Link "bait" Kosher?

[glengara]

If I can come up with some specific reason for people to link to me, am I breaking any SE linking guideline?

[Chris Boggs]

As far as I see it, you are following the SE Bible by taking that route. If content is worth linking-to, I would expect, it is worth ranking. N'est-ce-pas?

oh by the way... ;) http://www.searchenginestrategies.com/sew/summer06/agenda3.html#315-1

[glengara]

*If content is worth linking-to, I would expect, it is worth ranking.*

I'm sort of arguing this out with Jill at the moment, obviously with HR the content IS the "bait", but where does that leave the dishwasher parts guy?

[glengara]

That link looks interesting Chris, anyone do a resume of that session?

[Woz]

Looks like Rusty will be (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/cat_search_engine_strategies_2006_san_jose.html).

[Chris Boggs]

I'm sort of arguing this out with Jill at the moment, obviously with HR the content IS the "bait", but where does that leave the dishwasher parts guy?
We'll he could start out where anyone else would, by doing the research. It takes some momentum to get "natural" inlinks flowing, which translates (in my opinion) to actively seeking linking relationships.

There are plenty of sites that may want to link out to "dishwasher parts guys." You have to think further than the obvious in cases like this. On the top of my head some good targets for "dishwasher parts guys" (including the obvious) would be:

-top 30-50 rankings for "dishwasher parts" or "(brand) parts" and their inlinks
-Janitorial/Building maintenance associations
-"how to sites"

let's keep building off this example...

[Robert_Charlton]

...There are plenty of sites that may want to link out to "dishwasher parts guys." You have to think further than the obvious in cases like this....

"How to sites" inspires a lot of specific examples... home-handyman sites, kitchen remodeling sites, cooking sites, home cleaning-tip sites, kitchen supply sites, dinnerware sites, local directories, sites that sell tools, Q&A sites, etc....

[glengara]

OK, but we're mostly talking about ordinary link acquisition within a narrow and largely self-serving niche, not quite "link bait" IMO ;-)

[dazzlindonna]

link bait for a dishwasher parts guy?

how about a funny video - something along the lines of the old maytag repairman commercials. or an animated cartoon where the parts spring out of the dishwasher, and the wife starts throwing them at her husband because he's promised for months to fix it. something like that would be what i would consider to be link bait for that type of site.

[evilgreenmonkey]

First thing that came to mind for me was a spoof 70's porn movie to upload to the site, with a handlebar moustached repairman and fake tan... maybe that's just me though. :o

I suppose Rob's "How To" guide idea would be more sensible and gain more on-topic inbound links though. :D

:cool:

Rob

[Robert_Charlton]

OK, but we're mostly talking about ordinary link acquisition within a narrow and largely self-serving niche, not quite "link bait" IMO ;-)

glengara - You're right... we definitely drifted off topic.

I love dazzlindonna's funny video idea. Beyond funny videos, video in general may work for a while simply because of its novelty, and good video may have a long shelf life, but video success carries with it a particularly heavy server load.

Humor and outrageous or controversial content, one-pixel ads, etc... and online tools (which have been a more conservative kind of link bait)... also work in the mix.

Link "bait" Kosher?
If I can come up with some specific reason for people to link to me, am I breaking any SE linking guideline?

From the phrasing of the original question, I'm wondering whether there was any quid pro quo in mind. If there is, I have very strong reasons to believe that it would indeed be crossing a line, at least on Google.

Edit to correct typo...

[glengara]

*From the phrasing of the original question, I'm wondering whether there was any quid pro quo in mind. If there is, I have very strong reasons to believe that it would indeed be crossing a line, at least on Google.*

You're right of course RC, always been a case of the spirit rather than the letter of the law with G, much more like a mother than like a cop ;-)

OK a hypothetical one for you then..

There's a new hot music style say Bluegrass Ghetto Jazz and I'm the promoter of a fairly unknown band in that genre with a small but dedicated following.

Seeing how the net has enabled unknowns to circumvent the traditional music establishment, and with the new album coming out shortly, I decide to run a promotional competition.

Any links found to the band site that contain "bluegrass ghetto jazz" in the link text can enter the competition, the prize being a personal gig for the winner and his friends.

The small but dedicated ones start busily tapping away spreading the word....

Within the letter of the law, but within the spirit? ;-)

[Robert_Charlton]

....Within the letter of the law, but within the spirit? ;-)

Probably neither. I had a discussion at SES last year with Matt Cutts on this very subject, and "that would be crossing a line" were his very words.

He wasn't playing either cop or mother... though I guess you could say he was the concerned mother here. I presented a scheme to him, similar to yours, that a client was proposing, to which I unambiguously had said "no." Matt thought about it for a while, and I think his response was simply his considered personal opinion of how Google would regard this kind of swap, nothing preachy about it. Based on that, I wouldn't do it, at least not on a site I cared about.

My guess is that this would be considered a bigger infraction than buying links, but I don't know. Throwaway domains may play by different rules, but domains that rank are getting too valuable to throw away, aren't they?

[glengara]

Interesting, like to quiz you further but I'm on my way out the door, hopefully later....

[glengara]

IMO that hypothetical fails on the requirement for the links to have specific anchor text, obvious attempt to manipulate...

But supposing the requirement had been to include a guess at the album title in the anchor text, and a search done on it on launch day?

[Robert_Charlton]

IMO that hypothetical fails on the requirement for the links to have specific anchor text, obvious attempt to manipulate...

But supposing the requirement had been to include a guess at the album title in the anchor text, and a search done on it on launch day?

No, I think that the hypothetical fails because it is in fact a deal. That's what I meant by "quid pro quo"... "something for something," "this for that," depending on how you translate it. Google doesn't like deals for links.

You may ask, "what about link exchanges," and I think we all know in our heart of hearts that Google doesn't like them, but they can't necessarily prove which are which... so there may be some leeway allowed in algorithmic interpretation.

Any links found to the band site that contain "bluegrass ghetto jazz" in the link text can enter the competition, the prize being a personal gig for the winner and his friends.

In California, at least, I've seen a parallel in most contests that makes certain entry requirements illegal. Therefore, "no purchase required to enter" is a phrase one commonly hears. Even Public Radio prize offerings include this disclaimer.

Not sure whether a link might be interpreted as a purchase (but it is something of value)... or whether anyone would come after you if your site appeared in California, but the principle is broader than the web. Perhaps, if you allowed people to enter by email, whether or not they linked to you, you might be circumventing California law. Not sure about Google. ;)

So, while spreading word about this may be viral marketing, I feel that the bait is in fact a "this for that" type of exchange.

[glengara]

Most free offers are draws, and the "no purchase necessary" is to make sure it's not deemed a lottery (purchase=ticket), like the suggest a slogan thing makes it a "competition" requiring skill ;-)

[Chris Boggs]

OK, but we're mostly talking about ordinary link acquisition within a narrow and largely self-serving niche, not quite "link bait" IMO ;-)
Good point glengara I was drifting a little bit. Sorry for the slow response and I have enjoyed the discussion between you and Robert.

I think that the main thing about bait is that it won't do much good sitting on your boat. You have to initially throw it out on a line in order to catch anyone, which I think is akin to link development. Once you get a few good links, however, powerful bait will make the other fish jump right into your cooler.

[glengara]

Did I see your name down as a speaker Chris?

You guys report back here on any mention of LB you come across ;-)

[Chris Boggs]

glengara: Barry at seroundtable.com will be covering that session. I'll also post to this thread some example URL's we will use...should lead to more fun discussion. :)

[glengara]

Hey Chris I notice you're down as a Q&A Speaker on the advanced linking session, I take it that's the one "link bait" might come up on.

So how does that work, do the speakers not field questions themselves and you have to "interpret"?

That Q&A on links with MC later that afternoon sounds interesting, hopefully he'll bring out the video ;-)

BTW, two names seem to crop up in all the linkage-related sessions, I'm familiar with one but not the other, are they commonly regarded as the linkage acquisition gurus?

You guys have both a productive and enjoyable time :-)

[Chris Boggs]

Hi G, I think you may be looking at the wrong schedule. :p I am no longer on "Linking Strategies," having moved over to a formal presentation in "Link Baiting & Viral Marketing" on Wednesday afternoon.

Being a Q&A Speaker is essentially what you suggest, although all the speakers answer questions, with plenty of excellent responses. Some speakers, when they have QA-only speakers on the panel, will defer more time to them in the audience participation segment.

[glengara]

Rather you than me, mate!

Hope it goes well for you....

My nightmare scenario would be doing the Q&A with someone like J as a speaker, I'd be terrified of being continually corrected...

Just using you as an an example, J ;-)

[Robert_Charlton]

glengara - Just back and still recovering from SES. The question of rewards for links was touched on twice in the sessions I attended...

- In the Q&A for the "Linking Baiting" panel (I believe it was), someone asked the question directly and was basically told "don't do it."

- In the "SEM Via Communities" session, a slightly different question was asked, but randfish's answer articulated the spirit of the law in a way that covers your question as well. When asked if it was spam to hire people to build attention, he said that "there are some spam implications.... Maybe if you're very clever, but generally you are asking people to do something that was intended to be done free."

There was lots of emphasis on "intent" and trust in the organic sessions. In "Meet The Crawlers," Google's Adam Lasnik indicated that Google attempts to determine "the intent of links"... do they put the user value first?... are the links relevant and useful to the user?... do links augment the experience of the user?

I think that any reward scheme, if discovered, automatically fails the [i]user value-first test, however well it might pass the others. A reward is very different from asking people to look at your site and link to it if they think it's valuable to their users.

On the other hand, I'd guess that Google's algorithmic evaluation probably focuses more on relevance and usefulness, and "if discovered" may be the operative phrase here. If you have no competitors to report you, you may get away with it for a while. ;)

[glengara]

Thanks for keeping an ear out Bob, a personal interest beats the reports hands down ;-)