greyish black question - hiding reciprocal links...

[sarumu1]

hi everybody.

i was wondering about hiding reciprocal links using java or cgi script. not the actual doing, but the repercussions...

reciprocal linking is natural (right?). i'm (likely) about to get a about 30 to 40 industry specific links to my website... the industry itself is very web illiterate and they ALL use the web as an ancillary advertising campaign, they won't be upset should I use javascript to hide their links back to them.

my question is, should i consider hiding the links back and say "brilliant" with feigned irish brogue as i watch my site jump over tall buildings with a single bound? is this considered a higher risk proposition (some would refer to high risk SEO as black hat)? or should i just say bollocks (or is it bullox?) and not hide the reciprocal links? is it something that you think that search engines will soon figure out... ?

just scraping for opinions. thanks, subbu.

[Marcia]

>>but the repercussions...

One serious repercussion could be that people linking to you will see it and remove their links to you. It depends on whether they check or not - some people do and some don't. Another is that if people who look at your site considering doing a link exchange see it being done they won't want to link to you.

Either way, you could end up with fewer inbounds because of it in the long run.

[sarumu1]

hi marcia.

the "link exchange" isn't actually being billed as a "link exchange" - the links will be placed expressly for moving traffic between sites. as long as the owners realize that traffic will be coming back to them, that's all that matters to them - they certainly won't care that the link back will be "hidden."

so ignoring that particular downfall, will the big G be upset about this tactic?

subbu.

[critter]

Saramu,

I would advise against this for a few reasons.

Ethically, it's not cool to hide the backlinks in a cgi or javascript code because webmasters who exchange backlinks with you except to recieve some BL credit from your website.

Furthermore, Google and the other engines are not that fond of people who try and hide links, whether it be through the size or font. In my opinion, I don't think it's even worth the risk as a possible ban in Google is a nightmare to think about and not something I would want to even risk. The receiving site might also get some negative filtering as well.

Cheers

Critter

[ThouShaltSeo]

Uh, huh. :)


the "link exchange" isn't actually being billed as a "link exchange" - the links will be placed expressly for moving traffic between sites.

[I, Brian]

If the other sites all javascripted their links to you, would you be so keen simply "moving traffic" to them?

[Michael Martinez]

These kinds of practices are exactly the reason why I tell people to stop pursuing reciprocal links.

This is a very bad thing to do.

NO ONE should be trying to hide outbound links to other sites. There is no reason to, there is no benefit to be gained from doing it, and in the long run it just makes you look selfish and unwilling to share the Web with anyone else.

I link to sites openly and without regard for whether they reciprocate. In fact, I no longer respond to reciprocation requests.

It is an outdated practice which has outlived its usefulness and should be buried and forgotten.

Too many people abuse it and take advantage of the goodwill of other Webmasters.

[sarumu1]

I'm sorry - I should clarify. When I say "hide" I'm referring about hiding the outbound link from the search engine spiders and not the people pointing IBLs my way.

I'm dealing directly with the site owners (and not their webmasters), and the actual agreement that is being made:

I list your profile on my site provided you point a link my way. It's an industry where the web is simply an ancillary form of advertising for them.

There's no ethical issue or dilemma.

My question was: if i provide an OBL back to the site pointing an IBL to me, is it a bad idea in google's eyes?

From the info that I've gotten, It seems that it is. I don't want to be banned.

My agreement does not require a reciprocal OBL. What this means is I'll probably just provide a very complete profile of the dealer on my own site. The clients are actual walk-in clients and have to physically visit the dealer at his or her office. No business can be transacted over the web.

s.

[Michael Martinez]

I'm sorry - I should clarify. When I say "hide" I'm referring about hiding the outbound link from the search engine spiders and not the people pointing IBLs my way.

In my opinion, that is a very naughty, selfish thing to do. I would never exchange links with anyone who did that.

Nor would I recommend anyone exchange links with such a Web site.

Frankly, it would hurt you more to do that than you can possibly imagine. You will reap what you sow.

[sarumu1]

Hi Michael.

Good. I wouldn't exchange links with anyone who did that either. Now that we've agreed on that and it's out of the way, PLEASE READ my post.

1. In my last post I stated that I am NOT ENGAGING IN AN EXCHANGE OF LINKS.

2. I am dealing with the site owners directly, not their webmasters, and telling them exactly what they are getting.

3. The site owner who throws an IBL my way gets a profile page on my site - that's the deal: A LINK FOR A PROFILE PAGE, NOT A LINK FOR A LINK = NO LINK EXCHANGE. It is clearly explained in advance, nothing underhanded is being done to the site owner that is throwing a link my way - they're getting what we agreed upon.

The "underhanded" (underhanded specifically to google, not to the owners, i'm not hiding anything from the site owners) part is hiding a link back to them, if i decide to give a link back - please note that's entirely up to me and not agreed upon in advance. My question was, should I decide to point a link back using java (again, not part of the agreement), would google penalize me?

Again, i stated that after reading several comments, I'm not going to use java to hide a link back. I'm simply not going to link back at all- my prerogative.

S.

[ThouShaltSeo]

Ok, I'll say it: I don't think they believe you.
They think you are just trying to cheat the people who link to you and what you say cannot be verified.



Hi Michael.

Good. I wouldn't exchange links with anyone who did that either. Now that we've agreed on that and it's out of the way, PLEASE READ my post.

1. In my last post I stated that I am NOT ENGAGING IN AN EXCHANGE OF LINKS.

2. I am dealing with the site owners directly, not their webmasters, and telling them exactly what they are getting.

3. The site owner who throws an IBL my way gets a profile page on my site - that's the deal: A LINK FOR A PROFILE PAGE, NOT A LINK FOR A LINK = NO LINK EXCHANGE. It is clearly explained in advance, nothing underhanded is being done to the site owner that is throwing a link my way - they're getting what we agreed upon.

The "underhanded" part is hiding a link back to them, if i decide to give a link back - please note that's entirely up to me and not agreed upon in advance. My question was, should I decide to point a link back using java (again, not part of the agreement), would google penalize me?

Again, i stated that after reading several comments, I'm not going to use java to hide a link back. I'm simply not going to link back at all- my prerogative.

S.

[sarumu1]

If they don't want to believe me, that's fine.

BTW - what's the hard part to believe - a link in exchange for a profile page? or do people really think that i think i'm superior to my "partners" and will fool them and they won't figure out that i'm hiding my link back to them and keep all the PR to myself? Please. I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to P!$$ of these dealers who are potential clients for me if I transition to a pay-for-listing model. I'm being very open with them and making it clear that the IBL they give me is in exchange for a profile of their business on my site.

So I guess, the unbelievable part is "Why am I not required to link back to them?"

The web offers a great way to advertise for non-web-based businesses.

This industry in particular uses the web as an ancillary form of marketing. For any business to occur, prospective clients must physically walk into the stores of the dealers who would list on my site.

All my site offers is very detailed content for the prospective clients of these dealers so they have all the information in advance when they actually visit the dealers.

If a dealer wants to get these "walk ins" to his or her office, it's in their interest to have a listing or a profile on my site. It doesn't matter if their website gets traffic or not from me. That's why they don't care if they get a link back or not. It matters if they actually have their clients walk into their stores.

S.

[Michael Martinez]

Hi Michael.

Good. I wouldn't exchange links with anyone who did that either. Now that we've agreed on that and it's out of the way, PLEASE READ my post.

I have read your post.

Let me put it another way.

In my experience, it is better to give crawlable links than not to. That is what the search engines like. Crawlable links are indexable text.

Forget PageRank and link popularity for a moment. Just don't worry about whether they are important. Set them aside and you can come back to them at your leisure.

Now, look at the outbound links on your page as not only INDEXABLE CONTENT, but EMPHASIZED INDEXABLE CONTENT.

You are telling the search engines, "Hey, this is an IMPORTANT THING. I am sharing a link with my visitors because I believe it will bring them value."

You have just created a keyword anchor that people will find your own pages for. I come across zillions of pages every week in my regular searches where the only terms relevant to my queries are in the links.

So, in my opinion, regardless of whether what you are doing is morally acceptable to me or anyone else, you are simply shooting yourself in the foot by providing a link you think people will use that cannot be crawled.

That is one of the most self-defeating approaches to search engine optimization I have ever seen, and I have never understood the attitude. If you are going to put it on your page, MAXIMIZE THE RETURN IT GIVES YOU.

Make every element do as much for you as you possibly can. Don't just settle for the minimum return. Get it all.

Now, go forth and link wisely, freely, openly, and with complete confidence that you cannot hurt yourself by using crawlable links.

[sarumu1]

So, in my opinion, regardless of whether what you are doing is morally acceptable to me or anyone else, you are simply shooting yourself in the foot by providing a link you think people will use that cannot be crawled.

So it's been made abundantly clear to me. I just won't offer links back out to these dealers - unless they offer content that I don't have - and keep my shoes and feet hole free. I'm linking out to several other information sources, and that's what I'll be doing.

The original reason for linking back to these dealers was so I wouldn't have to include information like store hours or location, etc. No biggie. I'll just include that info on my own profile page about that dealer.

s.

[Connie]

I think from reading your post you think one way incoming links will give you a boost. So you are doing the link exchange expressly to fool the SEs if you hide the links. If you get caught by an Algo update, or a competitor looks at your site, that could cause you a lot of problems.

If the sites you are linking to provide quality content to your visitors they deserve a real link. If they don't, then don't link to them.

I have to much time and money invested in my site to risk anything deceptive for what might be at best short term value.

You have received a lot of good advice. Of course it is up to you whether you accept it or not. After all it is your site.

[sarumu1]

1.i think one way links will increase my site's rankings.
2.I'M NOT DOING A LINK EXCHANGE.
3.i'm doing a profile/write up on my site in return for a link to my site.

based on what i wrote in post 14, you should be able to surmise that i won't be hiding any outbound links in java. thanks for the advice.

s.

[JohnW]

Hmmm.... you titled your original post:

greyish black question - hiding reciprocal links...

Based on the above, and your subsequent postings, it makes me wonder what you are asking for here - is it some form of approval? It does not sound like you will find that here.

[sarumu1]

hi john...

the last line of the original post that i wrote that started this thread:

is it something that you think that search engines will soon figure out... ?

i was never looking for approval. i was looking for information.

i was wondering if search engines - google in particular - would penalise/ban my site if i hid an OBL from the engine's eyes. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

most people who replied misread the intent of the post, thinking that i was planning on duping other webmasters in a link exchange. my subsequent posts have simply stated (post 8) what was actually occurring (no link exchange, a link for a profile), clarified that (posts 10, 12), stated that I was appreciative for the advice and that I would simply not link back instead of incur the wrath of google (post 14) - and finally repeated everything as succinctly as possible (post 16)

and, it should be apparent in my last post (16) that this question is now purely hypothetical. i'm not planning on linking back in any form to the sites sending IBLs my way unless they have content that I do not have on my site. READ: I'M NOT GOING TO HIDE OBLs.

I'm getting a little sick of pseudo-defending my post. To see if this thread could be a bit more educational, perhaps I should rephrase the intent of the first post, in case anyone else decided to jump in -

Is anyone aware of penalisations/ banning by search engines for hiding OBLs?

but I honestly don't feel this thread needs to continue - Critter's answer was very precise in post 4 and it gave me great clarity as to how google would respond.

There. Since I've repeated myself over in several posts, I suppose I'll do it once more: Please don't misconstrue and assume that I'm planning on hiding OBLS. I don't know any other way to say it more clearly. While I contemplated doing this to horde PR, I was curious about the repercussions from the search engine's perspective. The deal I arranged for inbound links was not via a link-exchange, so I wasn't playing bad with fellow webmasters - they're getting what was agreed upon.

Whew. I hope that's the last time I have to repeat myself.

s.

[Michael Martinez]

Is anyone aware of penalisations/ banning by search engines for hiding OBLs?

To date, I have not seen anyone get penalized for using Javascript to "hide" an outbound link from a spider.

The search engines, so far, do not seem to be parsing Javascript with success (I have seen a few of them grab my Javascript files, but they never seem to do anything).

[ephricon]

Here's a case where I think the word "ethical" is indeed appropriate. To exchange reciprocal links with someone is a cooperative arrangement. In 90%+ of the cases the primary benefit sought by both parties is SE rankings, with the traffic from that link typically being secondary. Unless you specifically state that you are going to use JS to hide their links from spiders which will thus result in no benefit for them in the SEs than you are lying and being quite unethical. Very uncool IMO.

If you want one-way links go about it one of the many other ways. If you are too lazy than just go with honest reciprocals.

[sarumu1]

i agree.

so, as stated several times earlier, i decided i won't be exchanging links.

i'll be getting an ibl, the siteowner providing the ibl will be given a profile page on my website. so i guess in your estimation, this falls under the other ten percent.

'nuff said.

s.