First, lets get the obvious out of the way: Linking is important to achieve rankings on the SEs (especially Google).

Along with that I firmly believe that SE (especially Google) are looking for ways to weed out links that are not relevant, not important, purchased or simply swapped, and want to favor links that appear to have a purpose (read: more valuable).

Because the search engines are always changing algos, it is imperative that SEO firms work to stay ahead of the curve and be forward thinking for new strategies. Anybody who's been in the business for more than a couple of years knows that today's common practice is tomorrow's spam, especially when it involves unnatural manipulation of sites, links, etc.

Link popularity building (swapping or one-way links) could be (and probably is) viewed by the search engines as just this sort of practice.

It is my opinion that Google and others will soon devalue "link" pages. For one, how relevant is a link on a page with 50 other links? Two, how hard is it to program an algo to devalue any link on any page considered to be a "link page"?

Google has stated that the value of a particular link is divided by the number of other outgoing links on the page. (I'm going from memory here so don't shoot me if I'm wrong.) For a crude example, lets say that a particular page can give out 100 PR points (I made this up, just bear with me). if there are 50 links on the page, each linked page only gets 2 PR points. If 100 links on the page, the linked page only gets 1 PR point. If only one link on the page the linked page gets 100 PR points.

So the obvious goal is to be the ONLY outgoing link on a page in order to get the full outgoing PR value. In the current culture of link swaps and link directories this is virtually impossible, you're certainly not very likely to get many people to link to you off their home page (yes, there are exceptions). So if link pages are on their way to just being another page of worthless clutter to the SE algo, what is the solution?

A New and Positive Way to Link

What is the web supposed to be? A resource for good quality content. What is it the search engines are supposed to favor? Good quality content. Most link pages don't fall under that description.

My own company has just started a new linking program to exchange articles rather than links. I'm sure I'm not the only way who has thought of this, but I've yet to see anything definitive out there or a even a small minority of SEOs actively doing such.

Here is what we are doing. Instead of trading links we trade new and unique content. That content is placed on a new page linked from a master "Industry Articles" page which is linked into the primary navigation. Within the content are two links, one internal, back to the home page of the main site and one external link to the linked site.

If the article pages are link as they should be those pages would soon be spidered by the SE's and develop a PR of their own. The PR does not have to be great because instead of sharing the link value with 20, 50, or 100 other links, you are getting the total outgoing PR value. On top of that the web is being populated not with junk link pages but unique valuable content.

Admittedly, its a tougher sell, but so was link exchanges just a year ago before people were educated on the value of linking. But as I said before, anything prone to manipulation is eventually doomed to be devalued. I strongly believe link pages are headed that way. On the other hand, swapping articles is EXACTLY what search engines claim to want, valuable unique content. And if that content links to you, even better.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions on this. I'm sure there are some cons that I may not have thought of and perhaps some pros as well.

Great topic, thanks for posting it. I wrote an article awhile back about topical articles and link popularity:
http://www.searchinnovation.com/building-link-popularity-article.asp

The idea of exchanging articles in this way is very interesting. Using articles to build link popularity definitely works.

I think Dan Thies has been recommending this idea since before I jumped on the web (his copyright on the below article says 2002).

http://www.insideoutmarketing.com/index.php?p=pages&pid=8

You are so close to openly discussing one of our little secrets that I may as well spill the beans.

Since about October of '02, we have been offering content hosting. It's not exactly what you are describing because it is not swapping anything. It is simply paying a webmaster to host your content in his domain and simply link to the interior page with a link from his index page.

A lot of the talk about "RELEVANT LINKS" is missing the boat. As I've said before, why would a direct competitor link to you from his main page? With content hosting it is easy to find a shoe site willing to host a page about socks or even other kinds of shoes. A health site to host a page about weight loss, etc. It simply beefs up their own relevant content and improves the relevancy of the entire domain.

Webmasters are a very diverse market. A LOT of webmaster have the need or desire for a LOT of products and/or services. All of those products and services cost money.

To my way of thinking, (remember though, I am a salesman and always looking for those needs and desires; so you may view it a little differently than I), there are two things above all others that have a perception of value to webmasters. Money and content!

Conventional wisdom on the net, ( is that an oxy-moron?), is that to get money from your website you need search engine positioning to help make sales. This creates a demand for links and content. The two things that are generally considered most important to gain search engine positioning.

Recognizing this demand, we began using our network of inventory partners to host interior pages written by the client, (or us if they pay us to do it), with no more than a few links, (keep in mind, the more terms in anchor text, the less relevant any one term is). Some going where ever the host wants them to go and the others going where ever the client wants them to go. Focused, optimized, controlled, THEMED content with a direct link from an index page of a related domain with PR. The webmaster gets money for the hosting and content for his own domain that he didn't have to research and provide copy and graphics for. Money + content = a good deal.

Usually, the interior page will get a PR one or two points lower than the index page within 30 to 60 days, (depending on what we all used to call fresh tags). As a policy, we offer the webmaster half the retail rate of the index pages PR. We make no guarantees whatsoever and insist that clients sign and fax a contract proving that they have had explained, IN GREAT DETAIL, exactly what is happening and what risks they are assuming, (I've had my fill of lawsuits for a while :). This way the client typically, within a few days up to 60 days, gets a few pr links for a much reduced rate.
Optimized, controlled content + relevant links + at a reduced rate = a good deal.

Now, want to hear the kicker?

Keep in mind there are about a thousand variables involved here and as with all SEO, everything is specific to the keyword, BUT, more often than not,
BOTH THE CLIENT AND HOST BEGIN PLACING UNDER THE SAME KEYWORDS!
I advise you not ot use that in your sales presentations because you have no control over that unless you want to go in and try to optimize both domains and that is an entirely different kind of service.

I could be wrong, (lord knows I have been many, many times in the past), but I believe what you have just read is the birth of the next big spam debate. White hats, (whatever the hell that is), claiming they would never pay for content hosting because you would only be doing it to try to trick the engines while the black hats, (what an absolutely stupid thing to use to refer to people huh ?), arguing that it is just a way of giving the searcher what they were looking for.

As for me, I will not get involved in any more what is spam, you're a spammer, he's a spammer, everyone's a spammer but me, silly debates regardless of what headgear anyone chooses to claim they wear. To me it has nothing to do with whatever anyone thinks spam is. It has to do with identifying a market and satisfying a demand. It is not spam. It is business. Legal business that anyone and everyone has a right to engage in.




>>>>> screams as he runs away from the encroaching flames <<<<<<

As for me, I will not get involved in any more what is spam, you're a spammer, he's a spammer, everyone's a spammer but me, silly debates regardless of what headgear anyone chooses to claim they wear.

what a great line. i should probably combine that thought with one of your earlier hints :)

BOTH THE CLIENT AND HOST BEGIN PLACING UNDER THE SAME KEYWORDS!

Yes. We've that happen as well. And it doesn't require a full-length article -- we've seen the host rank highly just for having an outbound link with appropriate anchor text.

Interesting...so, do you see this as a *tool* for the Search Engine Optimizer? Many would (and have) argue that this type of promotion, no matter how you dress up what you call it, is highly unethical. I believe that sites that are relying on Google's PageRank as their foundation are walking on cracked glass. What happens if tomorrow Google pulls the plug on the PR? What then? It is better to do the hard work and have a future than to rely the quick fix, IMHO of course. Keep this in mind, the Internet is only what we perceive it to be. Once the smoke clears, all we have left is reality :)

Keeping the "Perception" in Perspective

Link building to me is not a quick fix if done well. When it comes to writing articles for link popularity, there is more than PageRank you can acquire. The main reason to write articles is to share information, help people learn, etc. The other positive is that when you write articles, you are publicizing your website. That's great free publicity. Even if PageRank disappeared tomorrow, you would still have good information out there, people may naturally link to your good information and you would be publicizing your website. Link popularity is merely a portion of the whole picture.

Even if PageRank disappeared tomorrow, you would still have good information out there, people may naturally link to your good information and you would be publicizing your website. Link popularity is merely a portion of the whole picture.
Mark these words of wisdom ;)

I agree with Daria all the way on this. PageRank may be only a measurement to give an estimate of popularity based on a subjective mathematical equation. It's like, while Google PR might think Ferrari.com is a 7, to me it's definitely a 10. Does Ferrari really care if they are a 7? Will they win more F1 races or sell more cars? Not at all!

However, could a link from Michael Schumacher's brand new personal site to Ferrari.com be worth more than a link from ferrari.carclub.ru/sports/links/ . . . Heck YEAH! Perhaps, search engine's link algo right now are not capable of determining real life values, but they are intelligent learning systems that will get better with time and give higher weight on links that have a real life importance values, not just "X" number of backlinks.

I highly recommend everyone to read Mike Grehan's book "Search Engine Marketing: The Essential Best Practice Guide (http://www.search-engine-book.co.uk/)", which explains in more detail what Daria means about "Link popularity is merely a portion of the whole picture."

IMO, this is a "Step Forward in Link Strategies". Focus on the quality, real life value and relevancy of the site giving you the link, not the PR or Webrank number.

Great POST St0n3y!!! I think it's one of the best so far at the forums.

Even if PageRank disappeared tomorrow, you would still have good information out there, people may naturally link to your good information and you would be publicizing your website.

This is absolutely correct. This is not about building PR, thought that is a factor. This is about building relevant content and linking to other quality content and web sites.

I'm all in favor of Google dumping the PR bar. It would make things so much easier in this wicked SEO universe because quality would be the primary factor NOT PageRank.

Obviously linking (not necessarily PR) will always be a part of the measure of relevancy. Placing new quality content on the web and utilizing that to build incoming links is a win-win-win. I win because I get a link, the site placing the articles win because they get more content and the search engines win because they find valuable pages rather than "link" pages.

Focus on the quality, real life value and relevancy of the site giving you the link, not the PR or Webrank number.

This is absolutely correct. This is not about building PR, thought that is a factor. This is about building relevant content and linking to other quality content and web sites.

I'm all in favor of Google dumping the PR bar. It would make things so much easier in this wicked SEO universe because quality would be the primary factor NOT PageRank.

Obviously linking (not necessarily PR) will always be a part of the measure of relevancy. Placing new quality content on the web and utilizing that to build incoming links is a win-win-win. I win because I get a link, the site placing the articles win because they get more content and the search engines win because they find valuable pages rather than "link" pages.
Exactly :)

This has been a pretty major focus for us in our firm these past several weeks and my thinking on it has evolved somewhat, but I'm still a full believer in the overall concept. So much so that we will probably be eliminating "link builder" positions and to hire more writers instead. Its a tough place because all my link builders have been tremendous in both turnout and quality, but ultimately I don't believe that the real quality is in link exchanges anymore (at least link exchanges via "link" or "resource" pages.)

While link building is it essential to have all inbound links going to your home page?

If you have a site with diverse content say - selling cars, and you also sell car insurance and car cleaning kits is it fair to expect your home page to rank well for 'buy a car' 'buy a car cleaning kit' and 'car insurance' surely you can only sell one thing at a time from a page. So when getting inbound links from related sites etc. is it a valid thing to get links to your internal pages which are on topic (mini home pages) or hubs. Or is this diluting the effect of your link building?

One final question. If you get penalised for linking to 'bad neighbourhoods' can you get any kind of credit for linking to 'good neighbourhoods'

Thanks in anticipation.

While link building is it essential to have all inbound links going to your home page?

If you have a site with diverse content say - selling cars, and you also sell car insurance and car cleaning kits is it fair to expect your home page to rank well for 'buy a car' 'buy a car cleaning kit' and 'car insurance' surely you can only sell one thing at a time from a page. So when getting inbound links from related sites etc. is it a valid thing to get links to your internal pages which are on topic (mini home pages) or hubs. Or is this diluting the effect of your link building?

One final question. If you get penalised for linking to 'bad neighbourhoods' can you get any kind of credit for linking to 'good neighbourhoods'

Thanks in anticipation.
Building links into various pages dilutes the effect toward the single main page but also helps you do better for some of the sub ideas. Also sites that naturally acquire links often acquire links to many places within their site so to look like a natural part of the web you will likely want some links pointing at inner pages.

Thats interesting, I dont suppose there are any guidelines about how many links need to go to internal pages to get that 'natural look' on the web.
Perhaps I should start getting links from hair colouring sites. :)

I suppose using this as a base idea I should link to sites that dont link back to look even more natural. Which brings me back to my other question. I have been pondering some time now, if linking to good neighbourhoods is good for you. I dont think it would be a quantative test by an SE, but makes sense that it would be a qualitative test. (dont everybody rush to add links to google). It makes sense to me that one way of breaking the pattern of only having reciprical links (which will surely be easy to detect) is you have some outbound links to quality content sites. You would get a tick in the box for providing good content/resources. But like most things in SEO guessing because the idea seems to have legs, isnt the same as knowing its true. so does anybody have experience that this actually works?

Many would (and have) argue that this type of promotion, no matter how you dress up what you call it, is highly unethical.

Hmmm... not sure I get that, can you say why you feel it is unethical?

Great posts massa and Daria, those comments really stand out in this thread and have quite inspired me ;)

Cheers

Nick

There is a lot of dis-information available regarding Google and what it looks for in regards to linking. We've done some intensive research and have put our findings in a white paper (http://www.pole-position-web.com/research/white-papers.htm).

One of the most interesting things in this paper and relevant to this conversation is the concept of RankSinks. Google tends to look down on sites that hoard links without linking out themselves. To what extent is undertermined, but it is somethign to consider when looking at your overall link strategy.

Hmmm... not sure I get that, can you say why you feel it is unethical?

Great posts massa and Daria, those comments really stand out in this thread and have quite inspired me ;)

Cheers

Nick
What "some" feel is unethical is the selling of Google's PageRank (Blackmarketing PageRank).

Google most certainly frowns on this practice as Massa can attest to having been involved with a lawsuit with Google over that very thing, losing the lawsuit to Google. Massa's own sites PageRank were severely penalized by Google, i.e. his searchking.com site going from a PR8 to a PR3...adding that I do not agree with what Google did either as by penalizing his site they penalized most of his hosted sites too (noting that most of his hosted sites PR have returned after the lawsuit ended). So basically if you're going to play with fire don't cry out if you get burned :)

>> selling of Google's PageRank.

Do you think "content hosting" is the same thing? It's a question of intent, making it impossible to judge really...

Nick

>> selling of Google's PageRank.

Do you think "content hosting" is the same thing? It's a question of intent, making it impossible to judge really...

Nick What matters is what Google thinks. At this point, and maybe unfortunatly, Google has the "big stick" and they're not afraid to use it :)

Why would this practice be unethical? You have two companies swapping services for mutual benefit -- companies do it all the time...call it partnering or whatever you wish. I know that the SEO industry has a lot of bad history to make up for, but this idea seems completely legit to me.

It seems like so many people in these forums (and in our industry) spend so much time calling other people spammers or unethical, and it just makes us all look bad. When real spam is identified, then by all means speak up. But any time someone wants to improve their site, and therefore it's ranking, some cries "Spam!" We all want the best sites and rankings we can get.

I wouldn't be surprised if I suggested writing a lot of good content for your site as a way to improve it's ranking...and someone called me a spammer!

I've written an number articles, and content definitely matters. I've been contacted about requested articles and have stayed away for a couple of reasons. (copyright, etc)

I'm curious what you do about the problem of having duplicate content when the article is published on numerous sites?

I'm prefer to be considered a so-called "white-hat" (though I take exception to some people's definitions of what that actually is) and I see no serious issues with this - with one exception.

How is it different from writing a great article and having dozens of people re-print them which is a perfectly acceptable tehnique? Or press releases? Interviews? Not really - it's all good.

But I could see this being an issue is if you decide to stick the same article or Ad in several places. Naturally, the standard duplication filters would kick in and only the most authoritative site would show up. It's the equivilent of having another mini-site, with the benifit of additional PR - If it has unique content, you are pretty much set.

I think the key is, of course, unique and useful content. It would probably work with duplicate content (like a reprinted article) but the best benifit, IMO would be a unique, helpful, keyword-rich content.

I could see this turning into the equivilent of sites hosting a bunch of one-page ads - which I suspect would result in the SE's taking action, and perhaps hurting real content at the same time. That's the only major downside I can see.

It's a great idea, used properly.

Ian

I wasn't calling it unethical, rather was wondering if the search engines may want to perceive it as such, if they pick up duplicates

I've written an number articles, and content definitely matters. I've been contacted about requested articles and have stayed away for a couple of reasons. (copyright, etc)

I'm curious what you do about the problem of having duplicate content when the article is published on numerous sites?

Good Question. We make it clear when an article is posted that 1) we own the copyrite and can asked for the article to be removed at any time and 2) that the artilcle is placed in only one single place. if we were to find it placed in multiple pages or sites we would promptly ask for the article to be removed.

Of course, there is no guarantee they will abide by that OR that we would be able to find the duplicate article, but even if it is duplicate, it would only be hurting the ones duplicating the article NOT the site the article is linking to.

I could see this turning into the equivilent of sites hosting a bunch of one-page ads - which I suspect would result in the SE's taking action, and perhaps hurting real content at the same time. That's the only major downside I can see.

I honestly don't see that, though I suppose it could happen. The proper way to go about it is to make it clear that a single article is only to be posted in a single place. Short of that, one article being duplicated still wont' hurt in as much as, as you say, only the most authoritative site will have gotten that article indexed.

:(

I have been working as the SEO consultant for T-gone Remedies (http://www.t-gone.com/) and its related sites for more or less 8 months now. I have been battling to build PR. The t-gone web site initially had PR6 but came down to 5 and you know how embarrasing this is.

I have been getting a lots of links(now I know that there were not relevant) as most of my sites ended up getting the sack as well.

I just learned about this Hosted Marketing Pages technique and im yet to try it. Can anyone suggest the best methods of doing this

:)
South African Search engine optimization professionals have a thing or 2 to leran from our American counter parts. I do believe that we have not yet come to terms with new strategies that include search engine submission
:cool:

Instead of trading links we trade new and unique content. That content is placed on a new page linked from a master "Industry Articles" page which is linked into the primary navigation. Within the content are two links, one internal, back to the home page of the main site and one external link to the linked site.

there are some great point going on. Correct me if I am worng here, but if you are writting all this great content then what is the point of trading content with other sites. At the end of the day isant it all about having original content. I have been in the SEO field for many years and to me this does not make to much sense, but I maybe I am just not getting what is going on.

Bottom line is keep your content original right? Unless its a giveway or something free then if people are trading content then wont it take away from the relevance of that content?

mocgit, I think you bring up a good point here, but first let me clarify to make sure you're understanding properly. We are talking exchanging one 100% unique content article for a completely different 100% unique content article, not swapping the same article between sites.

But I think you raised a good question, why exchange articles when that article can be placed on your own site, and you get the benefit of that content that will also bring in natural links? I don't know if I have a solid answer for that, just more questions.

Is quality content an effective substitute for ALL link building efforts? In some cases, I would say yes, but in most its probably not. Writing and exchanging articles is a way to get both good content and links that I would think the search engines would not devalue, nor have any kind of problem with, as it builds the web up with good, quality and original content, not just links.

But instead of swapping articles one could place those articles on their own site. No link would be associated but then that article has the possibility of getting natural links, assuming the site is already linked enough to be found and ranked well by the search engines. Will that article, by itself, generate enough natural links to compensate for the link that would have been achieved by the article swap? Would a swapped article be just as likely to get natural links as well?

Is one method more valuable than the other, or are they both of equally strong value?

I'm interesting in hearing other opinions on this.

Dose it really matter if the content is on your page or a partner site. To me it dose. I rather have the content on my site and let other links to my content. Remember content is king and if you have content on someone else site, the other site gets the credit for the original content. Yes you will get the link that might help, but will it be worth more then a powerful optimized article. I would say it no. If you have a well optimized site with loads of content you wouldn’t even need to do link building in my opinion. But the bottom line is no one knows the real answer. Take my thoughts for what its worth. I have article that get me loads of traffic so why give them away.

If you have a well optimized site with loads of content you wouldn’t even need to do link building in my opinion.

That is certainly true in a perfect web world, but unfortunately, this does not consistently apply in real-life application. Case-in-point: people will not find your articles (and therefore will not link to them) without out at least some form of established link popularity. We know you have to have links in order for SEs to get you ranked. Now, once you have established a good set of links, then yes, building articles on your own site *may* be a better solution than exchanging articles.

I say "may" because online article distribution is huge because it not only increases links but also helps establish "authority" of a site. Just in the SEO community, articles often get distributed through Web Pro News, ISEDB, Small Business Guide, etc. This itself shows the power in articles, not just on your own site but on other sites as well.

I'm not saying swapping articles should replace writing articles for your own site, just suggesting it's a reasonable means for obtaining high-quality links.

I would be interested in seeing a study performed on how many links a single article will get over a three month period, vs. how many links can be achieved by actively exchanging linked articles. In the short term I would guess the exchanged articles would come out on top, but probably not for the long term.

That would be an excellent study. I would love to know the answer. you are right but there are a lot of things going on in the SE world. If i knew the answer I would be on an island somewhere:)

After further reflection, I think the best solution is to do a bit of both (place articles on client's sites and do article exchanges) in the early stages of a campaign. Once the site is established enough, simply creating new quality articles should be able to generate some good quality links.

Also, if exchanging articles, not only do you get the benefit of the immediate link, but you still have a quality article on your site that should generate links as well.

you know what. it never hurt to try new things. I am curious to see how it works out for you. Have you had any success thus far? Link building is always a pain for all of us.

Actually, we've been pushing the article exchange along with our link exchanges for over a year not. We get a few hits, but in the past couple of months, we've gotten an exceptional number of people wanting to exchange articles. We are contstantly evaluating how best to do this and we might (again) try it without the link exchange being mentioned to see how that goes.

It seems that most people place our articles on their site but rarely send us an article in return. I guesse that if the article is good and gains links, we'll also benefit by getting the PR value of that link passed on to us. The other option would be to write both articles, get the link swap and an article for us.

Lots of work and not sure of the cost/benefit.

man it sounds to me that its dosnet sound worth while. I seen a few companies that write articles for you, but dont want anyhting in return. If you are not recivng articles in rreturn then I would just keep them all for yourself. LOL

I am curious as to who is writing these articles: are sites hiring outside writers or are subject matter experts writing them? And in your opinion, what is the quality of the writing?

There is a new field emerging called digital rhetoric, and it is a new way of writing for a medium (Internet) that is multidimensional, unlike paper, which is linear. So I am interested in your assessment of the quality of the article writing relative to digital rhetoric.

My site falls along the same lines of what this thread is talking about.

I run a topical directory site that offers free one-way links in exchange for 200-400 words of original content. I even make it easier by letting them simply answer 4 questions that I post. I place the links on topic focused and relevant pages. Non of my topic pages are linked spammed out. I only link to 10 total links, with the posted article link the most prominent.

This sounds like a shameless plug, but it was designed for adsense and link selling, but it is a great way for SEO's to build link popularity safely as well.

www.topicdirectory.com/addurl.html#topic

I am curious as to who is writing these articles: are sites hiring outside writers or are subject matter experts writing them? And in your opinion, what is the quality of the writing?

We have marketers/copywriters in-house that do the article writing along with other duties. We make sure the articles are of the highest quality, knowing that if they were not nobody would want them on their sites.

What matters is what Google thinks. At this point, and maybe unfortunatly, Google has the "big stick" and they're not afraid to use it

Hi I'm new around here and I got to the forum through a newsletter I susbscribe to. I've just been reading Aaron Wall's SEO Book (http://beam.to/seobook), and I'd just like to qoute him on the issue of white/black hat SEO.

"Tying ethics to SEO techniques is a Marketing Scam. Either a technique is effective or it's not".

End of story. The whole point of SEO is to skew serp's in your favor is it not?

I've also written an article called "Deep Linking and Hosted Marketing Pages (http://www.site-reference.com/11662/index.html)" along he same lines as the original post.

Not quite sure what that has to do with the topic.

Just another update, we are trying something new in regard to the article/link exchange that combines the best of both, without having to put forth a whole lot more extra effort. I'll know more after we test it.