Adding Links To Sites You Designed Right or Wrong? Options

[paranoidandroid]

This is something I have never considered before but was it was raised in an article I read on another forum.

If you are a web designer is it wrong to add a link for your own site to sites you design for clients?

The type of link I refer to tends to be a site-wide plain text link at the bottom of pages, and is usualy along the lines of -

'website designed by blah blah'

These are usualy added for two reasons -

1) For SEO to improve the rank of the designers site.

2) To advertise the designers services (get more work).

Would be interested to hear everyones thoughts on this.


Paul

This post has been edited by paranoidandroid: Sep 18 2007, 02:52 AM

[Jem]

Personally I feel that if a client has paid a lot of money for their website they shouldn't have to be forced to advertise. That said, I know a lot of people ask their clients and they don't mind, so I don't see the harm in that respect.

[Ruud]

If you are a web designer is it wrong to add a link for your own site to sites you design for clients?

Wrong morally? SEO wise? How do you mean?

In and by itself I don't see a problem with it. You'll notice that a lot of new cars will also have a logo or emblem somewhere showing from which car dealer they came. These type of links are similar to that.

Related discussion: Backlink In Footer Accross Whole Site Or On Home Page And Other Select Pages

[joedolson]

If you do it without the client's knowledge or assent, it's absolutely wrong --- from a business ethics perspective, your client is paying for THEIR site. The site is THEIR property, and you only have the right to change it as they are willing to agree to.

That said, 99% of the time I've found that the client has absolutely no problem with it --- I've had clients ask me whether I intended to do it, and stated up front that it was not a problem.

[bobbb]

your client is paying for THEIR site. The site is THEIR property

I agree with this and don't put it in on all pages at the bottom but usually bargain a link in the text somewhere if I can work it in and/or have a an e-mail in their contact page me@domain.com and/or a link in their links page.

I see nothing wrong with the practice. It's common.

[paranoidandroid]

Thanks everyone

Jem -

Personally I feel that if a client has paid a lot of money for their website they shouldn't have to be forced to advertise.

Agreed, and if they requested the removal of the link then yes, they are completely entitled to.
Ruud -

Wrong morally? SEO wise? How do you mean?

morally

You'll notice that a lot of new cars will also have a logo or emblem somewhere showing from which car dealer they came. These type of links are similar to that.

Good point
Joe -

If you do it without the client's knowledge or assent, it's absolutely wrong --- from a business ethics perspective, your client is paying for THEIR site. The site is THEIR property, and you only have the right to change it as they are willing to agree to.

I agree completely that to add or change anything without their permission would be wrong, but if the link is incorporated into the original/first design that they see then I think that's acceptable. And again if they voiced concerns with it at any point in the future then it should be removed.

Just to clarify my personal opinion I think it's acceptable as long as -

- The link is subtle and doesn't look out of place, no logos or animation and not too long.

- It's been incorporated from the start, not been sneaked on at a later date without permission.

- If the client objects then it should be removed without question.

- It isn't hidden, for example you haven't linked to your site from a spacer graphic or made it so small it isn't possible to see it.

This post has been edited by paranoidandroid: Sep 18 2007, 12:59 PM

[Autocrat]

This may cause a minor stir...
I actually have them contractually.
It's in the Terms and Conditions, refrenced in the Authority to Proceed etc.
I also make a point of my right to link to their site and claim acknowledgement for my involvement.

If they don't want it on there, they have to pay a nominal fee for it to be removed.


The reasons are simple;
-They didn't make it.
-It is Branding.
-It is for SEO.
-It is for gaining additional Work.
-It's also a little for ego


At the end of the day... the masters signed their paintings, clothes haev labels, cars havebadges - it is the norm for such things in most societies.

It is standard practice... it's normal for such a thing

[ukdaz]

... the masters signed their paintings,

First I do place anchor text links on my website - is it for SEO, partly, it's also because I am proud of my work though I don't make it a contractual obligation, instead I ask the client for permission. You've been paid to benefit the client, not yourself. Put customers first and the links will come....

I do though agree that your masters comment is a good argument...



This post has been edited by ukdaz: Sep 18 2007, 01:34 PM

[AbleReach]

Personally I feel that if a client has paid a lot of money for their website they shouldn't have to be forced to advertise. That said, I know a lot of people ask their clients and they don't mind, so I don't see the harm in that respect.

Force is a key concept here. Keeping the link should be a courtesy and a sign of respect.

[Respree]

After the fact, I think its presumptuous to simply do it.

Try to put yourself in the client's shoes. He/she does not owe you anything beyond the payment you've presumably already received. Of what benefit is a link to client?

If you've developed a good relationship with the client and want to keep it that way, you might ask politely if they can 'help you out,' but I think it's unwise (relationshipwise) to try to put a spin on it like they owe you something.

If, on the other hand, during your negotiations, that was part of your original arrangement (maybe you gave the client a discount in exchange for the link), of course, that would be a different story.

This post has been edited by Respree: Sep 18 2007, 02:15 PM

[paranoidandroid]

If, on the other hand, during your negotiations, that was part of your original arrangement (maybe you gave the client a discount in exchange for the link), of course, that would be a different story.

I like that idea alot - both sides benefit.

Thanks again everyone.

[sanity]

This may cause a minor stir...
I actually have them contractually.
It's in the Terms and Conditions, refrenced in the Authority to Proceed etc.
I also make a point of my right to link to their site and claim acknowledgement for my involvement.

I do exactly the same thing Autocrat and agree it's standard practice in the design circles I know.

Should the client not want it there is can be negotiated but like Autocrat it's an acknowledgment of our involvement in the project. So far no client has ever complained.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with SEO, after all aren't we supposed to design without the search engines in mind.

[EGOL]

My personal opinion is that the designer is not *entitled* to a link... and I don't think that the link should be "negotiated" up front. (Maybe what I am saying here is that the price should reflect "no link" and if that isn't OK then you need a different client.)

I believe that the site owner should give the link if they are absolutely delighted with the service received.... and that the link should go on an interior page (such as "About Us") instead of across the site.

I don't see designer links in the site-wide footer of extremely high traffic sites. On a site like that if the designer wants the site wide links then maybe he/she should do the design for free and pay a monthly fee for all of those high PR links. The value of the links and the exposure on such sites are many times the cost of the design.

This post has been edited by EGOL: Sep 18 2007, 09:58 PM

[saschaeh]

Side note:

Once you get the client to agree to add your link you can also let them choose the position and the look and feel of the link. Make the design options subtle and in-line with their website. The important thing is letting them choose where it will go and how it will look.

This post has been edited by saschaeh: Sep 19 2007, 02:46 AM

[Autocrat]

Not sure if I agree with ...saschaeh... ideas of letting the lcient choose the location.
It is often done duringthe design phase, plus it has become a "standard"... it goes at the bottom.

The first place to look for whoe designed/built/hosted a site si to look at the footer or below.

Changing something like that will be called out as a "Usability" problem by some, as habit and expectation play such a large part of the user-interaction (think ofthe Logo and being a link to the homepage in most E-Com sites).

[tamecrow]

We do it, but we ask the client first and we certainly wouldn't insist on it being a condition of the contract.

[send2paul]

I agree with Autocrat on the original point about it being included in the T&C's and also the fact that "traditionally" - and this would be included in the T&Cs - that the position of the link, i.e. at the foot of the homepage, (where people would be expected to find it), would also be agreed upon.

We've had a few discussions in the past on web designer contracts etc, but I don't think any of them included this particular point.

Paul

[EGOL]

Not sure if I agree with ...saschaeh... ideas of letting the lcient choose the location.

I think that you are forgetting who owns the website.

If the client has agreed to the link, I think that the designer's role is to find ways to incorporate the link in an attractive and acceptable way. You have a great opportunity to show how it can be done but in the end it needs to suit the owner of the site. Conversation up front is a great way to explore where the link can go.

This post has been edited by EGOL: Sep 19 2007, 08:20 AM

[saschaeh]

it has become a "standard"... it goes at the bottom.

It is a standard and it goes there 90% of the time and this is where the majority would suggest to add it. But if client wants it elsewhere so be it. Perhaps he wants it on the links page.

My point was about letting the client decide. More then lightly it will end up in the footer.

[Autocrat]

My point about it being at the footer is that it is non intrusive.
Many designs are well crafted and styled, creating a "whole"...
having a link, be it image ot text based, that has little to do with the content of site appear any place else strikes e as a little odd.

That said, I have seen it done, just took me a minute to realise what I was looking at as it was simply a logo in the mid right of the site deisign, beneath a news block.


I do understand the point of view that the site is owned by the client. They paid yfor your services and knowledge/skill.
But as I said, it's contractual.

For a comparison, look at anyting that is "published", it is often done in the same manner.
books, cd's + covers etc... all will have the publishers brand on, and often is set locations (spine, back cover in the bottom, on the terms page etc.

Pre-emptive yes on that fact that the publishers logo is not on every page of the book


Taking the wholly unrealistic view... none of your clients want your logo/link on their site. Fair play to them.
how the hell do visitors find out who built the site?
Most would end up assuming it was done in-house.
Bang goes the cahnce of refered work through a site.

It's going to be a fdifference of view for me - I'm not disagreeing with it, merely viewing it from a marginally different position - though I am pleased to see others view the site as belonging to the client (in the UK, there are still many little companies that retain the copyright/ownership of what they build andthe client basically rents the site forever!).