18 replies to this topic

[circle]

Hi,

What is the difference between a blogroll and using ordinary link exchanges (reciprocal linking)?

I know about how by using a blogroll someone can add a link of a site/blog to his blog instantly, but shouldn't they ask permission from the owner first? I would like to know the differences in the uses of both methods...

[A.N.Onym]

Link exchange is when you link to someone and they link to you.

Blogrolling is when you add a link to someone from all of your blog pages. No link in return, unless it is 'blogroll exchange', when they blogroll you, too.

Just adding link to someone in the blogroll won't get you links. Cooperating, partnering, becoming friends with someone and creating quality content should. However, links are the least valuable thing you'll get from working closely with someone.

In essense, I'd advise to make your site link worthy instead of getting links artificially. There are many ways to do this, such as by creating a valuable resource on your topic (a blog, for example), a tool or by giving away a freebie about your topic.

Then again, if you get visitors to your site, how do you keep them? So start by focusing on this aspect and it'll be easier to get links later.

Edited by A.N.Onym, 11 December 2006 - 12:16 AM.

[bragadocchio]

I add links to my blogroll to sites that I find interesting, and that I think people who visit my site might find interesting.

I avoid link exchanges.

A.N.Onym 's advice is spot on.

[circle]

Thanks for the clarification..... but then is reciprocal linking called "artificial" and isn't worth it? I thought it was one of the strong seo and marketing methods....

I don't know about offering freebies in posts, but I guess I'm doing that....I give them links to free valuable resources and tools in my posts..... if the feedburner.com shows you the details of subscribers to your blog, I guess these can be my blog "leads" to follow up with...am I wrong?

[A.N.Onym]

Well, just asking for links is not as efficient as creating something that people would readily link to (useful article, tool, funny video, etc).

Reciprocal linking with irrelevant sites is completely useless. Reciprocal linking with relevant websites may get you in trouble, considering that only lower quality sites do reciprocal linking.

That being said, if someone found your site useful and recommended it to their visitors, and you have done the same, then it is alright. In short, artificial links are not deserved by the people (they are not linked naturally by the desire of people to see other sites) and will be disregarded by the people and the search engines.

Just think: if you get lots of links and will show up in the SERPs, will people stay on your site? Will they find it useful? Do you deserve to be on the top? The only way to get there is to create something valuable and provide value to your customers via any way you can think of.

By giving away free stuff I meant offering a free e-book on your topic away or some discount coupon for your services (that many people can use within a month), etc.

What do you mean by 'blog leads'? If you try to sell through your blog from the start, you'll lose your readers. The only way to sell something through a blog is to mention it or to recommend. You have to be absolutely honest and fair, though. Then again, just blatantly selling stuff will steer readers away anyway.

Edited by A.N.Onym, 11 December 2006 - 04:47 AM.

[travis]

Reciprocal linking with relevant websites may get you in trouble, considering that only lower quality sites do reciprocal linking.

We reciprocal link with websites, and it works a treat. We are not a low quality site, and we manually check all entries. Sometimes, we link out to sites without asking for a return link, and sometimes the opposite is true.

There is a healthy balance of links on our site which have grown over time, mostly without our knowledge.

In fact, in an industry, its very common for an association to have a list of URL's (members) which are linked to, and these members more often than not, link back to the association. That is highly regular. They are very reputable sites, every single one of them.

People start rumours in the world of SEO, and they spread like wildfire, because they have no tangible way of observing the actual changes which are occuring. They have neither the tools nor the expertise to make any objective judgement as to what affects search engine ranking.

So we move to forums, and join the herd. That has obvious benefits, because it does get rid of the absurd notions, and usually offers very positive guidelines as we see with DCrx recent posts.

But again, in SEO, we need to be careful of the phrase "may be true" because I think it is, versus "this it true" because I have facts to back it up.

I think this forum sometimes runs a fear campaign, and for first time visitors, they will run off and start their own SEO company with all these principles lined up as gospel.

Text links only
Dont use frames
Use liquid CSS layouts
Dont use reciprocal links
Dont use flash animations
Dont use javascript menus
Dont have duplicate content
Usabilty standards must be employed or the world will end.
Marketing plans must be administered or doom will sweep across the scolded face of the earth in a firey apocalypse.

Actually, the last one is closest to the truth.

But we are talking about creating websites. It needs to be vibrant and different and capture the mood of the company, not some boring text file with a grey background.

Sometimes I look at usability websites, and fall asleep. I dont think the internet was designed for walls of text.

If flash is going to get the job done, then employ flash. Need some images to break up the content, get some images.

Javascript menus can be highly suitable, and from a customer point of view, can offer extremely fast navigation.

Duplicating content from someone elses site may be necessary because of the nature of the industry.

If we are going to say they are not good, lets see the proof. Lets look through some SERP's and find some demonstrative relationship between the attribute in question and ranking.

If you look through Google, it does not take very long to find crappy sites which break all these rules, and rank amazingly well.

I dont mind people giving solid advice, but we need to back it up with something. Bill's patent research is superb, but how much effect are we seeing and what sort of time delays occur before these things are implemented ?

Do Google release statements saying

"OK, The duplicate content filter is now in place." for example ?

or

"OK, any reputable sites which reciprocal link with one another will be penalised ?"

And even if they did, would we believe them ?

Edited by travis, 11 December 2006 - 05:27 AM.

[A.N.Onym]

Well, as Travis said, you have to check the sites you need to link out to. Linking out with the intent to show sites to others is a good way not to link to sites that link to bad neighbourhoods.

Also, in most cases the maxims you (Travis) listed are true. However, one has to remember that there's no definite answer to his questions. Sometimes Flash is the best solution to the task at hand and it won't sacrifice user convenience and SE visibility.

In essence, the reason some non-gospel-compliant sites outrank anyone is that they work and their visitors love them. That's what Google and success is about, anyway. Improving the website as per certain guidelines, be it usability or SE friendliness won't harm the sites (usability isn't about plain text - accessibility is )

Edited by A.N.Onym, 11 December 2006 - 06:44 AM.

[travis]

I knew someone would like that list.

I am not having a go, just more inquisitive as to how these thoughts come about.

[Ruud]

I knew someone would like that list

It's a great list. Could be the start of a web design myths list the way Bill started an SEO myths thread this year.

My contribution to the SEO part of your list: you should not ever link or interlink your sites.

And to the web design part: you cannot use HTML - XHTML is the only valid language to work in

[bragadocchio]

Do Google release statements saying

"OK, The duplicate content filter is now in place." for example ?

or

"OK, any reputable sites which reciprocal link with one another will be penalised ?"

Google: Webmaster Guidelines

Google Webmaster Help (look for posts from Adam Lasnik and Vanessa Fox)

Official Google Blog

other search engines:

Microsoft: Guidelines for successful indexing

Yahoo: Yahoo Search Help

[bragadocchio]

Bill's patent research is superb, but how much effect are we seeing and what sort of time delays occur before these things are implemented ?

Who says they have to be implemented? Who says that they have to share that information with anyone?

If you're taking those statements from search patents as gospel, you're missing the point. Consider them as possibilities. Consider them as primary resources that might provide a little insight into how search engineers might think. Consider them as methods and processes that the search engines found valuable enought to protect as intellectual property.

But don't consider them as guidelines to the inner workings and secrets of the search engines.

Should you use text links, as opposed to what? Flash-based menus? Option boxes? Java script obfuscated links? Depends. Do you want search engines to index those pages? If so, text based links make it easier, and more likely.

Should you use frames? If you're building web applications and secured areas of a web site that you don't want indexed by search engines, sure. If you want people to link to individual pages of a site, or to help the search engines index those pages, there are ways other than frames that provide the benefits that frames may.

Liquid CSS layouts? Doesn't make a difference to me. What issue have people been raising that you are whinging about them?

Reciprocal links? Doesn't hurt to link back and forth with people. But getting involved with large, organized, link exchanges and relying upon those to get some type of link popularity value isn't recommended because search engines can identify them (as a search engineer from Google stated a couple years ago at a "Meet the Crawlers" session at the New York SES about how easy or difficult that might be: "We have lots and lots of computers.") Read some of the Trustrank/link Spam Detection /Web Spam Taxonomy papers.

Flash Animations? Flash is great when used as directed - see the Best Practices for Flash Player Detection from Adobe which recommends an effective means of inserting flash into an HTML page, providing html based alternative content, and meaningful content when javascript is disabled.

Java script menus? If you use them in a manner in which search engine spiders can't follow them, and you want pages linked to indexed, then maybe you should reconsider using them. I've recommended people use the son of suckerfish approach, which uses a little java script, but only for deficiencies in IE. Spiders can follow those links without problems.

Dont have duplicate content? Big site, small site, doesn't matter. Filtering can happen at the crawling, indexing and serving stages. Failing to make pages unique enough, or URL structures, and it may be difficult to find your pages in search engines. Plenty of discussions here in the forum pointing to whitepapers, search engine statements, etc on the topic. Use the forum search box.

Usabilty standards must be employed or the world will end? Of course, it's much better to make an aesthetically pleasing site than it is to make one that people will use, and that will meet the goals of the site owner (sarcasm). I don't think that you have to give up an interesting and engaging design to also make a usable design.

Marketing plans must be administered or doom will sweep across the scolded face of the earth in a firey apocalypse? Not every site is as lucky as YouTube. Most aren't. Is there a problem with actually sitting down and trying to do a little planning?

[Black_Knight]

I think this forum sometimes runs a fear campaign, and for first time visitors, they will run off and start their own SEO company with all these principles lined up as gospel.

I think the real terrifying thing is the thought that someone might think themselves qualified to start an SEO company based on reading a forum.

Would you want to take a flight piloted by a guy who decided to set up his airline after hanging around a couple of discussions between pilots?

[travis]

I probably could have chosen better words than "fear campaign". I did not mean to offend anyone's work by using that statement. No more PM's . My inbox is full, and I need some space to give Send2Paul crap about the cricket.

It was a general comment about forum psychology. Perhaps an analogy of herd psychology is apt.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf ?

If we liken our members to geese, of which I would obviously be a prize goose.

The geese in the gaggle (collective noun) come together because they dont know something. Lets say its the location of the big bad wolf. (Google)

Where is the wolf ? Have you seen the wolf ? What is the wolf thinking ?

The geese who cant see the wolf or know nothing about it will have to rely on the comments of others to feel comfortable. And around and around the geese run in their gaggle.

Its very comforting and stress relieving to join a group of like minded individuals, and that's what every single person says when they first join.

"Its so good to be here, I have finally found a comfortable zone where I can learn and create."

The forum provides security to its members that they are on the right path. I was once a loose goose until I came here, and there is much knowledge which I have gained in SEO thanks mainly to the two geese above.

But a plump (collective noun for geese on water) can pass on fear as well, and all I was trying to say is that we need not be afraid of techniques which are outside the flock mentality, thats all.

Avoiding certain design techniques such as Flash because of SEO is frustrating for us. To be honest, if a client asks for good SEO performance, then we start with removing a lot of Flash and Javascript dropdowns to accommodate. But in general, these techniques should not be overly feared.

Ammon,

You think people dont start businesses on what they learn here. They start businesses in SEO with less knowledge which is from a book 5 years old.

Like metadata went in and out of fashion pretty quick, and I notice now even in Australia, companies will fix your metadata and submit your site to 4,000 search engines.

Why ? Because they read it in a book, or a forum 3 years ago, and took it as gospel.

You know what I am trying to say.

People are going to take what we say here as gospel, and use it for the next 4 years. When you buy an SEO book soon, it will list all those points above which Bill amazingly responded too.

You are too good Bill. I am going to steal that stuff and write a book on it.

[Ruud]

You seem to present your view in a very balanced, logical way. BUt really, is it?

I was once a loose goose until I came here, and there is much knowledge which I have gained in SEO thanks mainly to the two geese above.

But a plump (collective noun for geese on water) can pass on fear as well, and all I was trying to say is that we need not be afraid of techniques which are outside the flock mentality, thats all.

You have been able to pluck through the gaggle, the forum psychology, the gospel, the fear tactiques -- yet you fear others would not be able to safe for you blurting out "oh no, this is not true!"?

And what do you plan to offer in return? You imply well researched solid fact but come back with opinion.

We reciprocal link with websites, and it works a treat. [...]

I think this forum sometimes runs a fear campaign [...]

It needs to be vibrant and different and capture the mood of the company [...]

Sometimes I look at usability websites, and fall asleep. I dont think the internet was designed for walls of text. [...]

After which you do go on to demand proof for others' statements and warnings.

I dont mind people giving solid advice, but we need to back it up with something.

Precisely.

If you've been here even a week you see that all views are well presented, each with their own input, resources and research. Where's yours?

You feel reciprocal linking is OK to advise because you do it on your site and hey, works great. Does it? Or is your site doing greate despite the reciprocal linking? At what point would you warn someone about reciprocal linking and when would you advise it? Why?

And what is with this "we" stuff?

But again, in SEO, we need to be careful of the phrase "may be true" because I think it is, versus "this it true" because I have facts to back it up.

"We" know that no-one on this forum is giving out The One ANd Only Gospel as provided by Google. "We" know we're having an ongoing discussion, exchange of ideas, here regarding what we see, read, do and observe.

Apart from that, the above advice doesn't come close to making sense. I would almost demand that when someone thinks something is true, they would say "may be true... could be" vs. "this is true". I know of at least one poster who should apply that "is this an absolute truth or not?" rule to his (or her...) own posts...

[...] we need not be afraid of techniques which are outside the flock mentality [...]

...

Where in the world have you been reading? It's so grand of you to secure our feelings and offer us permission to step outside the box, step outside group thinking.... but Travis... that is what this place was about long before you came here. It is the reason that you feel that you have gained in SEO from this place up to the point that you feel confident you can offer free SEO as a side dish, an "also", an aside of your web design company.

Frankly, I think that it may be true that what you offer in counterbalance to the "fear campaign" is not even opinion -- it's mere speculation based on quoting things you've read on forums 3 years ago.

Seriously, someone who purports to offer a balanced, informed SEO view and then states, in 2006 (!!), the following while wanting to come across as a teacher and not a student, cannot be taken completely serious:

To be honest, if a client asks for good SEO performance, then we start with removing a lot of Flash and Javascript dropdowns to accommodate.

Compare that with a solid...

However, one has to remember that there's no definite answer to his questions. Sometimes Flash is the best solution to the task at hand and it won't sacrifice user convenience and SE visibility.

It's clear what the source of the fear campaign, if any, is. Which "I think..." opinions are being presented as facts. Who sticks to information 3, 4 years old.

Thanks for the heads-up, Travis! I and many other members appreciate it!

ps: metadata

[travis]

I would not overanalyze it too much Ruud,

The forum has advantages and disadvantages in the way it disseminates information.

Different forums have different points of view. Over time a concesus is reached between members who form a group. Its just natural in group psychology for this to happen.

I bet there is someone out there putting together a book on SEO right now, and they will be taking information from these forums when preparing its structure and content.

Edited by travis, 12 December 2006 - 06:44 PM.

[A.N.Onym]

Heh. Maybe I shouldn't have deleted a [my] post about the list that Travis posted =)

You see, Travis, the list is good and I think the rules mentioned should, in most cases, be followed. In most cases, following the rules will be beneficial to the website, as it will not only make it load faster and indexed way easier, but also quite user friendly.

As I said before, when site speed, SE visibility aren't a target, all of the above can be used to enhance user experience (which should be in an intranet or in a private site section, perhaps).

I'd add "Convert images to text" to that list, too, btw. But sometimes you do need an image, for a logo, a photo or something.

As for the fear campaign. Unfortunately for you, the most cases we discuss on our forums (in the Website Hospital, in other forums) fall into cases, where using text menus is more helpful than Javascript or Flash ones. Such examples are in the majority, when compared to cases, where you do need to use AJAX (a database search tool), so it could (and probably has) created a sense that we are running the campaigns with the gospels at hand. But we are not.

We simply apply the "It depends rule" and offer the advice, based on the question. If you or your friends and coworkers come here and discuss ways to use Flash, AJAX and Javascript, when they can not hurt anyone (users and the SEs), some other people may get an impression that we are running a "Flash/AJAX is good" campaign, which we are not.

Getting at what I am trying to say?

It is in the eye of the beholder.

While I certainly understand your concern about the forum perception of the newcomers, there is no better alternative than what we say. Luckily, often, we offer a number of alternative solutions to the site issues mentioned here, so there should be at least an idea of using what's best for a current situation, like the one you'd like to see instead of the 'fear campaigns'.

I hope I made some sense.

Edited by A.N.Onym, 12 December 2006 - 09:25 PM.

[Ruud]

I would not overanalyze it too much Ruud

Thanks for the tip.

Merely sending a signal on how far we're willing to let this trolling continue.

[bwelford]

I really don't understand how fear got into this topic. Of course you sometimes do things that don't work as well as other things, but the beauty of all this is that you can learn from your mistakes and gradually improve. Of course if you go against the Terms of Service or the Guidelines of the search engines, then you run risks. But if you choose to go against clearly expressed rules, then you should not weep if you hurt yourself.

[Mike Cherim]

Blogrolls tend to be more like reading lists or a way of paying respects versus being exchange-based in my opinion.