Google frowns on reciprocal linking: различия между версиями
| Строка 1: | Строка 1: | ||
| − | This is a | + | This is a subject that everyone appears to be arguing about at the moment. Everybody attempting to second-guess Google's actions - which they will By no means do - and questioning whether or not reciprocal linking is dead, dying or if it is one thing worth carrying on.<br><br>'Nuff of the speculation. Here's the proof.<br><br>Google do not like reciprocal link directories and they can sniff one particular out a mile off. There was (notice the use of the past tense right here) a link directory on my web site until recently, but I have now removed it, since it had become as useful as a chocolate teapot.<br><br>Whilst the primary front page of the web site has retained it really is Google PageRank of PR5, in one particular of their last updates, Google relegated that directory, which had also previously had a PR5, to a PR .<br><br>Meanwhile, I had not altered my linking structure that pointed to it. I had not altered my policies either: I did not link TO any PR0 sites, kept the number of links per page down to a minimum and there had been even text descriptions for every single entry listed.<br><br>Google could tell what it was and acted as they saw fit.<br><br>There is [http://contextualbacklink.com/ backlink building service] no point wondering [http://contextualbacklink.com/ contextual backlinks] or whining about it. They can and they are undertaking so in order to supply better results to searchers. You can like it or lump it, but if you want them to give you decent listings, ranks or send you any targeted traffic, their guidelines count.<br><br>My suggestions: forget *artificial* reciprocal linking totally. The time taken to keep the directory, approve/disaprove submissions (mainly the latter, simply because the only people nonetheless asking for links are crappy PR0 sites and spammers) can be considerably far better spent.<br><br>When you want to exchange links with other web sites, make sure you do so in a all-natural [http://contextualbacklink.com/ link building seo] way, by which I mean write about the other website in some way and place natural links inside the physique text.<br><br>And consider just giving to get. By which I mean, link out to beneficial factors for the edification or entertainment of your guests giving no consideration to the instant usefulness of that link to you.<br><br>What goes about will come around. When you are noticed as useful, others will link to you. You do then get your links "reciprocated", but it might not be from the same individuals to whom you linked.<br><br>That is the natural way of linking that Google desires to see.<br><br>Do not, under any circumstances, preserve anything (other than internal navigation) that could appear like merely a list of links / link farm, simply because Google will come across it, will not like it and will penalize it.<br><br>Reciprocal linking, in the form of lists or directories merely developed for that extremely objective can not do something to help you with Google (really the opposite, in truth) and as a result, est mortuus. [RIP] |
Версия 04:01, 1 июля 2012
This is a subject that everyone appears to be arguing about at the moment. Everybody attempting to second-guess Google's actions - which they will By no means do - and questioning whether or not reciprocal linking is dead, dying or if it is one thing worth carrying on.
'Nuff of the speculation. Here's the proof.
Google do not like reciprocal link directories and they can sniff one particular out a mile off. There was (notice the use of the past tense right here) a link directory on my web site until recently, but I have now removed it, since it had become as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Whilst the primary front page of the web site has retained it really is Google PageRank of PR5, in one particular of their last updates, Google relegated that directory, which had also previously had a PR5, to a PR .
Meanwhile, I had not altered my linking structure that pointed to it. I had not altered my policies either: I did not link TO any PR0 sites, kept the number of links per page down to a minimum and there had been even text descriptions for every single entry listed.
Google could tell what it was and acted as they saw fit.
There is backlink building service no point wondering contextual backlinks or whining about it. They can and they are undertaking so in order to supply better results to searchers. You can like it or lump it, but if you want them to give you decent listings, ranks or send you any targeted traffic, their guidelines count.
My suggestions: forget *artificial* reciprocal linking totally. The time taken to keep the directory, approve/disaprove submissions (mainly the latter, simply because the only people nonetheless asking for links are crappy PR0 sites and spammers) can be considerably far better spent.
When you want to exchange links with other web sites, make sure you do so in a all-natural link building seo way, by which I mean write about the other website in some way and place natural links inside the physique text.
And consider just giving to get. By which I mean, link out to beneficial factors for the edification or entertainment of your guests giving no consideration to the instant usefulness of that link to you.
What goes about will come around. When you are noticed as useful, others will link to you. You do then get your links "reciprocated", but it might not be from the same individuals to whom you linked.
That is the natural way of linking that Google desires to see.
Do not, under any circumstances, preserve anything (other than internal navigation) that could appear like merely a list of links / link farm, simply because Google will come across it, will not like it and will penalize it.
Reciprocal linking, in the form of lists or directories merely developed for that extremely objective can not do something to help you with Google (really the opposite, in truth) and as a result, est mortuus. [RIP]