Linking and "What Matters"
by Dirk Johnson
- LinkStrategy.com
Having
done reciprocal linking in earnest since 1997, first for my own
websites, and then as a business since about the year 2000, I have
accumulated a lot of experience at this.
In
addition, I have developed some unique tools that allow me to look
at link back reports in competitive situations and determine what
works best. I have analyzed hundreds of cases, many of them in-depth.
Possibly nobody else on the planet has looked at so much link data,
in so many different scenarios, in such depth, over such a long
time span. This is what I do.
What's
more, I look at this data to determine what works, and not as a
means to "prove" my own theories. This is an important
distinction between what I've done and those who first propose some
complex link strategy, and then set out to prove that it works.
They can usually find an example or two that "proves"
their theory. I can usually find dozens that disprove them.
If,
in the course of this, I had seen something that worked well but
runs counter to what I have been doing all along, then I'd most
certainly advise that to my dozens of clients. That would be the
logical thing to do. It would be very counterproductive for me to
send my clients down an dead end path.
My
goal has always been to do what works, and not prove myself as some
kind of "guru" promoting a slick shortcut.
Link
campaigns that ignore gamesmanship and treat linking as a branding
function of the business is what works best over the long haul.
Forget about PageRank. Forget about demanding reciprocity. Forget
about trying to "game" the search engines with contrived
link networks, "three-way" links, and the rest. All of
that is way off focus, and some of it is quite risky, if they catch
you.
Based
on my own experienced analysis, here's what Goggle appears to reward,
quite consistently: Sites that establish a genuine, well-structured
resource directory for their site visitors, with low reciprocity
rates. This establishes the site as a "hub" or resource,
and not just a contrived effort to establish reciprocity. It does
appear that Google can see this effort, and sites with large resource
directories seem to do well in the indexing results.
Then
go out and ask for links back from the sites listed in the directory
that make offers to reciprocate. Maybe they all offer, but typically,
only 20 to 30 percent will reciprocate. Don't worry about it too
much, and never, ever send out those "link back or else"
notices. Those are very counterproductive.
Google
appears to reward sites with a large number of links that come from
a wide diversity of unique domain names, spread across the web.
This is from sites with a wide variety of PageRank, not just high
PR sites. This kind of linking seems to do the best in index results.
In practical terms, this broad-based, branding approach toward linking
represents a well established website that is not "playing
games" with their linking. It represents a site that is willing
to link democratically, based on content, not PageRank.
When
it comes to "themeing", that is, demanding that links
be only from a particular realm of interest, lest they generate
a "penalty", this seems to be just so much bunk. I have
seen many situations where the links were not well-themed, but earned
good search results for the home site. From a practical analysis,
establishing a "theme" for a website, algorithmically,
is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a search engine.
There are just too many overlapping terms in too many realms of
interest to do it, and enforce it. And there is the matter of "free
speech". Search engines should not try to dictate the content
on a website, rewarding some content and "punishing" others.
They should, and do, is simply analyze what is presented.
What
is very possible for search engines is to "see" is the
keyword density on a specific page where a link appears. After all,
Google AdWords does exactly that, in order to deliver the appropriate
ads to a page. For specific keyword terms, is very likely that that
the keyword density on pages where a link is placed plays some role
in the indexing results for that term. As well as the anchor text
of the link itself.
Analyzing
that further, is quite possible that a gambling site might have
a very well structured, well-categorized link directory. If they
have an "automotive" category in that directory, then
a link to an automotive site from that particular page could very
well enhance the keyword scoring for a the automotive site that
is linked.
It
is a page-to-site keyword analysis taking place here, and not a
site-to-site theme analysis. Themeing penalties appear to play no
role whatsoever in this process, and these so-called penalties are
merely the gray matter product of over-imaginative search engine
analysts.
Links
on real working websites come from all kinds of places, and point
to all kinds of places, many of them seemingly unrelated, but in
fact, there may be a lot of legitimate reasons for the links. Once
again, it is well beyond the search engines to try to "enforce"
some kind of compliance or determine "link theme legitimacy".
In practical terms, they can only look at the keyword density of
a particular page, and react to that.
This
also explains why links from un-focused, un-categorized free-for-all
links pages aren't worth much, since the keyword density is so horribly
random. These pages are so hopelessly un-focused that Google appears
to just discount them entirely. Lots of links on a page, and no
discernible focus is easy to "see".
Given
that "themeing" is only on the page-to-site level (and
it is keyword-driven, not theme driven), this might encourage some
people to go after any and all links, regardless of what realm of
interest those links come from. And some people do pursue this.
The limiting factor here is that asking for links outside of an
appropriate realm of interest is a huge waste of time and a quite
inappropriate thing to do.
Themeing
is really driven by the website managers themselves, when deciding
to link or not link to each other. This is quite appropriate, and
it is the limiting factor to just asking for links at random. It
is simply not productive to seek links from sites outside of a realm
of interest. Most of the requests will be ignored, and some people
will report the requests as spam. It's counterproductive.
Given
all that I have said, the most successful link programs most definitely
follow similar paths.
If
Google did not exist, then a successful link program would set out
to establish as many links as possible (within a realm of interest),
in order to establish the "brand" as broadly as possible.
This is exactly how linking was approached by the most successful
sites in the days before Google, and I ran one of those sites.
Then
Google came along and recognized this practice. They rewarded sites
with deep, well-established, broad-based link popularity, and they
continue to do so, to this day. Attempts to shortcut this with a
smattering of high PR links might work in the short run, depending
on the competitive situation, but I have never honestly seen that
approach work over the long term in a highly competitive arena.
The
sheer number of links, from as many unique domains as possible,
spread broadly across the spectrum of IP addresses, is what appears
to drive the index results. Keep in mind that links from common
directory-to-directory link exchange efforts are usually only PR1
to PR3, and many sites that index well have a modest PR4 and PR5
on their home pages. A high PR home page means very little in actual
indexing.
Focusing
on PageRank with respect to link exchange is a wholly misguided
practice, and it significantly thwarts the real and meaningful goal
of establishing as many unique domain links as possible.
Certainly,
page optimization plays a significant and very important role. It
is possible to have a lot of links coming to a poorly structured
website. I have also seen this first hand. The result is poor indexing
and low traffic.
Site
owners must determine the most relevant keywords, and optimize their
site to garner the traffic for these terms, in a way that provides
real visitors with real content, and in a way that provides "full-circuit"
linkage into and out of these pages. To do otherwise risks penalties.
But page titles, urls, headlines, and textual content must be well-considered
and well-presented, for maximum effect.
The
most successful sites approach linking as a long-term, never-ending
process to establish their brand on the web, regardless of PageRank.
It takes time, commitment, preparation, and determination to keep
it moving forward. Doing anything else is to risk losing their link
dominance, or never establishing it in the first place.
Earning
50 or 100 links and then quitting, even if it is successful, is
a short-term approach that leaves a site vulnerable to competitive
reaction. After all, links are basically public-domain information,
and competitors look at the link profile of other successful sites.
But achieving parity is work, so the best defense to this is a consistent,
focused offense.
Link
as if Google did not exist, and as if your site traffic depended
on nothing but your links. That is the motivator here, but it is
also represents sound business practice, and not a game. But it
is not free, either. In the overall world of web marketing, reciprocal
linking can be a raging bargain, once the effort begins to bear
fruit.
This
approach, unfortunately, is not suited for every site. It takes
a site that can afford the cost of establishing that link dominance,
then can attract meaningful traffic once that is established, and
can convert that traffic into revenue or action.
I'm
no guru. All of this is only my opinion, based on nearly 8 years
of this work, the analysis of hundreds of situations, and the daily
observance of dozens of sites that follow this path. I welcome further
inquires to discuss these issues.
Would
you like more detailed information about our services? Please send
an email to djohnson@roiwebsites.com
with your site address and contact information, and we can begin
the process of building a firm quote for our services.
Copyright 2004 Dirk Johnson www.linkstrategy.com
The next page on the tour is:
Pricing
- Our competitive advantage
Find
out about reciprocal linking, the right way....Please
tour our site for a complete review of the benefits,
our unique process, our competitive advantage, industry specific programs and
custom services..
| 
