You know the kind, refresh the page and you get different links.

Can anything be less impressive?

You're basically saying those links don't matter much, here, these other links are just as good.

Circumstantial evidence would suggest G agrees......

I'd love to see this evidence. People claim that they get thousands of backlinks from the co-op ad network.

It's not just that network, Jupiter Media uses them too, and it wouldn't surprise me if other networks started following suit.

Rotating links is a handy way for publishers to satisfy demand within a restricted space, but the message it gives about the quality of those links can't be good...

they certainly are a powerful force in SEO right now no doubt...

the search results seem to show that search engines are impressed with them :cool:

I'd certainly like to see evidence G is impressed with rotating links, can you help?

I'd certainly like to see evidence G is impressed with rotating links, can you help?
look through the search results... apparently some of those pages rank fairly well. the algorithm must be impressed with something. If you would like you could pick an obscure or slightly competitive word and we could see if someone would be willing to rotate your site into the mix to show you how well it works.

*the search results seem to show that search engines are impressed with them*

If you can state that, you surely must be able to give me some examples.

If you can state that, you surely must be able to give me some examples.
wanted to give you your own site as an example, but apparently you sound disinterested all the sudden :confused:

>If you can state that, you surely must be able to give me some examples.

Looks like you got an offer to see if it works for yourself, pretty good eh?

So have you no examples of Google liking rotating links?

So have you no examples of Google liking rotating links?
your site ... if I pulled out other past examples it would have other factors. I want to work on your site so the only factors are what we do to it. :)

I won't give the site details but I can say that the network alone can achieve good rankings. A friend recently did me a favour and achieved position 2 for a site on a fairly non competitive phrase (500,000 results) virtually overnight by adding a link on the network.

The phrase appeared only once on the site and had been added that day (Dec 23rd). The rest of the site is in no way relevant to that phrase (related to a specific event). Two days after the links were added the site was showing at position 5 for google.com and .co.uk. It moved up to 2nd within 4 days - the links were removed the first week of Jan and at present the site's still ranking.

Competing sites are well established and have authority inbound links including media and government (although not necessarily all with the exact anchor text I'm searching).

The site isn't an authority in any area, is in no way connected with this subject normally. The only other link with this phrase is a random ad which I have on another site. I did temporarily add a couple of thousand links with no anchor text which might have helped in general but certainly not for that phrase and only for the first week.

I'm really not into all the arguments about whether this specific network is good, bad or indifferent in the longer term but it does seem to work at the moment.

I can also say that rotating media ads (generally banners) were around long before people started talking about links being so important and if you can't afford or don't want to have your ad show all the time then that doesn't mean you wouldn't pay for a rotation. It doesn't have to give any message about the quality of the links as far as I can see?

*I want to work on your site so the only factors are what we do to it.*

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I'm glad you've posted it on a public forum...

Still waiting for some decent examples of Google valuing rotating links..... anyone?

They can't show you, so don't bother asking them. Those "tiny" links you speak of at the bottom of pages that rotate are pure spam. Nothing else to talk about or say about them. I wouldn't be caught using those "tiny" little links on someone else's ten foot pole, erm, I mean site.

Still waiting for some decent examples of Google valuing rotating links..... anyone?
well apparently you do not want to offer up your site and you expect others to. is it me or are you asking everyone else to hold themselves to a higher standard than you are holding yourself to?

kinda hypocritical IMHO.

certainly not a best practice.

They can't show you, so don't bother asking them.
the voice of reason...
Those "tiny" links you speak of at the bottom of pages that rotate are pure spam. Nothing else to talk about or say about them.
yet he continues to type...
I wouldn't be caught using those "tiny" little links on someone else's ten foot pole, erm, I mean site.

Right, so the message from Seobook is that rotating links are ticketyboo, and as valuable as static ones.

Fine, you read it here folks.......

from what I've seen, ad networks work. I've seen several sites give google links that show they have 3 to 4 thousand backlinks on sites that have nothing to do with them. I'm just not going to participate in it for fear of a Google filter.

Still waiting for some decent examples of Google valuing rotating links..... anyone?

You first. Pretty demanding for someone not stoking the fire with their own piece of fresh wood. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not up to other SEO's to prove their opinions to you so that you can use their work for your gain. It's all about information *sharing*. If you want SEO "advice" without giving anything in return, then what you need is a paid consultant and not a message board.

Google has always valued fresh content. That's all rotating links are, IMHO.

So have you no examples of Google liking rotating links?

<vent on>
Geeze...quit asking and do some leg work like everyone else. Then come here with a legit example, or like seobook politely asked for your site to be worked on...

Want more free work? Stand in line at the unemployment office or come back when you have food stamps for more free advice...or start sharing and you may get some back! :mad:
<vent off>

Dear oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve, thanks for the contribution boys!

Google has always valued fresh content. That's all rotating links are, IMHO.
LOL Could I have some of that stuff you are eating or smoking?

yeah glengara, I'd say you have touched some nerves and a hot button.

Facts are this:

Those rotating links are purely for se purposes. That's a fact. You all can spin this any o'l way you wish, but the facts are the facts. Period.

LOL Could I have some of that stuff you are eating or smoking?
would give you some, but fear you would turn me in :D

The question;
I'd certainly like to see evidence G is impressed with rotating links, can you help?
The answer;
Facts are this:
Those rotating links are purely for se purposes. That's a fact. You all can spin this any o'l way you wish, but the facts are the facts. Period.

Which since I assume 'impressed' means 'takes note of' seems to me to be pretty much saying that Google is impressed with rotating links? So if Glengara respects Dougs opinion, if no one elses, then we all agree now?

May be worth keeping an eye on....

h**p://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=8577&page=1&pp=10

thanks for the contribution boys

Actually, I'm a girl.

LOL Could I have some of that stuff you are eating or smoking?

I never said that the links weren't being rotated by the webmasters for seo purposes. No, what I *said* was that Google likes fresh content, which is what the rotating links make the page appear to have. No one asked why the links were being rotated, the question was if or why Google appeared to like them.

I think that's a separate issue. Fresh content appears to get a page spidered more often, but I haven't seen any evidence that it helps rankings.

So I guess the question of whether or not G likes fresh content depends on what "likes" means.

I haven't seen any evidence that it helps rankings.

I've tested this a bit and any time a site slips, a little dab of fresh content pulls its ranks back to its normal holding position. So, on several sites, I've moved it to a model where some of the content constantly changes. Google specifically seems to like it in terms of both spidering and rank holding. It works for me. ;)

Thanks, that's good to know. I've never tried tracking it myself.

And now back to our regularly scheduled argument...

*And now back to our regularly scheduled argument...*

I wish!!

Common abuse on irrelevant matters does not an argument make ;-)

How about adding some bad rep there guys?

I'm trying to lose my green cherry.......

I think the links can help a site, or a network of sites out there as long as you keep it strictly confined to that network. Also, I happen to be a strong believer in keeping networks like these small and private. They tend to work better, and last a lot longer. The bigger the network the more it falls into one giant link farming scheme, because there is absolutely no relevancy. I'm not bashing the idea, I think it's a good one, but it's got some kinks to work out. I've got so many ideas swirling around in my head because of this, so many thanks to DP, and if anyone finds out that Google favors it (which I doubt they will, find out that is) then I'm sure it will be posted here.

if anyone finds out that Google favors it (which I doubt they will, find out that is) then I'm sure it will be posted here.

look at some pages participating in the coop... see where they rank. the results are all the proof you need. of course, things can and do change over time.

With people insisting on bringing in the COOP, it seems impossible to discuss hypothetically whether rotating links are, per se, a good or bad idea.

well a hypothetic discussion would be absolutely fine but someone asked for specific instances and since the coop is pretty popular that seems a likely source of specific examples. I think that's how we dragged the coop into this.

If you want to get back to hypothetical; since search engines index a page at a specific point and webmasters have every right to change who they link to as frequently as they wish (for example if discussing the news you would expect the links to frequently change) I would say it's hypothetically unlikely that a search engine would consider frequently changing links detrimental, if, indeed, the algo considers the fact they've changed at all and doesn't just rely on the current page information.

As an example, as I know you'll want one, this could be backed up by the rankings of sites which promote affiliate schemes, for example TradeDoubler and Affiliate Windows (I'm sure there are many others and also a lot of other types of site which provide good examples), who tend to rank highly for their targeted keywords but change their featured links at least daily. This does not appear detremental, as far as I can see, to either them or to the sites they link to.

Good stuff, but I think it's obvious that the PR formula was based on how linking was done in academic circles, that is the links would be relevant to the page topic.

So if I had a page on blue fuzzy widgets, what rational reason would I have to continually rotate the links, particularly if they weren't even on topic?

Rotating links is a handy way for publishers to satisfy demand within a restricted space

Exactly. And cost reasons for the advertisers.

Fixed positions in publishing inventory have always commanded a premium - front page, inside front cover, Superbowl etc.

Forget links and search engines for a minute. The concepts of reach and frequency in advertising aren't new. Inventory limits for publishers aren't new. Campaign budgets aren't new. Why should advertising on a web site be bought and sold any differently to advertising on TV or radio or outdoor billboards at sports events?

Advertisers don't necessarily want their advertisements to be 'fixed' to a single 'spot'. For both marketing and cost reasons.

The whole market for banner ads on the web was based on the CPM model - cost per 1,000 impressions. Rotation was a key part of that model.

If you look at search engine advertising (Adwords, Overture) for a minute - that model doesn't work on 'fixed links' or 'fixed positions' either. Sure the ads don't 'rotate' - but they certainly aren't fixed.

I agree entirely Chris, and as patently advertising rather than links to further topical content, should not be included in the PR/anchor text calculations....

so no advertising should count for linkpop? Ok how how do you define advertising?

*Ok how how do you define advertising?*

Well we could start with rotating links ;-)

Glengara,

There is a thread at wmw which you might find interesting -
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum12/2179-4-10.htm

From what I have found the links do have an effect, but it seems after about 2 months serps return to 'pre-network' levels. (Note, 'what I have found', before you guys burn me in flames!) Whether this is due to the temporary nature of the links or the sudden changes in link rate, I couldnt say. However the 'eBay' search term Shawn managed to get to somewhere around 3rd for is no longer there, in fact i've just checked - the page is no longer cached.

Some of the Coop guys are having problems, but whether it's specific or just part of the update, is hard to say...

In my travels I came across another site using rotating links, got distracted and forgot to bookmark it :-(

There is another one called YourCan.. "your cooperative network".. *very* similar to the co-op ad network (needless to say) !

Those rotating links are purely for se purposes. That's a fact. You all can spin this any o'l way you wish, but the facts are the facts. Period.


You know I help you I have to say you say the most ridiculous stuff

This is a forum of optimizers we do everything for se purposes

So what is your point?

If google even likes something a little then its worth doing... right?

Even if a rotating link is worth .001 a ethical relevant super dooper white hat link

Then its still worth getting, if its cheap

Yeah, that is my point. Thanks for pointing it out. :)

That rotating link scheme is for the se's, mostly Google. It's clear as day, just like the Google guidelines are clear as day saying they don't want things done strictly for Google. Putting it this way; Why are most sites I see in this link scheme placing those links at the very bottom of their page? Oh, I know why; It's because they don't want regular visitors/browsers to see those links. Oh gee, That's pretty much the definition of spam where I come from. Now if those links and this scheme were truly created for "users", ..."Not" spam.

I hope that makes things more clearer to you. :)

Why people want to "game" Google is is something I will never understand. I've been at this stuff for 8 years now and I never had to game a search engine. This link scheme is gaming the search engines, period. I could care less how it might be working "now" for some sites. Give it time... sooner or later, actually sooner, and it won't be working at all.
You know I help you I have to say you say the most ridiculous stuff
Oh yes; In 'your' world I'm sure you think that is "very" true. Ask thousands out there and you will receive a very different take on "my posts". BTW; my biz name is ihelpyou, and not I Help You. Thanks.
This is a forum of optimizers we do everything for se purposes
Oh yes; Many of us have noticed that. :D And optimizers in here believe doing things only for the search engines is a good thing?

Those rotating links are purely for se purposes. That's a fact. You all can spin this any o'l way you wish, but the facts are the facts. Period.
All SEO forums, without exception, are purely for se purposes.* That's a fact. You all can spin this any o'l way you wish, but the facts are the facts. Period.

*Including this one (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/) and this one (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum24/). You all can spin this any o'l way you wish, but the facts are the facts. Period.

"Purely" for the se's Marcia?

hmm. And here I thought I "taught" good website design and ran a discussion forums that discussed best practices in design and marketing for "BOTH" your visitors and the search engines.

Thanks for telling me my forums are "Purely" for the search engines. :) I learned something new about my own place.

I've been at this stuff for 8 years now and I never had to game a search engine. This link scheme is gaming the search engines, period. I could care less how it might be working "now" for some sites. Give it time... sooner or later, actually sooner, and it won't be working at all.
As Doug points out, things move on, what SE's find acceptable changes, people who used to promote rotating links (http://www.netcheck.com/ihelpyou.shtml) no longer do; the 'best' way to SEO evolves.

Does it really matter if some people are still using a method that others stopped using a few months/years ago? Some people are still using same colour text and no one bothers having a hissy fit over that.

As a good rule of thumb; if people still get upset enough to argue about it then it's probably worth doing in terms of pure rankings.

What's that link mean Gurtie? It's an old 1999 thing I use to be with. My old biz name. My old 1998 picture. My old website is listed. I've never promoted "text links" at all. Not sure why you posted that or your point by posting it? If that site wants to continue showing that after over 5 years of me 'not' being a member, that's their call to do so.

There are things done for both se's and visitors, and there are things done purely for se's. That rotating links scheme is something done purely for se's. That's spam.

If that site wants to continue showing that after over 5 years of me 'not' being a member, that's their call to do so.
if it inaccurately reflects your services does it not hurt your brand?

a person could read that page wrong and think "spammer" ?

hmm. I thought this thread was about the link schemes and not about ihelpyou? Why is it that everytime I post in any thread in this place the members turn it around to get personal with me? So what, I can't disagree with you all?

I'm going to disagree with you Aaron, no matter what you post. I've not agreed on a single post you have ever made. But so what? Can't we disagree without it turning personal? I highly doubt anyone thinks of spammer when they think of ihelpyou. LOL

This place needs to close this thread it seems and my username needs to be removed. You don't want a different voice in here.... one of best practices. Like people stick together. Each place chooses what types of people.

my point is that things change, that's all. I think my post was pretty clear to be honest. If you want to take it as a personal dig then there's not much I can do about it, but just because you're used to illustrate a point doesn't make it a personal attack.

This thread is about rotating links, not text links or link schemes.

I have to assume that before that page was out of date rotating banners weren't spam? Ergo rotating banners used to be valuable and now some people think they're not. Where you stand on that slope is entirely up to you but this isn't a black and white issue unless someone published some hard guidelines I missed in the last five years?

but this isn't a black and white issue unless someone published some hard guidelines I missed in the last five years?
Matter of fact:
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
If I recall; That statement has been on Google for about two years now. It's this page:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

I see those as "hard" and clear guidelines. I guess you must have missed them in the last 5 years. :)

You think I should start a new "Rotating text links, dontcha love them?" thread Gurtie?

Things do change, but I doubt at the time anyone selling rotating banners went on about the benefits of specifying your Alt text, while the idea today of using the nofollow attribute on text links would cause an uproar.

the idea today of using the nofollow attribute on text links would cause an uproar.
the way information systems view advertismenets is up to the information systems. you cant tell them to rank a site for whatever you want to and why should you go out of your way to appease some other company with some new arbitrary standard? which could potentially diminish the value of an ad. if they dont want to count the ad then they should fix it on their end.

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

All effective forms of seo involve some sort of plan to increase your links

you are out of touch with the common webmaster

the average webmaster just wants to make either a living or some extra bucks to improve their life

and cares very little about so called seo "ethics"

you are trying to create some sort of fake holy war between the "righteous" and "dishonest" webmasters (when in reality there really isn't too much of either, in terms of SEO),

I assume you do this mostly to market your self. I don't really knock your hustle I am sure it works well for you.

The rotating link networks are no different then trading links

but then again you most likely think that is spam too

*The rotating link networks are no different then trading links but then again you most likely think that is spam too*

Don't know about spam, but it would certainly fall within the "links scheme' remit, IMO.

So someone clarify what this threads about then? Glengara? It's about rotating links? AFAIK it isn't specifically about text links or linking schemes althougth either of those may use rotating links and so got involved.

No I don't see any Google guidelines against rotating links at http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

If you guys want to argue about whether link exchange schemes, whether static, rotating or otherwise wriggling around, are good then there are a lot of threads already doing that. I'm interested in the rotating link thing though and as far as I can see rotating links do benefit sites in Google and other SE's, in some cases despite being a part of a link scheme which probably does violate Googles guidelines.

So that has an impact on a lot of other things; the sandbox, advertising methods, page refreshes, whether Google even realises links are rotating?

I probably should have stated rotating text links Gurtie, I just assumed it would be taken as a "given" these days ;-)

ok - text links, I'm not so bothered actually if they're text or images.

if you do a search on google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=rotating+text+links&btnG=Search&meta=) for 'rotating text links' and check out the sites which appear you'll find that, in the main, they are nice, innocent, normal, people and sites who are clearly using rotating text links for reasons other than link pop.

As an example the first three sites are these (please delete if this is against the regs but none of these are doing anything wrong or linked to SEO and it is important people understand that rotating links are not purely used for seo)

http://www.programmingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=15733 (wants to rotate an image and show a link topical to that image)
http://www.banmanpro.com/support/textlinks.asp (ad serving software now supporting text)
http://www.webreference.com/js/column3/ (showing people how to "present unlimited content in a limited area")

so - clearly people outside of this world not only use rotating links without being in a link exchange network but some of them want to use them for on topic links.....

On that basis (and lets face it 99% of the online population don't know anything about SEO) would it be in any way fair for SE's to ignore links because they happen to rotate?

I know SE's don't have to be fair but it is in their interests to be as unbiased as possible in terms of assessing links. We are the ones with the biased viewpoint here. I still don't agree either that SE's should or do discount [text] links which rotate.

Or do you actually mean "rotating text link networks like the coop"?

The problem with most of Google's guidelines (and I try to follow them, I really do) is that in many cases, it's not the technology or design that is the issue, it's the intent.

Some examples:
Note: when I say "random" in these examples, you can assume I mean it could also be "rotating", as well.

I put up a box on my front page that contains a random quote, linked to the site of the person supplying the quote.

Rotating Link spam?

I have a database of 1000 products and I "feature" a random 5 each time a visitor comes. Although the link is internal, it's still a random vote for particular members of a group.

Rotating Link Spam?

On a similar note, I have 50 great links but a small amount of space. I think they are ALL great and have no problem listing any single one at any time. As a matter of fact, I don't want to make one think I feel they are more or less important than the others, so I rotate randomly through them to give everyone an equal chance, thereby eliminating the appearance to a search engine that I favored one over the others.

Rotating Link Spam?

I run a news feed and it shows random current news clippings, along with links to the news site or blog providing it.

Rotating Link Spam?

I participate in a "web ring"

Rotating Link Spam?

I have a news site that updates it's page (and links) automatically and frequently (like, oh, google news, for example)

Rotating Link Spam?

I have a box on my site that contains paid links that show up at random.

Rotating Link Spam?

I *manually* change links around (or update my site) on a very frequent basis - hourly or daily. Perhaps I have a staff working on constant updates.

Rotating Link Spam?

My question is, assuming that you feel that one of these is NOT rotating link spam but others are, then how would you tell the difference? In code, they are all the same. the only relevant difference would be the *intent*, not the tactic.

And what if the *intent* of the CEO was to give all his links equal opportunities, but the *intent* of the SEO working on the site was to manipulate PR? Which intent is the one you ban the site over, or disallow the PR to be passed? The SEO or the owner?

Some late night thoughts,

Ian

The problem with most of Google's guidelines (and I try to follow them, I really do) is that in many cases, it's not the technology or design that is the issue, it's the intent.

Indeed - and that's the problem. A big part of guideline objections seems to be when webmasters behave anything but passive towards search engines. Yet as they are one of the major forces of the internet, they need to be considered and accomodated to. That's SEO.

That maybe a few seo's definition of "seo" but it certainly ain't mine or many others who would never bother posting to this thread. glengara is the only one with a clue in this particular thread.

oh, Ian as well. Of course it's the intent. It "will" be very easy to spot a link scheme with the intent of gaming Google. Just wait.

ok - once again - through clenched teeth - ROTATING *!%%$!* LINKS are not necessarily part of a links scheme.

On a similar note, I have 50 great links but a small amount of space. I think they are ALL great and have no problem listing any single one at any time. As a matter of fact, I don't want to make one think I feel they are more or less important than the others, so I rotate randomly through them to give everyone an equal chance, thereby eliminating the appearance to a search engine that I favored one over the others.Lets go with that - great example - As a website owner I want to provide these links anyway because they're a good resource, but obviously I also want to help the website owners if I can because I'm a nice person.

Am I doing them a disservice by showing them all as rotating links? Am I (shock horror) perhaps even penalising their sites by making them appear part of a rampant-black-hat-link-spamming-scam? Many website owners have been advised against having pages with lists of 'spammy' links on their sites.

Actually Doug, I don't care if it'll be very easy to spot a link scheme with the intent of gaming Google. Just wait. but I DO care if people who innocently use rotating links get themselves or the linkees penalised.

Really, is there any actual indication that rotating links themselves are disliked by the SE's, or even noticed?

... I DO care if people who innocently use rotating links get themselves or the linkees penalised.

Really, is there any actual indication that rotating links themselves are disliked by the SE's, or even noticed?

Link rotation was first developed by Rasmus Lerdorf in 1995 when he used Perl to insert dynamic links into his home page. He invented PHP and gave away the concept for free. So, its use predates most search engines (including Google) and they have never forbidden it.

I have used rotating links on my pages for years, mostly to promote content within my network through banner ads and "mini-web pages". I have never been penalized for rotating content through my pages.

If the links are embedded in the page content through server side includes (the way Lerdorf did it originally), the search engines will detect a change in content and reward the freshness. If the links are served through iframes, third-party services, or Javascript, they will have little to no impact on the displaying page's freshness or standings (because all the search engines see is the code to retrieve the data).

My sites generate a great deal of traffic from within our own banner ad and mini-web page services. Frankly, it really wouldn't matter much if the search engines started penalizing for such usage. But there isn't even a hint of a shadow of doom for this long-standing, widespread practice on the search engines' radar.

They have real issues to contend with.

I'm certainly not the only one warning people about this link scheme:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=9172

Then the WMW link off that thread as well.

It's judy a matter of time. Rotating links have always been fine if they are indeed done to create visitors (targeted). If they are done for any other reason, watch out in the long-term.

I'm certainly not the only one warning people about this link scheme:


I have never been influenced by hysterical SEO forum postings. The SEO forum communities are filled with Chicken Littles. They all have one common trait: they keep panicking every time something changes.

Link rotation is a non-issue, particularly with Google, since their system will reassess a page each time it is crawled.

Are you guys aware that there are rotating links on this very site?

I was just curious but do you consider the owners of this site spammers?

If you look to the left under internet.commerce

Those ads appear to rotate.

*Link rotation is a non-issue, particularly with Google, since their system will reassess a page each time it is crawled.*

I'm not sure I get this, she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not etc. what does Google determine?

*Are you guys aware that there are rotating links on this very site?*

Yes Ferret, we're well aware of this, and it has been discussed.

Those links appear to be worthless as far as ranking is concerned...

*Link rotation is a non-issue, particularly with Google, since their system will reassess a page each time it is crawled.*

I'm not sure I get this, she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not etc. what does Google determine?if each time Google looks at a page it sees that page and doesn't compare the links with each previous time it looked at the page (theoretically possibly but I think unlikely) then it simply sees a page with a link on it. That link and anchor text will count exactly as any other link and anchor text.

Then next time it may see a different link. So the first link would be discounted and the new link credited. All it would be as determined by the SE is a link which no longer exists and a new link which exists.

So very possibly there is a drawback to using rotating links for SEO - especially if the sandbox really does exist - but I don't think there's a problem with rotating links specifically, just an issue with consistancy.
Those links appear to be worthless as far as ranking is concerned...Yes, if you want to follow this to its logical conclusion then there would be no point Google penalising the sites in rotating link networks because they would in fact be continually sandboxing themselves and therefore worthless. So we should all stop worrying and let people get on and penalise themselves if they want to.

However if you accept this and are undertaking white hat promotion combined with old fashioned PR and marketing then rotating links would definately not be for SEO purposes (since we just 'proved' they don't help) but would be to attract visitors. On that basis the principals of marketing decree that a free link which attracts even one converting visitor is a good link and they should be smiled upon. :)

*the principals of marketing decree that a free link which attracts even one converting visitor is a good link and they should be smiled upon*

From an advertising viewpoint I have no problem with rotating links, though there was a bit of a flurry over at DP when I suggested the nofollow attribute should be considered ;-)

*Link rotation is a non-issue, particularly with Google, since their system will reassess a page each time it is crawled.*

I'm not sure I get this, she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not etc. what does Google determine?

They rebuild their database from each crawl. So, each rebuild of their index is blind to the conditions of the previous index, except through whatever external data may be maintained on a site-by-site basis.

Now, some people will be quick to say, "Aha! So Google COULD be filtering my site by keywords!"

However, that would require a level of complexity for which absolutely no evidence has been shared by anyone in any discussion forum I have reviewed. Nor is there any indication of such a filtration in any of the official or semi-official Google statements and documents.

What we have evidence for, based on reported discussions between Webmasters and Google, based on well-documented site vanishings (such as what happened to Search-king), and based on other well-documented criteria are:

1) Google has implemented adult-language filters. Their filters would most easily be applied against any database rebuild, flagging sites with a simple "Adult-oriented content" flag (a bit or a byte) in the main table listing which would be indexed by the numeric docID.

2) Google has implemented an arbitrary banning process, by which some sites are simply not reported in search results. This banning process would most easily be applied against any database rebuild, flagging sites with a simple "Site is banned" flag (a bit or a byte) in the main table listing which would be indexed by the numeric docID.

3) Google has the ability to adjust damping factors on the basis of virtually any criteria it desires. They can, therefore, adjust damping factors on the basis of things such as top-level domains (.edu, .gov, .com), domain names (mydomain.whatever, yourdomain.whatever), number of inbound links, number of outbound links, number of words on a page, frequency of use of most common words on a page (and this could be limited by an arbitrary value, say, 5 most common words, 10 most common words, etc.), and so on.

Link rotation would not get a site into any of these situations. Google would have to compare multiple images of a site's pages to determine that links MIGHT be getting rotated in a particular place in the page. It would require frequent and numerous samplings to arrive at any statistically valid automated conclusion that link-rotation is being employed.

And even if it could do that, so what? How does link rotation itself help or hurt Google's database? All Google cares about is whether a page it serves up to a visitor is relevant to that visitor's query. If it determines that a link on a page which is otherwise relevant does not link to another relevant page, at most that might result in the site losing a slot or several in ranking results, but there is no guarantee even of that much of a consequence.

Link rotation would not get a site into any of these situations. Google would have to compare multiple images of a site's pages to determine that links MIGHT be getting rotated in a particular place in the page
Not necessarily. They could look for code like /RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.cgi/ which I'm guessing runs the link rotation here.

I don't think they are doing that, but if they were aware of a list of scripts that were used to run ad rotations, and they chose to penalize or not count such things, they could, without having to compare the results of multiple crawls.

Of course, people running such scripts would just change their names...

Link rotation would not get a site into any of these situations. Google would have to compare multiple images of a site's pages to determine that links MIGHT be getting rotated in a particular place in the page
Not necessarily. They could look for code like /RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.cgi/ which I'm guessing runs the link rotation here.

They would have to know to look for that specific code. Do you have any idea of how many different link rotation schemes are out there? Many of them, including some of my own, are handled through server side includes -- which are impossible for Google or any other search service to detect because the inclusion (and rotation) is handled prior to serving the page up to the spider.

I don't think they are doing that, but if they were aware of a list of scripts that were used to run ad rotations, and they chose to penalize or not count such things, they could, without having to compare the results of multiple crawls.

It would really serve no purpose for Google to search for such script tags in page content.

Not necessarily. They could look for code like /RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.cgi/ which I'm guessing runs the link rotation here.

I don't think they are doing that, but if they were aware of a list of scripts that were used to run ad rotations, and they chose to penalize or not count such things, they could, without having to compare the results of multiple crawls.

Of course, people running such scripts would just change their names...

yep of course they could (if the code is visible) but that takes us back into the realms of a specifically set and coded penalty a la SearchKing. I imagine there will always be circumstances where some people are labelled 'bad guys' and association with them is deemed wrong - but that comes back to intent not method - you may be penalised for linking to bad neighbourhoods but that doesn't make all outbound linking wrong :)

Until Google have built and tested their intent-o-meter they really do have to err on the side of caution in dropping sites for things like this - if they hurt too many small webmasters who are innocent then the quality of the SERPS is going to start to be questioned by the general public and their entire business model dissapears up the Swanee.

My only point was that if they chose to look for a specific script they could, so hypothetically speaking, it would not require the comparison of multiple crawls. I'm not suggesting they would do this, that they have reason to, or that it would be worthwhile for them.

*Until Google have built and tested their intent-o-meter..*

They don't need one, if I cross-link domains, have run of site links, have rotating links, have pages of reciprocated links, have links from known sellers, I think an intent-o-meter is surplus to requirements.

Rotating text links are nearly always for commercial purposes, with the Google Team apparently now mentioning in one of their standard responses "Certain actions such as buying or selling links to increase a site's PageRank value", I think they should be used very carefully indeed.

*They don't need one, if I cross-link domains, have run of site links, have rotating links, have pages of reciprocated links, have links from known sellers, I think an intent-o-meter is surplus to requirements.*

yeah but a lot of top ranked sites have all those

You can say things are wrong all day long , but in the end if they make the site rank then the search engines say they are right

and I think what they say is a bit more important to peoples lively hood then what some seos think

I know you will counter with the standard response "that may work for now"

sorry gurtie if this strayed off the topic

*..the standard response "that may work for now"*

Isn't that how things usually work in this game?

thats my point

Right.....

Rotating text links are nearly always for commercial purposes,

Not in my experience. In fact, most commercial sites don't use embedded rotating links -- they rely upon external code to handle the rotation (so the links would not be counted anyway).

I'd be interested in any examples of non-commercial rotating text links you care to share with us, MM.

I'd be interested in any examples of non-commercial rotating text links you care to share with us
why does something have to be non-commercial to be good?

if a site / business / charity is not financially solvent then it will parish.

ever notice pastors driving around in a Lexus? that money came from somewhere.

at some point we all have living costs. idealisms sure can ignore them, but the only way to do that in real life is to go homeless and eat out of dumpsters.

W3C

the not-for-profit site which helps to suggest / guide / maintain the underlying technolocal protocals which make the WWW possible.

they use rotating links on their home page under the members section.
http://www.w3c.org/

I'd be interested in any examples of non-commercial rotating text links you care to share with us, MM.

Any site with a Webring on it will have rotating links. Now, Webring.Org switched over to Javascript years ago (after Yahoo! bought them out), but I think Ringsurf is still using embedded HTML.

I have rotating links on my own pages. Some of them are intended to promote my affiliate pages, some of them are intended to promote my other content.

I don't know how many sites actually participate in them, but some of the science fiction hubs offer their headlines for free. Some of them use Javascript, perhaps all of them. But it's content that other sites can host for free, and it includes links.

Some of my own RSS feeds have been incorporated into blogs and other sites. No one is making any money off them, so far as I know. I don't update the feeds on a daily basis, but they do change periodically.

Just about any blog site I have visited recently uses basic content management design to archive topics and keep the front page for each subscriber's section fresh. A blog site, of course, is a commercial service, but I have visited many personal Web sites which are nothing more than blogs (using standalone software).

Those are just a few examples, but there are other uses for rotating links in non-commercial content. Comics, quotes-of-the-day, wallpaper-of-the-day, cool-sites-of-the-day, and many other of-the-day freebie scripts and push services have been available for years.

Noticed another SEO/Webmaster forum is using them.

right hand side part way down? Rotates with sessions and logo links to site.

OK, I'm seeing it with Safari, oddly the "member testimonials" weren't rotating in IE.

Not quite a table of rotating text links though... ;-)

<sigh> do you know the term 'moving the goalposts' Glengara? :p

I know, my fault, I should have been more specific in the initial post... ;-(

From the recent patent application -

"23. The method of claim 22, wherein the behavior of links relate to at least one of appearance and disappearance of one or more links pointing to the document."

Relevant in this thread perhaps?

yep very IMO, it does mean that non-static links could be treated differently.

What we don't know is if it's already in place, or just something they're considering. IMO it would still be very unfair to discount links simply because they're rotating, but they could do it in association with a lot of the other ideas in that patent, or taking into account the type of website the link is/was from.

And of course they don't have to be fair.

Good point and I agree... This would once again step back to the old rule...

HTML ----> Better...