GIFs linking back to my site = SEO benefit?
Started by blakekr, Jun 22 2006 11:59 PM
8 replies to this topic
#4
Posted 23 June 2006 - 07:23 AM
There was a period in time, around middle to late 2001 IIRC, when Google was counting image src attributes rather like links. One could take 2 domains, and show images on one that were located on the other, to gain a cross-linking benefit that apparently bypassed all of the cross-linking checks and filters.
That's a long time back, but it does show that such 'oversights' can happen. On the other hand of course, it would be relatively easy to foresee search engines down-valuing sites that 'hotlink' in order to minimise potentially poor quality affiliate sites.
What that all means is that I wouldn't rely (or want) this happening much. It is a little too unpredictable from one month to another whether it could help you, or whether it could actually hurt you in a big way.
That's a long time back, but it does show that such 'oversights' can happen. On the other hand of course, it would be relatively easy to foresee search engines down-valuing sites that 'hotlink' in order to minimise potentially poor quality affiliate sites.
What that all means is that I wouldn't rely (or want) this happening much. It is a little too unpredictable from one month to another whether it could help you, or whether it could actually hurt you in a big way.
#5
Posted 23 June 2006 - 10:06 AM
There are lots of reasons that such hotlinking could occur outside of the affiliate sector..
people at ebay aggressively hotlink my images
people at myspace hotlink my images
legitimate bloggers hotlink my images
some .edu domains hotlink my images
In some ways these are votes for your domain and in other ways it is simply mooching BW.
people at ebay aggressively hotlink my images
people at myspace hotlink my images
legitimate bloggers hotlink my images
some .edu domains hotlink my images
In some ways these are votes for your domain and in other ways it is simply mooching BW.
#6
Posted 23 June 2006 - 10:25 AM
That's a good question and I certainly don't have a definitive answer.
My hunch though is no, not in the case of images. I have the feeling that a remotely linked JavaScript would do better. Flash probably too. My idea is that if the object is merely indexed the way an image is, and remember that JPEG at least contains meta data the way a GIF does not, that it doesn't help a lot. That would make Flash a weak second but JavaScript a good first.
I base these impressions on Google's attention to JavaScript and URL's in JavaScript.
My hunch though is no, not in the case of images. I have the feeling that a remotely linked JavaScript would do better. Flash probably too. My idea is that if the object is merely indexed the way an image is, and remember that JPEG at least contains meta data the way a GIF does not, that it doesn't help a lot. That would make Flash a weak second but JavaScript a good first.
I base these impressions on Google's attention to JavaScript and URL's in JavaScript.
Reply to this topic

0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users






