find the new data more comprehensive once it's 100% filled in.

  So for these sites, the issue hopefully will be resolved shortly. No need to panic.

  Forum discussion continued at Google Webmasters Help, WebmasterWorld and DigitalPoint Forums.

  
  

• 

  Most SEOs Use Interns For Link Building

  Posted: May 1st, 2009, 3:20pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  I ran a poll a couple weeks ago asking, do you use interns as link builders? The 120 plus responses are in and most of those who responded said yes, they use interns as link builders.

  74 of the 120 responses, or 62%, said they do use interns for link building. While, 45 of the 120 responses, or 38%, said they do not use interns for link building. One said that he is considering it.

  The main debate is if an intern can be successful in link building. Is there enough time to train and deploy an intern in the art of link building before that intern moves on to the next thing he or she may be doing? The debate is still going on, on this topic. But clearly, most of you are comfortable with using interns for link building.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  
  

• 

  Should Google Go The Rel=Follow Route? Opt In vs. Opt Out

  Posted: May 1st, 2009, 2:42pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  There is a pretty funny thread for anyone who is somewhat familiar with the SEO industry. A thread at Google Webmasters Help has this SEO who goes on a rant about the nofollow and what have happened to links. In fact, he says that Google should consider all links nofollow by default and require webmasters to add a rel="follow" to links that they deem respectable enough to deserve any link equity.

  Here is the webmaster's post:

  I'm thinking that I should just adopt a site-wide policy that all links have nofollow. Because of Google's PageRank algorithm, links have become a dirty thing that requires a lot of consideration, a cause for concerns and panic, an object of envy, conflict, fight, bitterness, etc.. Reading this forum is a good indication of the sad state of what "links" have become. And, it's all because of Google's PageRank algorithm. It would be simpler, easier, and healthier if all links had nofollow as a policy. In fact, I wish Google would do the opposite; require people to add rel="follow" only when you want to pass "link juice" to someone else. The truth of the matter is that everyone has to know what PageRank is these days and some degree of SEO, which means that everyone is perfectly aware of what value and power links have. No one is innocent. Everyone treats links like money whether we actually get paid for it or not. Links has become a currency of power. In the old days, when we used to call them "hyperllinks" they were just a mechanism for convenience.

  Now how is that for a rant? I kind of agree. I mean, the nofollow link attribute was originally designed to prevent spam in blogs, forums, and any open web form. Now it is used for ads, for managing your internal PageRank and to penalize sites. I am not going to go off on a rant on the nofollow attribute, so I will stop there.

  The Google Webmasters Help thread has a lot of discussion around the nofollow attribute. It makes for a fun, pre-weekend read.

  Forum discussion at Google Webmasters Help.

  
  

• 

  Tuesday Mornings: Best Time To Send Out Link Request Emails

  Posted: April 15th, 2009, 2:41pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A week ago, we ran a poll asking when is the best time to send out link requests. We know, we don't recommend bombarding people with link exchange or request emails, but if you had to, when would you do it?

  The hundreds of responses are in and it seems like most people suggest sending it on Tuesday mornings. Here is the breakdown in pie charts.

  Best day to send link request emails:

  Best time to send link request emails:

  Not sure if this will help you, but the results are interesting.

  Forum discussion continued at WebmasterWorld.

  This article was written earlier this week and scheduled to go live April 15th.

• 

  Getting PageRank Without Getting Links

  Posted: April 6th, 2009, 3:42pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread has interesting discussion around the topic of pages earning Google PageRank with little or no links to those pages.

  The discussion was started by a webmaster who asked, how can his page have a PageRank score of four, when Google webmaster tools reports the page has zero links? The obvious answer is that Google is not reporting all the links yet and it is very possible the page has links, but just not being reported yet. But that might not be the full answer.

  WebmasterWorld administrator, Tedster, feels that Google gives "mom and pop" sites an artificial PageRank boost, in some cases. Let me quote Tedster:

  My assumption is that this unusual PR boost is one of the ways that Google helps "mom and pop" sites compete - something that Matt Cutts made a side comment about on his blog a few years ago. He never said WHAT Google does specifically, only that they do a few things.

  It seems like many top names in the thread believe in this "artificial PageRank boost." The question is, what is the artificial part? Is it the score shown, how the score is made up, or how Google sees the page in terms of trust and popularity?

  In any event, do you believe in the artificial PageRank boost? Take the poll below:

  Is There a Google Artificial PageRank Boost?
  ( online polls)

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Ultimate URL Shortening Guide

  Posted: April 6th, 2009, 3:22pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Danny Sullivan's Analysis: Which URL Shortening Service Should You Use? has an excellent overview of the various URL shortening services available. In Danny's write up, he goes over about 15 different services and rates them based on how they handle the following:

  • Redirect
  • Tracking
  • Client Support
  • Domain Chars
  • Custom URL
  • Sharing
  • Path Chars
  • Total Chars
  • Country
  • Service

  With the rise of social media sites such as Twitter, URL shortening services have really risen in popularity. Understanding the pros and cons of the various services are important.

  There is some very good discussion around the piece at Sphinn and in the comments area in the article.

  Forum discussion at Sphinn.

• 

  Are Foreign Links Considered Spam?

  Posted: March 25th, 2009, 1:01pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld thread has discussion around the topics of building links from foreign web sites, in different languages.

  For example, if I run a web site that is in English, focused for US users - what happens if I get some links from sites hosted in Israel, with Hebrew anchor text, linking to my English web site?

  The obvious answer is that these types of links are not considered spam or low quality, simply because of the site's origin. If a foreign site is linking to yours out of relevance, then it is fine. If you go ahead and buy thousands of links on foreign publisher web sites, then that might lead to other issues.

  In fact, when you want to rank well in localized versions of Google, it is recommended to not only publish a localized version of the site using the country's TLD, but also to acquire links from sites sharing the localized view and on the localized TLD.

  Would acquiring "foreign" links to your USA English based site help you rank in both Google USA and Google localized? Maybe but it might not be the optimal way to go about your country specific SEO.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Can't Get That Golden Link? Go After a Link Off the Golden Link

  Posted: March 20th, 2009, 2:31pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  There is an excellent WebmasterWorld on the topic of getting a "second tier link," as opposed to the link you really want. Wheel, the moderator of the forum, posted that it is not always easy or possible to get the .gov, .edu or aged link that all link builders dream about. When you efforts fail, why not go after those that have links from those "golden link" pages?

  Wheel explained:

  What I'll do is try to get links from second tier sites. Say I want a find a page on a .gov site that has a list of links. I'd like to be on that page, but I can't get a link. What I'll do is look at all the sites that are linked to from that page and try and get a link from them. I'll still get whatever good comes from that .gov link, just diluted and flowed through another site.

  They are not the cream of the crop links, but they are still very valuable. The process is pretty simple:

  (1) Discover golden link pages
  (2) Request links from those pages
  (3) Move on
  (4) Click on links from the golden link pages
  (5) Request links from those new pages
  (6) Rinse and Repeat

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Link Building 2009 - Build Your Own Cliques For Link Relevancy

  Posted: February 23rd, 2009, 2:44pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  I am a paid supporter of WebmasterWorld and to be honest, I don't often use the paid only rooms. But for the thread I am about to discuss, I can tell you, the small fee I paid to have access to this paid area, was well worth it.

  Moderator, Martinibuster shared with us a new form of link building that he is finding that is working for him. Now, I won't go through everything he said, because I need to respect the "paid" part of the forum, but I will give you some insight into what Martinibuster's thoughts are.

  Relevancy has become more and more important in the area of link building. In the old days, you just wanted links from sites that ranked high. These days, it is less about getting links from pages that rank well and more about getting links from pages that are related to your pages. These relevant links form, what he says, is a link clique. Now, Martinibuster's theory and trick is to control that link clique. How does he do this? Well, I won't say, cause I need to leave some of that in the paid area.

  But I can say that this single thread is well worth the money I paid for the year. It is conversations like this thread that make me love doing what I do here, report on the treasures in the forums.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld (paid member access only).

• 

  New York Times Sued Over Linking Practices

  Posted: December 30th, 2008, 3:55pm CET by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  An article at E-Commerce Times talks about a recently-filed lawsuit against Boston.com, a NYTimes company, that is being sued for its linking practices. According to the article, the simple presence of a link has prompted the suit, but from CenterNetworks, the real reason might be apparent: GateHouse, the company suing the Times, is upset because Boston.com is linking to subpages of the site, thereby causing readers to bypass the significant advertising on GateHouse's home page.

  (My commentary: If there were no links there at all, GateHouse still wouldn't see traffic to its homepage. Be happy that you got the link!)

  In any event, there is some worry if merely linking will require permission in the future. That would be a pretty silly move.

  Then again, I worry that the E-Commerce Times article that WebmasterWorld members referred to isn't accurate since every other article I read on the subject matter is about circumventing the advertising.

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  How Do You Ask for Links?

  Posted: December 30th, 2008, 3:16pm CET by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Link building is going to happen whether I like it or not, so I better accept the 949394 emails I get per day. A WebmasterWorld thread asks link builders how they ask for links via email. Some tactics include putting the link up first (and thereby then emailing people -- they often will give the reciprocal link) and keeping the email short and brief and personal.

  Ask for the link. Don't demand it.

  Offer people you link to something valuable in return. For example, wheel suggests that you say something along the lines of "I've got data your visitors may find interesting" or "Here's a unique coupon code."

  Since these are email requests, though, can you be reported to Google for spamming someone else? There's no answer to that -- it depends on the recipient.

  I should add from my experience that it's unwise to ask big blogs for links. They might have a high PageRank and is extremely relevant for your purposes, but chances are, old posts won't be updated. (And like I said in sentence #1, we get hundreds of link exchange emails a week. That said, most aren't read anymore.)

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  If Link Buying is Bad, Shouldn't PRWeb Be Bad Too?

  Posted: December 26th, 2008, 3:07pm CET by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Since there's a huge war on paid links, is it true that you should avoid link buying at all costs? That means even using sites like press-release distributor service PRWeb.

  Perhaps -- but PRWeb's goals are obviously not in the link building sphere. The goal for PRWeb is promotion of a particular service or website, not for link building. It's uncertain how Google handles links that are generated through PRWeb.

  Randy says an important piece of advice for how you should handle this in general:

  Truth be known, all link building should be approached from a Promotions/Advertising/Marketing mindset, not an SEO one. Get links that will stand a chance of bringing you real traffic from real qualified people visiting your site.

  Forum discussion continues at High Rankings Forum.

• 

  Gift Giving Season, Great Time For Link Building

  Posted: December 24th, 2008, 2:08pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Senior WebmasterWorld member, Wheel, posted a WebmasterWorld thread explaining how now, the holiday season, is a great time to get quality links. How should you go about it?

  Well, people love to give now. It is really the season of giving. So what Wheel did was give his industry niche a tip on how to get a solid free link for their sites. The people in his industry were so happy, they wanted to give back, something in return.

  So he politely suggested that they can give him a link to his site, as a thank you. And many of these folks did. So he got several quality, targeted, related, one-way links to his site, for giving advice.

  It is true, giving free advice gets links. We do it here several times per day and we get tons of links. So, let's see if it works. If you are happy with what we have done over the past five years, feel free to link to our 5 year birthday post with a thank you.

  Happy Holidays!

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Poll: I Want A Link In The Top Paragraph Please

  Posted: December 23rd, 2008, 1:46pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A couple weeks ago, we ran a poll asking SEOs and link builders where they would prefer their external links show up on a page. Well, the results are in and as expected, most SEOs would like that link in the first paragraph of content on a page.

  Here is a breakdown of the hundred or so responses:
  :: In First Paragraph of Context said 62 respondents or 63.27%
  :: Link On All Pages said 8 respondents or 8.16%
  :: Menu said 8 respondents or 8.16%
  :: On 5 - 10 Pages said 8 respondents or 8.16%
  :: In Last Paragraph of Context said 7 respondents or 7.14%
  :: On Links Page said 2 respondents or 2.04%
  :: Footer said 1 respondents or 1.02%

  Then we had two "other" responses, one saying "any link" at all is great and the other said "content of page."

  Forum discussion continued at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Is Social Media Really a Viable Link Building Option?

  Posted: December 19th, 2008, 3:37pm CET by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Michael Gray has written a great piece at Search Engine Land on how stories promoted in a social media site have actually translated to higher rankings. He takes a bunch of unpopular domains (e.g. not Forbes, Jalopnik, or other known car sites) and shows how their rankings have improved after the particular stories have been submitted to a site like Digg. Then he looks at the keyword rankings for each of these stories. It becomes obvious that social media is an alternative to link building but that it's imperative to use your keywords that you want for ranking in the Digg submission.

  Of course, there are links to be gained, but there's obviously a lot more -- direct sales, awareness, and then some.

  So why is it that you haven't tried social media marketing yet?

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn.

• 

  Links In JavaScript & Flash: Damned If You Do & Damned If You Don't

  Posted: December 19th, 2008, 1:52pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A Google Webmaster Help thread asks, can Google read links in Flash files or JavaScript? The simple answer is yes, they can. But it is not that simple.

  Some people want to know the answer to this question because they want to know if their content will be indexed or not. Some want the links in those files to be found, while some don't. In fact, years ago, if you did not want a search engine to crawl a link, typically a duplicate content page, you would use JavaScript. Now, you are no longer safe, you must nofollow the link or noindex those duplicate pages or take other action.

  The thing is, Google won't always crawl links in JavaScript or Flash either. So if you want your links to be found, be safe and put them in standard html format. But if you don't want your links to be found, putting them in JavaScript or Flash won't guarantee that.

  Top contributor, Webado said:

  1) don't rely on discovery of text and links in flash or javascript - ensure proper html content and navigation are available as well.

  2) don't rely on Google NOT discovering text and links in flash or javascript either if you don't want them to. Ensure robots are clearly disallowed from all such content, otherwise they can be really nosy :)

  JohnMu of Google confirmed that post.

  As you can see, in this case, your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

  Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

• 

  Are Directories Still Worth Your SEO Budget?

  Posted: October 13th, 2008, 5:28pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  We all know about Google's latest change to the webmaster guidelines, where they removed directories as a good source of links. Having seen that, SEOs and webmasters ask themselves, if seeking links from directories is worth it anymore.

  A WebmasterWorld thread has a large discussion around the topic. Old time memeber, pageoneresults, said:

  Personally? I feel it is a waste of your time to do something like this. 750 directories? Did you see that Google recently removed the suggestion of submitting to directories from their guidelines? Ya, that is how much they despise these things now. There are probably a million directories. 99.5% of them were built solely for this purpose that we are discussing and are typically of little to no value. It is the same thing as submitting to 100,000 search engines. Probably the same group of people too. ;)

  But I still personally believe that some directories have value. Can I name which ones they are? Not really because I don't think it is Yahoo or ODP or so on. I think it depends on the section you are in and the quality of that section. Of course, I believe Yahoo is top-notch in the directory space, but the value is way down from what it was years ago, in my opinion.

  In any event, this is going to be a hot topic for the next few months. Join the discussion.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Directory Links Next? Google Drops Yahoo & ODP Directory from Guidelines

  Posted: October 3rd, 2008, 3:20pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Last night, Google update their Webmaster Guidelines to remove a single line that reads:

  Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.

  In fact, I was able to pull up the old version of the page in the Google cache.

  As you can imagine, this has set an early spark of flames through the SEO/SEM community. We have very early discussions on this topic at Google Groups, Sphinn (thanks Beu) and Search Engine Watch Forums.

  In the Google Groups thread, Google's JohnMu explains why Google removed that line. Let me quote John:

  I wouldn't necessarily assume that we're devaluing Yahoo's links, I just think it's not one of the things we really need to recommend. If people think that a directory is going to bring them lots of visitors (I had a visitor from the DMOZ once), then it's obviously fine to get listed there. It's not something that people have to do though :-).

  Honestly, John's remark scares me. I have seen this before - or similar statements. In my opinion, this will lead to Google taking stands against many more directories - more than they have ever done in the past. How do I know? I don't, but as Google Blogoscoped reported last night, Google dropped their own link to their own directory. We know Google has gone after directories in the past. Will they ever go after ODP (dmoz) or Yahoo? I am not sure, but will they go after some other popular ones? Maybe.

  To be fair, John does ask for feedback:

  What do you think - does it make sense? :-) What else should we change / add / remove?

  Where will this lead? That is my concern. Should I be concerned?

  Forum discussion at Google Groups, Sphinn and Search Engine Watch Forums.

• 

  Your Link Building Request Will Fail

  Posted: September 12th, 2008, 3:20pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Ever ask someone to add a link to your site as part of some link building strategy? Most people have encountered link building requests every so often in this sphere. Have you ever asked? Have you had success? Wiep Knol has explained why most link requests fail.

  The end result? It depends on who, what, when, where, and why. For the "who," you want to be identifiable and more transparent than the person named Kelly who has a standard email address. Use your company URL, a portfolio link, etc.

  The "what" comes down to whether or not you really care to provide some useful information. If you are providing the desired anchor text, you will likely be ignored. Give a summary and let the webmaster you pitched figure out what he or she wants to do with it.

  Wiep also speaks about the other 3 W's -- when, where, and why. It definitely should give you some good tips on how you can request those links.

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn.

• 

  How to Find the Best Pages for Link Building

  Posted: September 11th, 2008, 3:57pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  On a Cre8asite Forums thread, a forum member is looking for the ideal link building strategy. If you had to choose one kind of quality link, which would you go for: a relevant site with a high PR but not so many indexed pages, or a site that has a low PR but many indexed pages?

  That's not an easy question to answer. If you had to choose one, more people are compelled to agree that the site with more indexed pages will perform better, even though the PR is low. Of course, PR is a metric that many people still feel should be ignored, however. But perhaps you shouldn't only look at the links -- people may consider you to be a competitor if they are a high PR site. Using that logic, you may want to go with the other types of links as well.

  As Ammon John points out, this is a "situational decision." You need to evaluate your goals to see which tactic and link methodology you want to take first.

  Forum discussion continues at Cre8asite Forums.

• 

  SEOs Like Links From Blog

  Posted: August 7th, 2008, 3:37pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A week or so ago, I wrote a piece named Are Links From Blogs As Valuable These Days? In short, some SEOs are now against buying or obtaining links from most blogs. They feel that Google may be devaluing the once golden, blog link (yes, I am generalizing). So I decided to run a poll to see how our readers perceive links from blogs.

  The results are in and we have 141 responses from SEOs and webmasters. 90 or 64% of the respondents said they like links from blogs. 41 or 29% of the respondents said they do not like links from blogs. While the remainder, 10 people or 7% of the respondents said it depends on the blog.

  Here is the break down:
  :: Yes said 90 respondents or 64%
  :: No said 41 respondents or 29%
  :: Depends said 10 respondents or 7%

  Forum discussion continued at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  SEOs Split On Buying Links Have The NoFollow Attribute

  Posted: August 6th, 2008, 3:27pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  In May I ran an informal poll asking Would You Buy a Link With a NoFollow Attribute? In short, a nofollow attribute is an HTML attribute you add to a hyperlink that tells the search engines that you do not vouch for this link. Most search engines will not count that link as a vote for the site it is linking to.

  I was actually surprised by the results. They were split down the middle.

  Of the 177 responses, 50% or 89 people said they would buy a link with a nofollow attribute. While 45% or 80 people said they would not. 5% or 8 people said, it depends.

  Here is the break down:
  :: Yes said 89 respondents or 50%
  :: No said 80 respondents or 45%
  :: Other said 8 respondents or 5%

  Forum discussion continued at DigitalPoint Forums .

• 

  Tips For Outsourcing Link Building

  Posted: July 16th, 2008, 2:40pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  There is a newish WebmasterWorld thread that is just getting started on the topic of tips on outsourcing link building to India, South America or other countries outside of your local region.

  Here are the initial tips this SEO learned and wanted to share:

  • Do not pay in advance...
  • Sign a contract
  • Try to have exclusivity for your niche
  • Force your SEO to not ask links to your competitors
  • Give them a real email from your domain name
  • When possible, don't outsource.

  Do you have tips? Let's add them to the WebmasterWorld thread.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Is Link Buying Worth the Effort?

  Posted: May 27th, 2008, 4:23pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld member was desperate for improved rankings, so he bought links. As a result, his rankings tanked and he was wondering if there's a better way to buy build links.

  Really, if you're trying to buy links, the recommendation is to avoid using brokers. Go directly to webmasters and ask them if they can place a link on the site where it appears naturally (not in the navigation, for example). Additionally, go for quality over quantity. As pageoneresults says, "[t]en (10) high quality links will typically trump a hundred (100) low quality links."

  The best ways to build links is slowly and methodically, he adds. You don't want to add a bunch of inbound links immediately because it can raise red flags.

  On a related note, Jim Boykin suggests that you build links by focusing on the right text by having the right content on targeted pages. Don't necessarily link to your homepage; build links to the appropriate internal pages instead.

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld and Sphinn.

• 

  Would You Buy a Link With a NoFollow Attribute?

  Posted: May 27th, 2008, 12:55pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A DigitalPoint Forums thread asks members if they would consider buying a link that has a nofollow attribute appended to it. For those who don't know what the nofollow attribute is a snippet of code added to the html of the link, so a search engine can easily detect if they should follow the link (in terms of link popularity and even actually following the link physically). It looks something like this:

  <a href="http://www.site.com/page.html" rel="nofollow">Visit My Page</a>

  In any event, the thread asks if you would buy such a link. I know people do, cause some of my advertisers buy them from me. But would you buy such a link? I know it depends, depends on if the link is on a high trafficked site, or in a prime location, and so on. But let's pretend the link is on a site like this or a site like Search Engine Land, would you buy a link from those types of sites, if it was nofollowed?

  Here is the poll (try not to use the "other" option):

  Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.

• 

  Google May Penalize Fake Linkbait, According to Matt Cutts

  Posted: May 23rd, 2008, 4:44pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Many blogs are abuzz with the news about a recent fake piece of linkbait that ended up capturing the eyes and ears of many big traditional news outlets and bringing the originating story thousands of backlinks. After the community went up in arms about the "snakeoil" tactics of this piece of bait, Nick Wilsdon and Barry at Search Engine Land talk about the ramifications of the action, especially with how Matt Cutts is responding to it from a Google perspective. In a Sphinn thread (that is REALLY long; you have been warned), Matt says:

  My quick take is that Google’s webmaster guidelines allow for cases such as this:

  “Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites). It’s not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn’t included on this page, Google approves of it.”

  There’s not much more deceptive or misleading than a fake story without any disclosure that the story is hoax.

  Numerous forum members at Sphinn are disappointed in the approach taken here, especially since it was fake and deceptive. Others think it's unfair for Google to assert control over web content. Yet others understand that Google wants to link to the most trusted and relevant website, so they're going to obviously take action. I'd argue that the piece of linkbait in question is the most relevant piece of the pie here and should rank #1 for the query.

  The question is: what would happen if nobody admitted that the linkbait was fake and everyone assumed it was true? Even if people contest the motives of this particular piece of linkbait, it was confirmed as fake, but do you really think that every piece of linkbait out there is legitimate?

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn and Sphinn

• 

  Linkbait Shows Matt Cutts Being Electrocuted by Solar Panels

  Posted: May 21st, 2008, 5:56pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  I didn't know that being electrocuted by solar panels was even possible, but apparently it is. Solar Dave made a really cute video about how it all went down:

  The idea behind the video, as Dave explains, was to illustrate that Google is starting to see that linkbait isn't all white hat and that there may be more "shades of gray" than assumed possible before (I guess anything can turn into black hat SEO if you think about it).

  In the case of this piece of "linkbait," a few forum members were taken aback by hearing that Matt Cutts died :( I can hear that. What would we do without Matt's sunshine in our lives?

  Is this viral marketing? It could be within the community who knows who Matt is. But most people don't, so it's mostly just linkbait among those who know Matt.

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn

• 

  Link Buys & Link Exchanges: Should You Compete in a Google World?

  Posted: May 20th, 2008, 3:47pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Matt Cutts wrote a blog post yesterday about how Google is noticing reciprocal link exchange requests and how the sender of the particular email tried to circumvent Google's "filters" by including a request for a link exchange within in image (so that Google couldn't "read" it). Since people are quick to report such infractions to Google, they know about it.

  On that note, how do you compete with those who buy links in bulk? WebmasterWorld members attempt to tackle this question. Some typically avoid taking upon clients who are working in competitive industries unless there is money to be spent. Others look for relevant link exchange options (provided that the webmaster who is asked to give a link actually is receptive to providing the link).

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn and WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Does the Multiple Link Penalty Really Exist?

  Posted: May 9th, 2008, 5:03pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A WebmasterWorld member wants confirmation if getting multiple links would cause a penalty in the SERPs. He notes that very popular sites which rank on the first page of Google have a lot of links, including those from "shady" places. Why, then, can't he do the same thing on his smaller site?

  Some forum members believe that the age and authority of site matter in this case. Some sites just always get inbound links. Others don't unless something is up.

  A new site that gets like 20 links per day, then all of a sudden gets 2000 in one day, well then there's tom foolery going on there and the penalty gets slapped. Once that penalty is slapped, over time it will go away.

  So be careful when you build your links, because you can find a dent in your rankings, but as forum members note, the rankings will generally improve.

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  The Link Farm: How Does Google Define a Link Farm?

  Posted: May 7th, 2008, 2:55pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A Google Groups thread has a long discussion on how Google defines what a link farm is or is not. I have decided to isolate a Googler's comment, because who can best define what Google feels a link farm is, better then a Google employee?

  JohnMu, a Google Webmaster Trends Analyst, posted twice in the thread. The second time he offered additional advice on how he would define a link farm. He said:

  A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself "would I be doing this (linking there) if search engines didn't exist?"

  Another way of looking at it is to think about where and how you will be linking: Do you feel fine with linking to that site with a highlighted link in your main content or would you rather have the link in 5pt gray on white in the footer? Do you want your visitors to see and use it or is it just for the search engines?

  John also links to the Google link schemes page which has the official line on bad linking. Now, of course there is gray area and that is where John's post above comes into play. Even with that, people still may be confused. Well, if it feels wrong - then it might be.

  John admits, even him being a Googler, it is still "hard for [him] to provide a definition of what Google sees as that."

  If you need more clarification or have specific questions, you can join the Google Groups thread and hopefully be aided in the right direction.

  Forum discussion at Google Groups.

• 

  Do You Engage in 3-Way (Triangular) Link Exchanges?

  Posted: May 1st, 2008, 4:18pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  As the link building strategy becomes more and more difficult (at least by some), people are seeking out alternatives to the standard two-way linking practice. In a WebmasterWorld thread, a member is looking at a triangular link strategy which wouldn't be directly reciprocal but he's hoping that he'll still benefit.

  Would you do it? If you're looking for reciprocal links, three-way linking isn't much better. Furthermore, if the goal is to outwit Google, Google knows (a lot).

  Ask yourself why you're even engaging in 3-way linking. Is it to help you or is it to help your audience? Again, you need to consider what your users want first.

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Buying 70,000 Links From Same Site Equated to "SEOicide"

  Posted: April 29th, 2008, 3:14pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Link Building  

  A newish term, named SEOicide, caught my attention via a WebmasterWorld thread. The thread discusses how an SEO has the opportunity to buy 70,000 links from a PR7 site for a great price. He asks if it he should do it.

  Most everyone says, don't - you are setting yourself up for a penalty. In fact, words like SEOicide are being used to describe what you would do to yourself. But others are not convinced, they say, if the site will drive traffic to your site, then do it.

  I would buy, if the direct traffic from those links brings you a profit. Otherwise it sounds very questionable a I would not sign any long term agreement/contract.

  Anyway, back to the term SEOicide. I did some searching and it appears the Jane Copland of SEOmoz used the term on February 21st of this year in a comment on a blog post. So WebmasterWorld was not the first place it was used in writing.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Are Links from StumbleUpon Valuable?

  Posted: April 28th, 2008, 4:27pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Over at WebmasterWorld, users are discussing the potential value of a link from social bookmarking site StumbleUpon. Is it worth trying to submit to or is it completely not worth the effort?

  Well, it depends on the content. Is it "worthy of being stumbled?" That's something that you must seek out. Of course, if you choose to take the plunge, the right person might come along and StumbleUpon your page and then blog about it, which can be an incredibly valuable link building experience.

  Just a word of caution though: don't use social networks to be overly self-promotional. As one person mentioned in the thread, he was banned for submitting his own content. As a heavy StumbleUpon user myself, there's absolutely nothing wrong with submitting your own content but you must be sure to avoid being self-promotional. In other words, don't only submit your own stuff; mix it with other content as well.

  [Note: StumbleUpon links are nofollowed, so from a search engine perspective, it doesn't help much.]

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Where Do You Find Link Partners?

  Posted: April 11th, 2008, 4:57pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Some link builders spend a significant time just trying to build up some sort of rapport with other webmasters. Eventually, they may feel that the pool is drying out. With so many link requests nowadays, you can't blame but feel helpless since everyone seems to be getting numerous link swap requests daily.

  Where else can you go to build those valuable links? Perhaps your scope is too narrow. There are millions of sites on the internet, so look at related sites, local sites, un-related industries that still have some sort of relationship to the topic, how-to sites, blogs, history sites, and more. There really should be no shortage.

  And truthfully, if you're feeling limited, perhaps you're also looking for "high authority" sites. Look into sites that may not be as authoritative but still show some promise.

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Is it Worth it to "Buy" Links from a PR0 Website?

  Posted: April 9th, 2008, 4:05pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Face it. Sometimes you can exchange links for free, and other times, you just have to buy a link. But is there a minimum toolbar PageRank number that you should go by before buying that link?

  Obviously, this isn't a black and white question. Consider the content of the site. Two of the key questions you should ask yourself are "Is it relevant?" and "Can it deliver traffic?"

  But beyond that, there's more that can be had if you consider buying that link now. A site that is PR0 can go nowhere but up. If you believe the site has potential, buy the link now and then just wait until the PageRank increases. You'll benefit from getting the early start.

  Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  Why You Shouldn't Use Automated Link Building Software

  Posted: April 4th, 2008, 4:18pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  Should you save wads of cash to buy link building software that contacts hundreds (or thousands) of webmasters for you to give you some links? Wiep Knol says no. In his recent blog post, he explains why link building software isn't the way to go and gives nine reasons why.

  The biggest reason, at least from what I encounter on my day to day emails, is that link building requests like these are far from personal. Wiep also provides other reasons: it's bad for your image, it's easy to copy, it results in an unnatural link profile, and you'll miss the links you want, among others.

  It takes considerable effort to build quality links. Buying a $200 piece of software won't do it for you. Research, commitment, and time investment are critical. Software won't give you the results of hard labor. It takes time and energy to make it to the top.

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn.

• 

  Are there Best Practices for Link Building?

  Posted: April 3rd, 2008, 4:39pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Link Building  

  In Search Engine Land's weekly column about link building, Eric Ward tackles a question about link building best practices. Is there such a thing?

  Guess what? The answer is no.

  He explains:

  The problem with link building best practices is that if you ask ten link builders to agree on a set of best practices, each of them will be right, and each of them will be wrong, myself included.

  What works for one link builder may not work for another link builder and vice versa. There's just no "standard" for link building. It comes down to the site's goals -- if they're looking to monetize, if they're looking for traffic, if they're looking for conversions, etc.

  But since folks at Sphinn were looking for more, Eric has started a new column on his blog called Link Building Best Practices.

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn.

• 

  The Fundamentals of Link Building

  Posted: March 31st, 2008, 5:19pm CEST by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Building Link  

  Adam Audette wrote a brilliant piece on the fundamentals of link building on his blog, and he's right on the money. His core message is that links reflect value, so your linking strategy should focus on finding that valuable link and seeking out the appropriate neighborhoods for gathering such links. The higher the quality of the link, the better it is for you.

  I'd summarize the entire post, but it really deserves its own read, your social media bookmarking, and your links too. Seriously. Adam did a great job. He divides his post into how link building has evolved, the components of a quality link, the importance of link neighborhoods, where to begin, and how to perform strategic link building.

  Forum discussion continues at Sphinn.