How To Cross Link Without Getting Penalized?

[donelson]

We have several website virtual tours, and would like them to refer to each other. However, I have been told that Google penalizes this.

Is there a way for people visiting one of our virtual tours to be referred to our other virtual tour sites, without being penalized?

Thanks

[onedodd]

You could put this in your links:

rel="nofollow" - This tells Google not to follow or count this link. You may need to wait for some expert opinions on this as that I am not but this may be an option.

I would like to hear some opinions on this myself.

I do know a link with this tag will not be followed. As to cross linking issues one would assume if no weight is given to a link with the "nofollow" tag then the cross linked site would not be impacted in the search ranks - negatively or positively.

[glengara]

FWIW, I'd agree with Onedodd ;-)

[donelson]

Okay, I am trying
rel="nofollow"

on our gardens guide website, which has links on every page (450+ pages), which point to our other virtual tour sites.

I certainly don't want to LinkSpam Google or Yahoo, etc, but I DO want our visitors (who may only see one page) to know about our other sites.

If this fixes any of our rankings, I'll let you know.

[Jill Whalen]

We have several website virtual tours, and would like them to refer to each other. However, I have been told that Google penalizes this.

You've been given incorrect information.

[glengara]

*If this fixes any of our rankings, I'll let you know.*

Was it just a drop in rankings?

I'm not sure I've ever seen a drop caused by cross/interlinking, usually the site gets a PR0/ban, and then invariably inter/crosslinking is just one of the suspect linkage factors in play...

[Jill Whalen]

Okay, I am trying
rel="nofollow"

By using that, you're essentially telling the search engines that you don't trust the site you're linking to. (That's what rel="nofollow" is supposed to be used for.)

Is that really what you want to do?

[donelson]

Hmm... Before I put the rel=nofollow into our 450+ gardens pages, I did some research. All research indicated that rel=nofollow would not benefit nor penalize the linked-to site. It was neutral.

Today, I found this GoogleBlog "official" comment
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/...ment-spam.html

and it says that rel=nofollow is primarily designed to prevent "comment spam" on visitor-postable websites such as blogs and forums.

....So....
When Marcia et al tell me that my sites are too heavily cross-linked, and they are at risk of being banned, just what do they mean?

[donelson]

Regarding the rel=nofollow on our gardens site...

I think, perhaps, a better solution would be to have a single internal link on all 450 pages, which link to a page on the gardens site with an index and description of our other sites.

That would eliminate any accusation of Link-Spam (is this real?) and still provide our visitors with a way of seeing our other sites.

Comments, please.

Thanks.

[DaveN]

be careful Jill

"You've been given incorrect information."

are you saying it's ok to cross link all your sites ??

DaveN

[glengara]

Had a look at your set-up and noticed at least 3 Kew Gardens sites, I'd be very careful of your next move, and probably consider some "downsising" of your network before adding any more links.

[donelson]

Originally Posted by glengara

noticed at least 3 Kew Gardens sites

Sorry, I don't understand... We only have one Kew Gardens website; what do you mean "at least 3" ?

Private message me if necessary.

(I am really struggling here, and confused)

[donelson]

Originally Posted by DaveN

be careful Jill

"You've been given incorrect information."

are you saying it's ok to cross link all your sites ??

DaveN

DaveN
I have used the rel=nofollow as suggested for our gardens guide links to our other websites. Should I continue with this?

I want our usually-one-page-only visitors to be able to also see our other sites.

Please understand that I am desperate to conform to Good Practice, but confllicting info is really frustrating...

(If I could afford to hire an SEO company, I would)

[glengara]

I put in a quote, and those sites came up in the results.

I must have viewed the cache as those sites appear to no longer exist, thankfully fear of having imagined things was dispelled by the Wayback Machine ;-)

[donelson]

Originally Posted by glengara

I put in a quote, and those sites came up in the results.

I must have viewed the cache as those sites appear to no longer exist, thankfully fear of having imagined things was dispelled by the Wayback Machine ;-)

We did once have a .org and a .com mapped onto the .net main Kew site.

There is a real problem, which I've mentioned before, about having the word "travel" in our main company domain. Access to that domain is blocked by firewalls of some of me customers, so we map another domain (without the word: travel) onto the main domain, to allow them to access it.

This is a perfectly legitimate use of the domains, for a real, valid purpose.

We have decided to leave this, as is, and suffer the poorer listings on that domain.

[glengara]

*Access to that domain is blocked by firewalls of some of me customers, so we map another domain (without the word: travel) onto the main domain, to allow them to access it.*

Bit of a brain-twister, is there an original thread on this?

*If I could afford to hire an SEO company, I would*

It might be wise to get some consultation just on this specific question as I suspect you may already be on some pretty thin ice, and since you've already mentioned Marcia, she's got a very solid grasp of safe linkage practice, IMO......

[donelson]

Originally Posted by glengara

*Access to that domain is blocked by firewalls of some of me customers, so we map another domain (without the word: travel) onto the main domain, to allow them to access it.*

Bit of a brain-twister, is there an original thread on this?

I did ask on the Google forums, but the answers were as you might expect: Hmm. Brain twister.

[Jill Whalen]

"You've been given incorrect information."

are you saying it's ok to cross link all your sites ??

Not at all. The way the original post was phrased, the poster said that he felt it was useful for his visitors to know about the other site.

When that is the case, then that's all that matters, imo.

[webprofessor]

I am with Jill on this. I cross link sites all the time and never seen a penalty from it.

My rule of thumb:
a cross link is ok if the sites topics , and specifically the two pages topics being linked together, would be discussed in the same conversation.

[donelson]

Originally Posted by webprofessor

I am with Jill on this. I cross link sites all the time and never seen a penalty from it.

My rule of thumb:
a cross link is ok if the sites topics , and specifically the two pages topics being linked together, would be discussed in the same conversation.

Thanks, guys. I really appreciate your time on this.

I think what I'll do is to make a link to our "Virtual Tours" page on the gardens site, from the bottom of each garden page, rather than having all 3 links directly to the sites.

That way, it's an internal link (no penalty), and visitors can choose to view the virtual tours of gardens, plus the St Pauls, Taj and Kew Gardens sites if they want.

Cheers!