Having trouble believing in crosslinking penalties

[funtent]

I'm having trouble believing there's a penalty for dissimilar site crosslinking.

I have a Mac forum (I own and like Macs), a Volvo forum (I own and like Volvos), a Photography site (another hobby), an Apple audio application (Garageband) news site and an education news/blog rss aggregation site (don't ask). I link from each to all the others. They're all hosted on the same IP as part of an inexpensive, consumer-grade hosting plan.

I find it hard to believe that the engines would neg me because I have a bunch of sites that reflect my hobbies and interests, and I crosslink between them.

I went to Search Engine Strategies 2004 San Jose and heard Matt from Google speak at several sessions, and I believe I got a good feel for the tone of Google's ideals. And I believe that getting downgraded for crosslinking goes counter to that tone.

[KevinSource]

funtent,

I don't believe that you will be penalized for cross-linking between unrelated sites, however, those links will not be weighted as heavily as links from sites that are of similar content or complimentary content.

Hope this lays your concern to rest.

[funtent]

Ah, thanks Kevin. Maybe I'm mixing up what I've read here about the danger of sites on contiguous IP blocks (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1908) with simple crosslinking.

[Mel]

I am of the opinion that its not just the crosslinking between sites with different topics that is a problem, but the degree of crosslinking between sites that may be done to boost rankings.

I too doubt that there is any problem with casual crosslinking between various sites that you own, but when those links start to be come run of site links using large blocks of keywords as anchor text, then yes I have seen entire rings of sites penalized for doing that.

While they may or may not be used at the moment, Google has patented ranking systems which do remove the influence of links from the same Class C block, which is at least an indication that their thinking runs along those lines and thus if might be only prudent to consider that factor when looking ahead.

[glengara]

IMO, heavy inter/crosslinking can be seen as a potential links scheme, but the real danger comes if/when other potential links schemes are also in play.

[Marcia]

Just pondering it, but the worst scenario I can think of is that if a group of related sites sitting on the same hosting are cross-linked and one of them gets hit for linking to some bad neighborhoods, could there be a domino effect that will potentially damage them all seriously.

[Mel]

While optimizing a jewelry site last year I became aware of a group of twenty sites that were all owned by the same person (though she took some care to use different names and addresses when registering the domains) all were hosted on different Class C blocks, each targeted on a particular aspect of the jewelry business and all linked to the home page of every other site with ROS anchor text.
While this site dominated the jewelry SERPs for nearly a year, they eventually all went to PR0. I really doubt that this was an automated penalty, but nevertheless a carefully arranged ranking scheme was busted, IMO as a result of heavy interlinking.

[Dave Hawley]

funtent, look at it from Google's point-of-view. That is, why would a site about topic A link to another site on topic B. Perhaps they are trying to artificially inflate their PR and rankings, we better take a closer look....

Think of it like claiming a tax rebate. It is really worth getting busted trying to falsely claim a few $ and attract the attention of the tax department.

IMO, the bottom line is, the links are likely no good for PR, rank boosting or your site visitors, so why bother?

[fathom]

funtent,

I don't believe that you will be penalized for cross-linking between unrelated sites, however, those links will not be weighted as heavily as links from sites that are of similar content or complimentary content.

Hope this lays your concern to rest.

Agree - this isn't a penalty problem 'at all' but you are likely not getting the most out of the arrangement since external 'site wide' links are an easily recognizable pattern.

If for example you use the footer as your 'link exchange' you way wish to setup the footer as an iFrame.

This would reduce 'backlinks' while increasing link quality... working on the same principle as 'which is better':

1000 PR2 links from the same website (divided by the sum of all links per page), or
1 PR8 [the maximum transferable PR] divided by 4.

"If" the anchor text of the 1000 were all different - it 'might' win out' but in most instances the 1000 are all identical... thus limited value.

[fathom]

While optimizing a jewelry site last year I became aware of a group of twenty sites that were all owned by the same person (though she took some care to use different names and addresses when registering the domains) all were hosted on different Class C blocks, each targeted on a particular aspect of the jewelry business and all linked to the home page of every other site with ROS anchor text.
While this site dominated the jewelry SERPs for nearly a year, they eventually all went to PR0. I really doubt that this was an automated penalty, but nevertheless a carefully arranged ranking scheme was busted, IMO as a result of heavy interlinking.

I suspect 'something else cause this downfall'.

There are tons of high profile networks that 'should' fall victim to this [SEW and Network for one] but don't.

The 'link' is merely ownership and the 'ownership part' by itself doesn't get the penalty.

Best example: phpBB - shouldn't exist... a million+ interlinked unrelated domains can't be wrong.

[Dave Hawley]

Best example: phpBB - shouldn't exist... a million+ interlinked unrelated domains can't be wrong.1 million+ forum homepage links to a forum software site seems very related to me.

[Mel]

I suspect 'something else cause this downfall'.

There are tons of high profile networks that 'should' fall victim to this [SEW and Network for one] but don't.

The 'link' is merely ownership and the 'ownership part' by itself doesn't get the penalty.

Best example: phpBB - shouldn't exist... a million+ interlinked unrelated domains can't be wrong.

I really don't see a comparasion between SEW and a chain of sites the have ROS anchor text links on every page linking to every other site. Surely you are not suggesting that SEW is interlinked to that degree?

[fathom]

1 million+ forum homepage links to a forum software site seems very related to me.

hmmm... not sure what you are getting at?

If the anchor is the only thing that makes something 'related' how then can something be 'unrelated'.

[Marcia]

About how many independent inbound links were there, aside from that jewelry network's interlinked group of sites?

[Mel]

Several Hundred Marcia

[fathom]

I really don't see a comparasion between SEW and a chain of sites the have ROS anchor text links on every page linking to every other site. Surely you are not suggesting that SEW is interlinked to that degree?

Well I guess we need to define what "ROS anchor text links on every page linking to every other site." really is?

JupiterWeb, JupiterResearch, JupiterEvents and JupiterImages... if you go to each of these websites the exact same links are in the footer comments on every page of every site... is this or is this not the same as "ROS anchor text links on every page linking to every other site"?

I'm not suggesting this is wrong or 'bad' - actually I'm saying 'it's great!" It doesn't hurt - it's linking for ownership.

Be that as it may..... what is wrong with the thread starter doing it... or the jewelry network?

[Dave Hawley]

If the anchor is the only thing that makes something 'related' how then can something be 'unrelated'.You said they were 'unrelated'.

[fathom]

You said they were 'unrelated'.

Yes I know... I also said "The 'link' is merely ownership and the 'ownership part' by itself doesn't get the penalty...

So we agree - thanks! ;)

[Dave Hawley]

As long as you are ingoring the fact I said "1 million+ forum homepage links to a forum software site seems very related to me." :rolleyes:

[Dave Hawley]

"The 'link' is merely ownership and the 'ownership part' by itself doesn't get the penalty...So linking to bad neighbourhoods will never get you into hot water with Google :confused:

[Mel]

...Be that as it may..... what is wrong with the thread starter doing it... or the jewelry network?

Unless you are playing at being devils advocate, then I don't think that you would suggest that we should all rush out and buy twenty domains each, populate them with 100 or so pages each, then put twenty or so keyword rich anchor text links back to the home page of every other site on every page of every site, thus giving the home page of every site in the scheme 1900 anchor text links? Or would you?

Whats wrong with that? Well heres a couple for starters

It creates unnecessary clutter in establishing 20 sites when one would do.

It attempts to subverts the ranking algorithm for personal gain.

It seems to go against Googles Mantra of

don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank

Now can you please explain to me what on earth you mean by the term linking for ownership?

[fathom]

So linking to bad neighbourhoods will never get you into hot water with Google :confused:

If you own a 'bad neighborhood' it didn't get bad because you put a footer link to your other sites.

If you 'don't own a bad neighbor' the point is moot.

[fathom]

Actually - I prefer the single 'huge' website plan myself.

But in the context of the thread topic & opening post

I'm having trouble believing there's a penalty for dissimilar site crosslinking.

I have a Mac forum (I own and like Macs), a Volvo forum (I own and like Volvos), a Photography site (another hobby), an Apple audio application (Garageband) news site and an education news/blog rss aggregation site (don't ask). I link from each to all the others. They're all hosted on the same IP as part of an inexpensive, consumer-grade hosting plan.

I find it hard to believe that the engines would neg me because I have a bunch of sites that reflect my hobbies and interests, and I crosslink between them.

I went to Search Engine Strategies 2004 San Jose and heard Matt from Google speak at several sessions, and I believe I got a good feel for the tone of Google's ideals. And I believe that getting downgraded for crosslinking goes counter to that tone.

Group A

1. Mac forum
2. Volvo forum
3. Photography site
4. an Apple audio application (Garageband) news site
5. an education news/blog

and

Group B

1. Jupitermedia Corporation
2. JupiterWeb
3. JupiterResearch
4. JupiterEvents
5. JupiterImages
6. Internet.com
7. earthweb.com
8. devx.com
9. clickz.com

Unless you are playing at being devils advocate, then I don't think that you would suggest that we should all rush out and buy twenty domains each, populate them with 100 or so pages each, then put twenty or so keyword rich anchor text links back to the home page of every other site on every page of every site, thus giving the home page of every site in the scheme 1900 anchor text links? Or would you?

Whats wrong with that? Well heres a couple for starters

It creates unnecessary clutter in establishing 20 sites when one would do.

I would say group B would be more cluttered than Group A, and while I also believe 'one site will do' - is Jupiter Media wrong?

It attempts to subverts the ranking algorithm for personal gain.

This is an inaccurate assumption... did Jupiter Media implement this in an attempt to subverts the ranking algorithm for personal gain?

It seems to go against Googles Mantra of...

So which of the two groups would be a bigger offender?

Now can you please explain to me what on earth you mean by the term linking for ownership?

hmmm... I can link whatever way I want - and you can only assume you know why I linked that way.

I don't assume know why Jupiter Media has 9 websites linked together - but if for no other reason 'they own them'?

[Mel]

Nice finesse Fathom. You have used your examples to beg question which I asked, about all of us setting up a nice linking ring. Personally if you are not interested in direct conversation I am not interested in continuing the discussion.

Again are you suggesting that we should all go out and set up a twenty domain link ring? Please answer directly as your oblique examples seem to me to beg the question.

Secondly are you going to assure us that if we do then we will not receive any penalties for it?

Please answer directly again.

[fathom]

Nice finesse Fathom. You have used your examples to beg question which I asked, about all of us setting up a nice linking ring. Personally if you are not interested in direct conversation I am not interested in continuing the discussion.

Again are you suggesting that we should all go out and set up a twenty domain link ring? Please answer directly as your oblique examples seem to me to beg the question.

Never implied setting 20 websites on anything. I do however, suggest that 'if' funtent linked his five websites together - he will not harm himself - and further if he uses an iFrame in the footer for these links - each site is linking to the other websites & on every page - but with only one high quality back link - and a single backlink from a website is not manipulation and far better than every single page being a backlink.

Secondly are you going to assure us that if we do then we will not receive any penalties for it?

Please answer directly again.

Yes - 100% - no problem 'never, ever get a penalty for this'.

Another Elegant Example: SEOChat and DS Home: Dev Shed | ASP Free | Dev Articles | Scripts | Dev Hardware | Dev Archives | SEO Chat | Dev Mechanic | Web Hosting (10 sites)

[Mel]

So let me get this straight, Fathom you are saying that if we all go out and set up twenty sets of hundred page sites and link them all toghether with say 2000 keyword anchor text links to each site, that this will not result in any reduction in ranking or other penalties, etc?

Now before you say that you have said nothing about linking twenty sites toghether in this way, I have several times and you have dodged the question every time.

I really hope that Googleguy will weigh in on this one,as this is just too spammy an idea to believe that Google would condone it.

If we go for your iframes link scheme, please explain what good that is going to do ranking wise. You may not call it manipulation but I do.

[fathom]

So let me get this straight, Fathom you are saying that if we all go out and set up twenty sets of hundred page sites and link them all toghether with say 2000 keyword anchor text links to each site, that this will not result in any reduction in ranking or other penalties, etc?

Now before you say that you have said nothing about linking twenty sites toghether in this way, I have several times and you have dodged the question every time.

Here you go: http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/001072.html

[Mel]

Sorry Fathom but I am asking the question of you, if you can answer it then I wish you would and if you are unwilling to then just say so and we can drop the entire subject. I find it rather strange that an individual such as yourself seems to apparently support the idea that forming rings of sites for no other reasons that to manipulate rankings is a good and safe practice.

[fathom]

Sorry Fathom but I am asking the question of you, if you can answer it then I wish you would and if you are unwilling to then just say so and we can drop the entire subject. I find it rather strange that an individual such as yourself seems to apparently support the idea that forming rings of sites for no other reasons that to manipulate rankings is a good and safe practice.

hmmm... I answer it with Jupiter Media, I answered it with DevShed, I answered it with Stockholm websites... none of these appear to be done purely to manipulation ranks or maybe that was the individual companies sole motivation - I'm not them.

I however, from an external vantagepoint support 100% the value that Jupiter Media, DevShed and Stockholm provide to web users and if this is ranks manipulation - at this time so does Google since none of the examples are banned or penalized and all link 100% exactly how you have defined using 9, 10, and 20 websites.

There is 'value' call it manipulation - I call it superior Internet business planning.

[Mel]

hmmm... I answer it with Jupiter Media, I answered it with DevShed, I answered it with Stockholm websites...
There is 'value' call it manipulation - I call it superior Internet business planning.

Yes I agree you did, neatly dodging the direct question which has been asked you many times and for which I am still awaiting an answer - Do you or do you not support the construction of rings of sites with a primary view to ranking manipulation. Its a simple question, please answer it with a simple answer Yes or No.

If you cannot see the difference between a ring of sites which is built to support ranking manipulation through the use of thousands of keyword rich anchor text links, as compared with Jupiter who only link to their other sites with the URL and only link to internal pages with other links, then I guess one of us needs a new pair of glasses.

Its kind of like saying that all websites use keywords on the page so there should be no problem with those who want to use thousands of them visible or not, what the heck they are still words, and all we are trying to do is manipulate the search engine rankings, which is apparently

superior Internet business planning

[Mel]

Just to set the record straight Fathom, I have not said that the original poster should not link between his sites, what I said was:

I too doubt that there is any problem with casual crosslinking between various sites that you own, but when those links start to be come run of site links using large blocks of keywords as anchor text, then yes I have seen entire rings of sites penalized for doing that.

[Dave Hawley]

If you own a 'bad neighborhood' it didn't get bad because you put a footer link to your other sites.What's with this ownership you keep referencing? One does not need to "own" the bad neighbourhood to suffer the consequences of linking to it.

If someone has 5 sites, all unrelated and links each to each other and in turn each of these link to say 20 other sites. If one of these links is to a bad neighbourhood there is a real chance that all five sites will suffer the consequences of linking to the bad neighbourhood.

However, if the owner of the 5 sites did not link these together there is only a real chance that 1 site will suffer the consequences of linking to the bad neighbourhood, that being the 1 linking to the bad neighbourhood.

What you are condoning Fathom is increasing risk for little/no reward. I say "no reward" as the 5 sites (interlinked) are very likely not doing very much (if anything) for their rankings by interlinking.

Not worth the risk IMO.

[fathom]

Admittedly I never commented on your comments that you just quoted... and I haven't avoided, skipped, evaded, or danced around any question.

Additionally, this manipulation of ranks via some ring of sites 'is' purely external 'site wide' links which is 'purely' the same as all the examples I have provided... and should you disagree - then you need to provide some measure of understanding that Jupiter Media's, DevShed's or Stockholm's purely external 'site wide' links are something other than that.

Also I did say "1" link (which is the external link in the iFrame page) and the reason for the iFrame is to have all the linking between all website internal pages being done internally and not externally - so there is no:

large blocks of keywords as anchor text of keywords as anchor text

Which means these 'site wide links' are merely internal navigation links via a common 'include'.

...as such your entire 'interlinking strategy' is "1" external link to each website not 1000's... and the inherent disadvantage of framed websites becomes the quality control mechanism that not only prevents penalties they have the 'precise' NATURE linking pattern Google prefers.

Additionally, the inherent disadvantage of 'framed' with respect to search engine indexing and listing (which inducing ophaned pages) is now a standalone banner ad... for the search engine user...

If you wish to call it 'rank manipulation' - that's your call - but if you never actually researched or investigated the value, the use, or benefit to search engines and users... how informed is that call?

[fathom]

What's with this ownership you keep referencing? One does not need to "own" the bad neighbourhood to suffer the consequences of linking to it.

If someone has 5 sites, all unrelated and links each to each other and in turn each of these link to say 20 other sites. If one of these links is to a bad neighbourhood there is a real chance that all five sites will suffer the consequences of linking to the bad neighbourhood.

However, if the owner of the 5 sites did not link these together there is only a real chance that 1 site will suffer the consequences of linking to the bad neighbourhood, that being the 1 linking to the bad neighbourhood.

Sure - I completely understand that methodology - and would say -- if you know what a bad neighborhood is - you would logically stay away from it... and if you don't there is a real risk of individually linking each website to it anyway -- thus it's better to have the 5 sites linked together to save yourself time making a stupid mistake 5 times over! ;)

Actually the solution is learning to appreciate the 'precise' characteristics of a 'bad neighborhood'... would be better than both formers solutions.

What you are condoning Fathom is increasing risk for little/no reward. I say "no reward" as the 5 sites (interlinked) are very likely not doing very much (if anything) for their rankings by interlinking.

Not worth the risk IMO.

Actually - 'reducing risk' is what I am condoning via this...

As for 'no rewards' - let's not assume that very likely not doing very much (if anything) for their rankings means you are absolutely sure...

In funtent's 'specific' case 5 totally different websites tend to have something in each website - that the four other websites don't have "more totally unique incoming and outgoing links".

[Dave Hawley]

Sorry, don't agree at all. Creating a likely domino effect will not reduce risk. I believe what you are condoning is nothing/little to gain and a lot to lose.

If sites are related link, if they are not, don't link. If that's not the case we might as well all start link farms.

[fathom]

Ok using this 'real' example:

1. Mac forum
2. Volvo forum
3. Photography site
4. an Apple audio application (Garageband) news site
5. an education news/blog

Apple commonly associated with Mac > which >

Mac common use for professionals, illustrators, for graphics, imagery, publishing & editing > which >

A Photography site is quite related > which >

An education news/blog is related via learning Apple, Mac, Photography and news also cover an enourmous array of topics include auto, travel, traffiic > which > volvo is related to all of these.

That took a little longer than you to say 1 million+ forum homepage links to a forum software site seems very related to me.

Yet the content of all those all forum likely have very little to do with phpBB itself - which beg the question 'how is "related" define:

1. the technology platform

2. the developer of the technology

3. the link anchor

4. the overall scope of the website

5. the overall scope of page content

6. the 'cross-over' of topics,

7. a little of 'all of the above'

Clearly there is 'some' common ground beyond 'NO' funtent's websites are 100% unrelated where all pbpBB forums very related.

He does have two forums - what if both are phpBB?

[Dave Hawley]

Only Google knows how they truly see Web sites as being related.

However, IMO, a phpBB forum link to the phpBB forum software site itself is always related, regardless of the forums theme. Just as a link to MS's IE page from any web page is likely related in terms of linking. Seems like Google agrees with me too. :D

As you clearly admit you are not sure how Google relates sites, why are condoning linking the sites together? In essence you are condoning link farms. :confused:

You can cut it anyway you like, but I still say, if the sites are related (of use to the visitors) then link. If they are not related (of no use to the visitors) then don't link. Linking strategy 101 IMO.

[Mel]

Admittedly I never commented on your comments that you just quoted... and I haven't avoided, skipped, evaded, or danced around any question.

Hmmm.... seems to me I have asked you this very pointed question four or five times and have yet to get at straight answer:

Fathom please clear up you position on this matter. Do you believe that it is all right to set up rings of sites with the express intention of manipuation of rank, especially by using large blocks of keyword rich anchor text at the bottom of every page linking to the home pages of the other sites in the link? This is a simple question and I am curious why you do not answer it.


Additionally, this manipulation of ranks via some ring of sites 'is' purely external 'site wide' links which is 'purely' the same as all the examples I have provided... and should you disagree - then you need to provide some measure of understanding that Jupiter Media's, DevShed's or Stockholm's purely external 'site wide' links are something other than that.

I too doubt that there is any problem with casual crosslinking between various sites that you own, but when those links start to be come run of site links using large blocks of keywords as anchor text, then yes I have seen entire rings of sites penalized for doing that.

to which you responded

I suspect 'something else cause this downfall'.

There are tons of high profile networks that 'should' fall victim to this [SEW and Network for one] but don't.

Now you are saying that if this is the case then Jupiter should be penalized. On the bottom of this Jupiter page I see these links (but am certainly not going to wade through a few hundred thousand pages to see if every page has the links)

JupiterWeb, JupiterResearch, JupiterEvents and JupiterImages

Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints, & Permissions, Privacy Policy.

Jupitermedia Corporate Info | Newsletters | Tech Jobs | E-mail Offers

I do not see any keywords there at all, especially I do not see any large blocks of keywords interlinking all the home pages of all twenty sites, which is what I was talking about and which you have assured us several times now is quite OK. So this is not an example of what I was discussing, nor do I see it as those links being placed there for ranking puposes, but rather for navigation.

Now as far as the ring of jewlery sites I mentioned, I can give you a bit of history and an update.
This ring of sites used keyword hyphenated names such as this fictional example http://e-diamond-rings.com and each page of all the pages in the ring would use at the bottom of the page a link to this site, for instance a link to the site above might be diamond rings as anchor text. Each site was hosted on a different class C address, each site was registered with a different name (but all to the same small town) in a Southern state, but all used the same shopping cart and payment gateway (ie whatever you bought all came from the same account) and each site used the same phone number. ALL of these sites had good PR and ranked at the top of Google rankings for terms like diamond rings, etc.

All of these sites lost at the same time all their PR and all thier rankings about 18 months ago. Thier backlinks in Google were all set to 0 while there were clearly thousands of links to her sites.

In the period since then, the owner has closed all the sites but the one which handled all the sales, and has brought all the content into one site. Her PR has now been restored but her rankings are not found in the first 100 results. Other sites continue to rank on these terms pretty much as normal.


If you wish to call it 'rank manipulation' - that's your call - but if you never actually researched or investigated the value, the use, or benefit to search engines and users... how informed is that call?

What makes you think that I have not investigated it? But then if "IT" is your scheme of hiding links by using iframes, then yes you are right I have never investigated the use of such a scheme.

[funtent]

He does have two forums - what if both are phpBB?

They are.

(This thread has been an immense knowledge-gap-filler for me. Thanks to all who have written in it.)

[fathom]

Well I'm glad you got some value out of it funtent... and if you truly need 'more specific info' please PM - advice is always free... and I'm sure Mel and Dave_Hawley would be happy to accommodate in private as well.

[fathom]

Hmmm.... seems to me I have asked you this very pointed question four or five times and have yet to get at straight answer:

Fathom please clear up you position on this matter. Do you believe that it is all right to set up rings of sites with the express intention of manipuation of rank, especially by using large blocks of keyword rich anchor text at the bottom of every page linking to the home pages of the other sites in the link? This is a simple question and I am curious why you do not answer it.

To be clear - I (as an SEO) take what is given to me, provide the client all the advantages of their current developments, explain all the disadvantages... provide them options of 'informed business planning'.

I DON'T SETUP RINGS OF STUPID HYPOTHECIAL WEBSITES - I work with tangible existing strategies and make them better than they are with informed consent.

If funtent was a client - 'guess what' I would 'condone precisely the strategy I have discussed' - why?

For all the reasons you, me, and everyone else noted.

1. totally related websites

2. added value to users

3. independent website credibility

4. ease of navigation

5. less code - less code blog

6. less risk

7. less links

8. more quality

9. link diversity [e.g. unique links to photo site are beneficial to mac forum, mac forum unique links, are beneficial to apple audio, etc. [weight and relevancy doesn't stop at one link generation]

10. ease of link development campaigns, and acquiring partners

Call it rank manipulation - ok I'll buy that. Obviously I condone it, and use it 'if' the situation arises and the merits of a given current strategy warrants it and the client provides informed consent.

On the other hand - I prefer single 'domain' strategies - you can do alot more with the same general merits... unfortunately when you come across a site owner that has a bunch of websites (like funtent) - they are far more reluncant to provide informed consent to 'kill' 4 sites and make the leap of faith of 'one will do'.

Notwithstanding 'you will never, ever get penalized or banned for site wide links - they are just becoming 'worth less' than they use to be. That said - the change to a singular iFrame link -- changes the linking merits to being 'internal site wide links' e.g. like your 'home' button... and having a 'home' button or a main hierarchical link - to an associated and complementary website and via a 'single external link' which (I'll assume) is a natural linking pattern - if a single link isn't I have no clue what is?

[Mel]

I have never seen anyone so hard to get a straight answer from. :confused:

But if thats the best you can do then lets leave it at that.

[fathom]

I have never seen anyone so hard to get a straight answer from. :confused:

But if thats the best you can do then lets leave it at that.

I'll answer any question you have... and did.

[rustybrick]

It is simply hard to give examples. There are those sites that are created just to deploy site wide links, the quality of the content of the networked sites are simply not quality. So one can create 5 sites blue-widget.com, red-widget.com, green-widget.com, yellow-widget.com, black-widget.com and link them all to each other. People do this and this is what Google dislikes.

Jupiter's network, Dev Shed's network, the Stockholm example are all sites which have been around, have large exposure and link between each other before they even knew anything about SEO (well maybe not the stockholm example). But I know that was the case with DevShed, they did the cross linking to build a brand. I assume Jupiter did the same and why not with the stockholm example.

But to build new domains with the sole intent to interlink to rank well - then the intentions are wrong. It can be spotted easily, reported and banned.

"Casual" linking is not the right way to term is. "Intentional linking" is more appropriate, I guess.

[Marcia]

I answer it with Jupiter Media,
JupiterMedia can't be compared with a covert network of sites created strictly for SEO purposes. People used to compare cranking out sub-domains wth about.com using a subdomain architecture but about.com wasn't generating the thousands of wildcard subdomains that Inktomi used to love so dearly. :cool:

There's a big difference between about.com or microsoft or adobe and an SEO generated circle of sites. And there's a big difference between what an SEO who's a medium to dark shade of grey can handle as opposed to people who don't know the nuances of operating in those grey areas.

The important point is knowing the audience and what potential risk there is for them assimilating whatever information is being presented before them. Sure - well seasoned SEO's who use those techniques know what they're doing and can assess and deal with the risk. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's OK for the average Joe who comes along to do likewise, because the average Joe will get his butt busted and not know what hit him.

There's a certain amount of social responsibility that's called for in the industry, in the same way that there's a responsibility in being a parent. A responsible parent simply won't hand a toddler the keys to a Harley and send him out on the freeway.

[fathom]

...Sure - well seasoned SEO's who use those techniques know what they're doing and can assess and deal with the risk. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's OK for the average Joe who comes along to do likewise, because the average Joe will get his butt busted and not know what hit him...

Excellent point Marcia... I often mention to people 'what isn't said, is as important as what is said...

You can only write 'so' much in the details... people need to appreciate that every situation is different and what is the best way forward for one site owner... isn't the best for all site owners.

[bobmutch]

While people have differnet reasons for interlinking a number of sites with a link from each page to the home page of each site, I think in most cases Googles algo is not able to discern the motives.

Some one puts up 5 sites for selling white widgets and each site has 20 pages and all pages are linked to the home page of each site. 100 pages, 9 sites, 900 links. The links are all keyword rich, put up for the reason to gain Ranking weight from the links. 5 sites are used, where one would do, to get as many of the 5 sites on the first page SERP as possible and get more traffic.

Some one else has 5 sites they link all pages of every site on all pages of the other sites but not to get better Ranking but for branding, or what ever reason.

Google may see both sites as a link farm and both may recieve a penalty or ban for "link farming." While the motives are different to some degree both sites have the same pattern. I think Google has a hard time to tell the difference automatically and even some times if they do a hand penalty.

To not be involved and working in the SEO industry for some time and to say that there is no chance of getting a ban for this kind of linking in my mind is the same as saying you can drink and drive and you will not get a penalty or ban for it. Just read the newspaper or talking to a lawyer or court offical, some one in the know, should disspell that idea quickly.

You can point at people that get away with it all the time and for years. And yes there are people that have. To say people get a penalty or ban for some other reason would be to ignore the facts.

I think some of the experiences that others have related in this thread that have worked with many sites, and worked fixing sites that have gotten penalties or bans carries more weight perhaps than the exposure you have.

When ever I deal with a group of site that are interlinked I tell them to cut the interlinking to the home pages only and if they want to be conservetive to select one site as the main site and do 2 ways links from the main home page to the home pages of the other sites.

It also might be a good idea for those that want to interlink every page with every page in a group of sites, that are not doing it to "malipulate" the search engine indexs, to remove rich keywords from the anchor text and just use the domina name instead.

[Marcia]

imho, the practice of crosslinking a bunch of sites, while some may find it a viable technique, should not be recommended as a general rule. The safest rule of thumb is to ask "If someone from Google or Yahoo were looking over my shoulder as I'm doing this, what would they think?"

[fathom]

JupiterMedia can't be compared with a covert network of sites created strictly for SEO purposes.

and

imho, the practice of crosslinking a bunch of sites, while some may find it a viable technique, should not be recommended as a general rule.

Interesting - I would hardly call visible and open to public scruntiny 'covert'.

1. Crosslinking for brand - doesn't change the fact the that 'exposure' comes along with it.

2. Crosslinking for exposure - with this intent [we'll assume intentional manipulation] with the correct approach 'brand is acquired' as with #1.

3. Crosslinking with informed knowledge - again #1 & #2 are quite often achieved.

4. Crosslinking by being completely ignorant to crosslinking - this is often the one that hurts.

The safest rule of thumb is to ask "If someone from Google or Yahoo were looking over my shoulder as I'm doing this, what would they think?"

Well I truly cannot disagree with this... but what makes JupiterMedia's crosslinking strategy the highest of moral standards and a 'web strategy of excellence' and the rest being told - you must be paranoid?

If crosslinking is 'bad' then it's bad - isn't it?

JupiterMedia's does have a bunch of websites 'crosslinked'... are they actually getting away with it? Or not?

[bobmutch]

Marcia: "The safest rule of thumb is to ask "If someone from Google or Yahoo were looking over my shoulder as I'm doing this, what would they think?""

This is not always a safe rule. If the conscience of the webmaster is not educated this rule of thumb will fail. I would say that the best rule of thumb is to never link all pages from one site to all the pages of another site or sites.

I think it would be fair to say that it is safe to link the home pages of all sites to the home pages of all your other sites. Anything over this you may be risking a penalty.

[Marcia]

JupiterMedia is different because it's legit and looks it to the naked eye. It is not SEO'd page copy with a bunch of anchor-text stuffed links sprinkled around - especially to client sites of the SEO in commercial markets. There are some networks out there that just scream SEO, it's written all over them. And if they come up for hand review they can come down like a house of cards. It's been known to happen that new penalties are imposed - many times over the years.

GoogleGuy gave some input here on the subject, as did a couple of members who walk the narrow, well-trodden path of safety

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/23493.htm

And another for reading enjoyment - GoogleGuy on penalties

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/8053.htm%23msg9

An even safer rule of thumb is to realize that anything that's mentioned in the guidellines is fair game for removal or penalty - and then some. Some things the algo catches automatically, others are inspected. Obviously. So the bottom line is that everyone is responsible for their own site and whatever they do, they proceed at their own risk.

[fathom]

JupiterMedia is different because it's legit and looks it to the naked eye.

So then you would agree that IYHO crosslinking can be done 'safely' & 'effectively' given specific guidance.

It is not SEO'd page copy with a bunch of anchor-text stuffed links sprinkled around - especially to client sites of the SEO in commercial markets.

This almost sounds like a reference about my site... which has zero crosslinks of that nature - with exception to spherica, spherinet & sphericom noted by the brand name and not keywords.

The list of 'keywords' go to 'internal pages' they are not external links.


There are some networks out there that just scream SEO, it's written all over them. And if they come up for hand review they can come down like a house of cards. It's been known to happen that new penalties are imposed - many times over the years.

But what are we talking about 'crosslinking' specifically or SEO in general?

GoogleGuy gave some input here on the subject, as did a couple of members who walk the narrow, well-trodden path of safety

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/23493.htm

brand-new + lots of sites + lots of cross-linking

We started this thread off with '5' not so new websites.

Based on 'my' read of GG comments - don't built a bunch of website just for the sake of crosslinking... and the general jest of this thread funtent 'didn't' but own 5 standalone 'established' websites and doesn't see why his own interests cannot be tied together to represent that they are 'his interests'...

I say he can - safely & effectively without fear of punishment.

And another for reading enjoyment - GoogleGuy on penalties

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/8053.htm%23msg9

Not sure how this applies to this discussion - the jest of the thread is about doorway pages, re-directs... please elaborate.

An even safer rule of thumb is to realize that anything that's mentioned in the guidellines is fair game for removal or penalty - and then some. Some things the algo catches automatically, others are inspected. Obviously. So the bottom line is that everyone is responsible for their own site and whatever they do, they proceed at their own risk.

Couldn't we say that a reasonably safe and effective way to do crosslinking is by 'starting with estabished websites; each with their own merits' e.g. lots of nature inbound links, unique original content, no shaddy or spammy tricks, doorways, redirects and limit the number of domains...

Isn't that the difference?

[Dave Hawley]

Couldn't we say that a reasonably safe and effective way to do crosslinking is by 'starting with estabished websites; each with their own merits' e.g. lots of nature inbound links, unique original content, no shaddy or spammy tricks, doorways, redirects and limit the number of domains... The cross-linking itself could be seen as the shady or spammy trick. This could also mean there could be a domino effect.

I have no doubt that cross-linking between non-related sites happens a lot and many have not yet been caught, or suffered any consequences. But it is wrong to use that as an argument to suggest it is ok to do. If we are, then we may as well point to Ronnie Bigs as a argument to say train robbery is ok.

I'm sure we can ALL find sites that are linking to bad neighbourhoods and yet are doing quite well in the SERP's. Does that mean we should now condone linking to bad neighbourhoods? No, of course not and this is no different.

[Mel]

So then you would agree that IYHO crosslinking can be done 'safely' & 'effectively' given specific guidance...

Sure I can agree that crosslinking by itself is not the problem its the degree of crosslinking, as I said here:


I too doubt that there is any problem with casual crosslinking between various sites that you own, but when those links start to be come run of site links using large blocks of keywords as anchor text, then yes I have seen entire rings of sites penalized for doing that

and perhaps to a lesser extent the intent of the crosslinking. I anticipate responses that are going to say how do you judge intent, and to that I say, its not difficult to a practiced eye and some of the most practiced eyes in the world probably belong to Google reviewers.
We started this thread off with '5' not so new websites.

Based on 'my' read of GG comments - don't built a bunch of website just for the sake of crosslinking... and the general jest of this thread funtent 'didn't' but own 5 standalone 'established' websites and doesn't see why his own interests cannot be tied together to represent that they are 'his interests'...

I say he can - safely & effectively without fear of punishment.

Sure as long as he doesn't go overboard and start adding say something like fifty keyword links at the bottom of each page.

I don't read GGs comments to read that if you build sites and link them in such and such a manner you will be penalized but not if they are older sites and you link them in the same manner, do you?


Couldn't we say that a reasonably safe and effective way to do crosslinking is by 'starting with estabished websites; each with their own merits' e.g. lots of nature inbound links, unique original content, no shaddy or spammy tricks, doorways, redirects and limit the number of domains...

Isn't that the difference?

IMO that is not the difference. The difference is the degree of crosslinking.

IMO if Jupiter starting adding a hundred keyword anchor text links to the bottom of every one of its pages in order to rank for some commercial terms they might not be safe from a penalty, but then they are probably too smart to do something like that.

[fathom]

The cross-linking itself could be seen as the shady or spammy trick. This could also mean there could be a domino effect.

Anything is possibly. Someone at Google could wake tomorrow read this thread - say "I hate fathom" and ban me and use the premise that I use crosslinking and your statement would be 100% true... but it's no more reasonable than "I could walk down the street and get hit by a car - so the safe rule of thumb "don't go out my door".

I have no doubt that cross-linking between non-related sites happens a lot and many have not yet been caught, or suffered any consequences.

But we are not talking in theoretically terms you have a real example that started this thread... IS MAC not reated to Apple, Is photography not related to MAC... doesn't news and education relate to a wide scope of topics... in this specific situation - if these are 'unrelated' -- why?

Also isn't this going against your belief that all phpBB boards are related to phpBB regardless of the forum content topics only because that website owner developed the software?

If you 'own' 5 sites isn't that the same thing?

Isn't it 'going overboard' that causes the problems and not 'unrelated'. I recall one chap setting up a travel website for each US State and crosslinked them all together [50+ websites] - but they 'were' all related?

But it is wrong to use that as an argument to suggest it is ok to do. If we are, then we may as well point to Ronnie Bigs as a argument to say train robbery is ok.

But isn't it just as wrong to hype penalty, banned, spammy, shaddy, and domino effect as an absolute without viweing the indivdual merits of the situation?

I'm sure we can ALL find sites that are linking to bad neighbourhoods and yet are doing quite well in the SERP's. Does that mean we should now condone linking to bad neighbourhoods? No, of course not and this is no different.

But you're saying don't crosslink not because its merits [or lack of] but because bad neighborhood wll get you.

This argument strikes me a bit odd - it's a general rule of SEO and not limited to crosslinking.... and further the paranoia about linking to bad neighborhoods is unfounded as increased risk to crosslinking.

Your saying that 'if' one site points all will going down. In fact Google specifically determinates penalties once removed from the offending page/site.

So for a netowrk of crosslink sites to attract newtwork wide penatly [based only on the merits of linking to a bad neighborhood] each website would need to link to the bad neighborhood... thus no added risk to individual websites independently linking.

If you actually find a website being affect by this - screenshot the tool bar in high resolution - you will see a bit of greenbar.

Also note: for your statement to be true 'all links' would be affected not just crosslinked ones including link exchanges.

[fathom]

Sure I can agree that crosslinking by itself is not the problem its the degree of crosslinking, as I said here:

100% totally agree!

[qutoe]and perhaps to a lesser extent the intent of the crosslinking. I anticipate responses that are going to say how do you judge intent, and to that I say, its not difficult to a practiced eye and some of the most practiced eyes in the world probably belong to Google reviewers.[/quote]

agree - <added> avoiding redirects (and anything hidden) most often will keep this in check... if you have nothing to hide - manual reviews tend to be favourable... there are always exceptions.

as long as he doesn't go overboard and start adding say something like fifty keyword links at the bottom of each page.

agree

I don't read GGs comments to read that if you build sites and link them in such and such a manner you will be penalized but not if they are older sites and you link them in the same manner, do you?

Unfortunately, GG comments are out of context in this thread... in general I would say the more '+' you have in the equation risk is directly proportional.

IMO that is not the difference. The difference is the degree of crosslinking.

Well sure... and my reference to the use of a FRAME reduces 'crosslnking' to a reciprocal link with a feedbac loop.

There is nothing shady about it... the general idea - it is a the same dynamic web page include but in reverse. Rather than having each webpage pulling data to be included - it pulls the actual file and frames it on top.

'no more site wide' sites - crosslinking 'GONE'... but the benefits of crosslinking remain.

An iframe 'is not different than using a frameset website... and a frqameset ins't shaddy.

IMO if Jupiter starting adding a hundred keyword anchor text links to the bottom of every one of its pages in order to rank for some commercial terms they might not be safe from a penalty, but then they are probably too smart to do something like that.

Sure - but then from the start to here... it was never implied nor suggested to use 20, 50 100 or any other number - other than '1' per site! ;)

[Dave Hawley]

Anything is possibly. Someone at Google could wake tomorrow read this thread - say "I hate fathom" and ban me and use the premise that I use crosslinking and your statement would be 100% true... but it's no more reasonable than "I could walk down the street and get hit by a car - so the safe rule of thumb "don't go out my door".But what you are suggesting is akin to saying there is "hit by a car" risk anyway, so I'll just walk on the road and not the footpath.

But we are not talking in theoretically terms you have a real example that started this thread... IS MAC not reated to Apple, Is photography not related to MAC... doesn't news and education relate to a wide scope of topics... in this specific situation - if these are 'unrelated' -- why?[quote]I have stated many times now (please read) that if the sites are related then link if they aren't don't.

[quote]Also isn't going against your belief that all phpBB boards are related to phpBB regardless of the forum content topics only because that website owner developed the softwareI assume you mean "Also isn't this going against your belief" to which the answer is no.

If you 'own' 5 sites isn't that the same time?No idea what that means.

Isn't it 'going overboard' that causes the problems and not 'unrelated'. I recall one chap setting up a travel website for each US State and crosslinked them all together [50+ websites] - but they 'were' all related?Yes, that too.

But isn't it just as wrong to hype penalty, banned, spammy, shaddy, and domino effect as an absolute without viweing the indivdual merits of the situation?Never said it was an "absolute". I said If one site links to a bad neighbourhood the others could suffer from a domino effect.

This argument strikes me a bit odd - it's a general rule of SEO and not limited to crosslinking.... and further the paranoia about linking to bad neighborhoods is unfounded as increased risk to crosslinking.LOL! Perhaps you haven't read the problems of the non-profit quit smoking site that GoogleGuy stated was dropped due to links to a bad neighbouhood. However, not once have I said that crosslinking would increase the risk of linking to a bad neighbouhood.

Your saying that 'if' one site points all will going down. In fact Google specifically determinates penalties once removed from the offending page/site.Nope, wrong again. I said there is a risk that all sites may go down.

Bottom line Fathom, cross-linking when the sites are not related is no different that running a link farm. Why stop at only linking to the 5 sites, why not start a full blown link farm.

It clear that you condone cross-linking of unrelated sites and it's clear I and others here do not. There is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so go cross-link away!

Have a happy Xmas.

[bobmutch]

While we are on the topic can we discuss mulipul links on 1 site. What do you all think when this linking goes on within just one site. Like producting 50 to 100 pages and putting a keyword rich links on every page to all the other pages? What is everyones views on this?

[Mel]

Not sure if this is on topic but if not then please move it.

There are lots of people who use dynamic menu systems which are spiderable and have the advantage to the users that they can navigate from any page they are on to any other page. This to me seems like a design feature to which Google should not object but, sensible SEO would seem to say that if you are using such a system why not make the menu links text links using keywords.

I believe that these internal links do help rankings to some degree and thus such a system might be considered as a system like you mention. In my experience Google does not seem to mind such navigation systems, but I am developing a suspicion that Google is looking more closely at internal links, but I can't figure out if they are limiting the effect of say footer links, or if they are limiting what we can see with allinanchor: similar to what they do with the link: search.

[glengara]

I always look at "site dropped on G" posts to try to determine the cause, almost invariably it's linkage related, and nearly always includes cross/inter linking, but it rarely just stops there.

IMO, intent is the KW here, G seems quite tolerant of crosslinking "per se", and in most cases will give it the benefit of the doubt.

It becomes dangerous if other links schemes are in play, and a sites' overall linkage pattern shows an intent to "participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank".

On the internal links thing, I've quite a few pages ranking for moderately competitive terms solely with internal links/anchor text, so should find it easy spot if anything changes with internals ;-)

[fathom]

Sorry Dave - corrected my typos.

As for "if you own '5' websites isn't this the same thing [but I wrote 'time']?

Not sure if it was just the typo that confused the question - but to expand...

I 'own' spherica, sphericom, and spherinet - it's reasonable that I can display this publicly e.g. link to each. And because people can enter any page of any website without going to say 'the mainpage'... it is reasonable for me to note that spherica, sphericom, and spherinet are related to each because - they are mine and on every page.

That is no less reasonable that DevShed or JupiterMedia noting they own multiple propertiies and while 'intent' might well be spectulated that the relationship is merely for 'gaming search engines'... it is 'reasonable' to assume that this is merely another benefit...

Clearly [in my crosslinking strategy] spherica, sphericom, and spherinet are not normally used 'keyword' queries.

[Wail]

We get to have Yahoo's view on this:


What Yahoo! Considers Unwanted
Some, but not all, examples of the more common types of pages that Yahoo! does not want include:
* Excessively cross-linking sites to inflate a site's apparent popularity
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/basics/basics-18.html


I think Google's about the same. I'm also sure algos are used to determine what's "Excessively cross-linking".

JupiterImages will have plenty of natural inbounds. Could it be if that if most of your inbounds are from your own crosslinks and you don't have many others then you're not doing to do so well.

[fathom]

Not sure if this is on topic but if not then please move it.

There are lots of people who use dynamic menu systems which are spiderable and have the advantage to the users that they can navigate from any page they are on to any other page. This to me seems like a design feature to which Google should not object but, sensible SEO would seem to say that if you are using such a system why not make the menu links text links using keywords.

I believe that these internal links do help rankings to some degree and thus such a system might be considered as a system like you mention. In my experience Google does not seem to mind such navigation systems, but I am developing a suspicion that Google is looking more closely at internal links, but I can't figure out if they are limiting the effect of say footer links, or if they are limiting what we can see with allinanchor: similar to what they do with the link: search.

The 'footer' was use as an example only. There is limited evidence that 'position on the page' does affect this [but more inconclusive than anything].

The fact that page 'code' is actually being used means the footer could be coded directly after the open <body> tag thus to the bot sees as - 'page top'.

Much of this [my discussions] are based on comments that Matt Cutts (GG) have repeated over & over again... 'site wide links' are increasing becoming 'worth less'... and another commonly seen observation... the mainpage of most websites usually appears prominently in results and moreso than any other page... while it tends to be the one page most often with the least amount of relevant information to the query.

You can 'assume' that this is because the mainpage (most often) has the most inbound links to it... but it also has the most 'internal links to it' as well.

Reproducing this internal authority (some would call it an 'expert page') is further backed by another Matt Cutts quote: "quality is better than quantity" - or in this instance '1' link of the highest quality is superior to '1000 links' of the lowest quality... and further significantly 'less risk' as 'it is a single link per domain'.

I still maintain that '1' domain is better than multiple domians - significantly more robust link architecture so if you have a single domain - it isn't worth adding a bunch of websites - you lose in this event.

But if you have established 'multiple' domains - there is significantly less risk and less to lose in doing as I suggested than - moving 5 sites into one - or using 'all crosslinks as direct externals per page.

[fathom]

We get to have Yahoo's view on this:



I think Google's about the same. I'm also sure algos are used to determine what's "Excessively cross-linking".

JupiterImages will have plenty of natural inbounds. Could it be if that if most of your inbounds are from your own crosslinks and you don't have many others then you're not doing to do so well.

Two points:

1. '1' link isn't excessive.

2. "JupiterImages will have plenty of natural inbounds." - Yes - it stands to reason that you can't gain if you have 'only' links to yourself. The first principle of PageRank and 'web importance' explicitly tell us this.

Thus 'established websites' is a key factor. Stockholm is an oddball here - they setup the domains - and then established the inbound merits. This was a few years ago so likely you 'could get away with it'... but I wouldn't try it today.

[Dave Hawley]

'1' link of the highest quality is superior to '1000 links' of the lowest quality... and further significantly 'less risk' as 'it is a single link per domain'.Cannot agree with that. Surely 1000 links is a MUCH lower risk. If you have "1 link of the highest quality" you only need to lose the 1 link, or have the 1 page drop so it's no longer of the highest quality and it's all gone. Not the case with 1000 links as the risk is spread.

The saying "quality is better than quantity" (which did not orginate from MC) is often used when it's not the case.

[dannysullivan]

The whole crosslinking things comes up often at our conferences -- just dealt with it again numerous times last week in Chicago.

I'll give you my standard advice, which fits in with much of what others are saying.

Crosslink however you want, as long as it makes sense for your users. Do that, and you'll probably be doing the right thing from a search perspective, as well. So if you run a site about something and want others to know about your other sites -- think it makes sense -- then do it.

If I go to News.com, they link over to Cnet, mySimon, Search.com, Webshots and others sites. Those aren't directly related to the news content on News.com. But so what? They are all owned and operated by CNET, and those coming to CNET may want to know about the other content CNET operates.

People have noted the Jupitermedia crosslinking. Same thing -- if Jupiter owns various web sites and wants to tell their visitors about them, that's fine.

The key thing is that my view is that any crosslinking is offset by external links. That leads to my patented diagram to explain this, familiar to anyone who's seen me do it in Microsoft Paint during a show :)

This is a picture of your unnatural crosslinked sites:
http://searchenginewatch.com/img/041222-crosslink.gif

The sites link to each other, but what about non-affiliated sites linking in? A normal site would have these type of links. A natural structure would be more like this:

http://searchenginewatch.com/img/041222-crosslink2.gif

Now you can see how some sites from "outside" the network are linking in. But this is still a great simplification. People don't link to sites -- they link to pages. So there may be lots of links pointing at different pages within these various sites.

The main point is, a more "natural" site should have plenty of external links pointing at it. My feeling has been that this easily outweighs any discounting of links search engines might do off crosslinks. I have no doubt they are not crediting links internal to a site or even within networks of sites where they can detect patterns (same link, same text, same position on hundreds of pages, easy to spot). But discounting a link -- not crediting it as much as other links -- is much different from penalizing a site for those links.

[fathom]

The main point is, a more "natural" site should have plenty of external links pointing at it. My feeling has been that this easily outweighs any discounting of links search engines might do off crosslinks. I have no doubt they are not crediting links internal to a site or even within networks of sites where they can detect patterns (same link, same text, same position on hundreds of pages, easy to spot). But discounting a link -- not crediting it as much as other links -- is much different from penalizing a site for those links.

Thanks Danny for your timely post.

I would also be interested in hearing your views on a using a frame to reduce the 'unnataural' appearance on crosslinking.

As a frame is merely a separate webpage stacked on the existing pages and all url references pointing to that singular page internally... the link pop is significantly reduced while the weight of the existing link is significantly enhanced.

In effect - you are no longer 'crosslinking' - but offering the same user benefit.

So while your diagrams would still be the same (in a 2D view) the 3D view noting website depth [of links] - would be flat (more like a traditional link exchange with feedback loop) as opposed to the traditional crosslink design - layers of these diagrams diagonally connected.

[bobmutch]

dannysullivan: You diagrams don't show and you don't state if all pages are linking to all home pages.

With the news.com example they have a footer on every page that links out to the home page of 13 sites and for the most part everyone of those 13 sites have the same thing. But what you will not find is keyword rich anchor text. They use the company names CNET.com, MP3.com, Search.com, ZDNet etc.

Your 2nd diagram notes "The sites link to each other, but what about non-affiliated sites linking in." I think this is a good point and something very low level spammers don't do, but to think that just having non-affiliated inbound links into a link farm is going to keep you off the SE radar screen is a bit naive (I am not attribbing this to you by the way).

Interlinking all your pages to the home pages of a group of sites using keyword rich anchor text is a link farm and I don't think inbound links here and there is going to make difference.

The big boys like CNet are linking all their sites together for branding and to move their client base for one site to the other, not to pick up links and the links they use are not keyword rich. So but defination although it looks like a link farm it isn't.

How ever when you are a small fry and you take your 10 sites that have 50 pages each and put a keyword rich link to the other 9 site home pages in the foot of every page (creating 4500 external links), inbound links or no inbound links and regardless of your intent you are looking for a penalty or a ban.

[edited comments to clarify links from all pages to all home pages not to all pages]

[fathom]

dannysullivan: You diagrams don't show and you don't state if all pages are linking to all pages.

Normally they don't anyway.

Normally 'all pages' link to 'a page' per link-to website (traditionally the mainpage) and not mainpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage, subpage... on every linked from page.

The big boys like CNet are linking all their sites together for branding and to move their client base for one site to the other, not to pick up links and the links they use are not keyword rich. So but defination although it looks like a link farm it isn't.

While to a certain extent this is true - but 'linking for brand' or 'moving traffic' - are not the "ONLY" benefits... so they 'are' unintentionally acting intentionally! ;)

As for the 'link farm' not the same thing. The 'link farm' grows similarly but with two extra dimensions - new links to new sites and new links from new site to existing sites - where traditional crosslinking tends to have a finite number of domains and rarely increases.

[bobmutch]

fathom: Thanks for pointing that out, my wording was off. I meant to convery links from all pages to the home pages of all other sites in the group.

It seems, correct me if I am wrong, in reading over this thread, fathom, you don't thing there is a problem doing that. What about if the links are keyword rich like "Cheap Web Design" vss "Webdesign.com".

Would you feel comfordable to tell some to interlink there 5 or 10 sites with all pages linking to the home page of each other site in the group with the anchor text on all links keyword rich?

[fathom]

Complicated question to another.

First - 'no', makes no difference 'negatively' based on technology.

But it isn't that simple.

The greatest disadvantages of traditional crosslinking strategies are:

1. all links from same domain

2. all links from same IP

3. normally all links presence in the same position/location on the page, and

4. normally all link use the same anchor

from each crosslinked website.

That said, Google specifically isn't fond of duplication of anything in large quantities. You truly need to appreciate that - because the moment that you induce other forms of duplication you dramatically take your whitehat JupiterMedia strategy to uncharted waters.

Turning down the level of duplication keep you on an even keel. While a crosslink strategy is stuck with #1 & #2 as being dup'ed, the norm of #3 & #4 can and should be modified if for not other reason to reflect user appeal - depending on the page topic.

The very best way (and half answering your specific question) 'in-content links' rather than using a footer or nav bar appoach. Most crosslink strategies tend to be a footer approach, often on a 'include file' or links are adjacemt to a specific code element for an easy-to-implement search/replace tool.

Keyword vs Company Name - as for 'direct negative impact' in search engine because you used a keyword - 'none'... anchor text is anchor text - and there is no evidence that shows Google dis-favors a generic term in a link compared to a brand term...

There are tons of 'keyword domains' out there which superimpose brand as generic - and if Google even discounted 'keyword' links (for whatever reason) a Florida update X100 will occur including some high high flying SEOs.

Positive impact for visitors - good - particularly for visitors that came via a search engine. If [example only] having an article repository on jewelry as one website in the strategy - the informative textual content captures a diverse set of queries... but sells nothing.

Crosslinking that to a eCommerce shopping cart for jewelry and denoting the crossllinks as pearl jewlery (on an article page about pearls, gold jewelry on an article about gold, etc. is not only giving the user 'what they want' and 'when they want' you are improving your weight and relevancy of the associate website.

Admittedly though there are two immediate side affects that are notable as well...

You can't get away from the fact that 'to rank' means 'to displace' and others do not like being displaced to the extent they will take a stab in the night to get you back out of the way...

Spam reports 'will be submitted' you can guarantee that which does bring attention to you far easier and than a company name. Google uses the statement 'would you show this to a competitor'? - unfortunately the nature of 'competition' suggests many would prefer you not having a website therefore is matter not what you do the spam report go in... and in that Marcia is correct - can you justify the keyword link list?

The second side effect particularly as a footer setup of links - is website appeal... keyword links look out of place - they tend not to have a purpose and than 'intentional manipulation'... a column is better but also has a repeative problem (if using keyword phrases).

Using an example:

Pearl Necklace
Pearl Earrings
Pearl Bracelets
Pearl Rings
Pearl Sets

The repetitive nature looks spammy (in a row this is less apparent)...

These are but a few factor that you 'must' consider, and there are many more.

You could play it safe - but safe isn't better - it's just safe.

As for number of sites - 'no comment'... or rather unanswerable.

I believe JupiterMedia, DevShed, and Stockholm are all elegant examples of exceptional crosslinking strategies... even if links were keyword base - it wouldn't 'LIKELY' change a thing and they could probably expand near indefinitely.

But Danny did bring a point that I will stress strongly - if the merits of your total crosslink strategy exceeds the sum of unique influences per individual websites... you are over your head... and the bottom of the results pile is a long way down.

[ThouShaltSeo]

How about this:
each possible SEO "trick" has certain points, let's say

sitewides 3
croslinking in one page 2
croslinking sitewide 7
Anchor matching title 1.5
Anchor Matching URL 3.5
H1...
H2...
blah blah 14

etc. If your site passes the magic number you're penalized. CNN, CNNSI, Yahoo, MSN, MSFT, etc. are all croslinked so it's not as black and white


I'm having trouble believing there's a penalty for dissimilar site crosslinking.

I have a Mac forum (I own and like Macs), a Volvo forum (I own and like Volvos), a Photography site (another hobby), an Apple audio application (Garageband) news site and an education news/blog rss aggregation site (don't ask). I link from each to all the others. They're all hosted on the same IP as part of an inexpensive, consumer-grade hosting plan.

I find it hard to believe that the engines would neg me because I have a bunch of sites that reflect my hobbies and interests, and I crosslink between them.

I went to Search Engine Strategies 2004 San Jose and heard Matt from Google speak at several sessions, and I believe I got a good feel for the tone of Google's ideals. And I believe that getting downgraded for crosslinking goes counter to that tone.

[Dave Hawley]

That's a good point.

If we are use the logic of a little bit of cross-linking is ok, why not a little bit of hidden text, a little bit of cloaking etc etc ?

[glengara]

Cross/interlinking can often be "innocent", hidden text or cloaking unlikely to be so, it's back to perceived intent, IMO...