Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Interesting Theory About Internal Linking

  1. #21
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,050
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 909 Times in 694 Posts
    I am pretty much seeing the same thing for the sites that I'm using to test the internal linking theory. I am checking them manually almost weekly and one week the site gains 5 to 10 positions for each keyword and the the next week it is back down where it started. That may be due to data center fluctuations. The sites that I am using for my tests are pretty much already ranking on the second, third or fourth page.

    The sites that were nowhere to be found with for a targeted keyword in the footer pointed to the home page are still nowhere to be found for those keyword searches.

    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    I really, reading that article and others, see nothing that says or implies that sitewide links on a blog causes any sort of a penguin problem.
    A lot of sites that purchased sidewide footer links in blogs reportedly got hit hard by Penguin. But that may have been due to the fact that most links were from unrelated sites. Too many links from unrelated or poor quality sites were a factor in Penguin.

    Every link is no longer a good link.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. Thanked by:

    bogart (15 February, 2013)

  3. #22
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    This is why I am not so interested in keeping track of updates. Truth is: Sites with strong links are not in danger. If you already have authority of some sort, you will not be weeded out. Key is: Establish authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    I really, reading that article and others, see nothing that says or implies that sitewide links on a blog causes any sort of a penguin problem.

    There are those webmasters who obsess, and anally so, and start removing all sitewide links on their blogs.
    For what end?
    Who knows?

    Then other webmasters who have never obsessed or got excited about penguins and pandas and hamsters do nothing to their blogs and guess what?
    Their blogs are live, doing well, found in google, doing good for keywords, etc.

    I belong to that second part.
    I just, on my 3 blogs, continue on just posting.
    Not caring, not getting excited, about damn links on the blogs and that some of them are sitewide.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  4. Thanked by:

    bogart (15 February, 2013)

  5. #23
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    The Penguin update penalizes sites with poor anchor text diversity or sites with too many low quality back links. I don't think that sitewides will in of themselves get you penalized. The issue is with using money keywords in the anchor text.

  6. #24
    iowadawg's Avatar
    iowadawg is offline Free Cell Champion
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Not in Texas
    Posts
    2,071
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 360 Times in 309 Posts
    If sitewide links penalized sites?
    Look at all the blogs that would NOT be in the top 10 in google seaches!
    Mike Dammann likes this.

  7. Thanked by:

    bogart (16 February, 2013)

  8. #25
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    If sitewide links penalized sites?
    Look at all the blogs that would NOT be in the top 10 in google seaches!
    This is true that sitewide links in and of themselves are NOT penalized. That said, I speculate that sitewide links can trigger an over-optimization penalty due to poor anchor text diversity when linking with your money keyword in the anchor text.

  9. Thanked by:

    iowadawg (16 February, 2013)

  10. #26
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,050
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 909 Times in 694 Posts
    There is a big difference between internally-focused sitewide links, sitewide links to another site in your industry, and sitewide links to an unrelated site. The use of sitewide links is not the issue. The issue if how they are used.

    The first are typically menu or footer links. It would be hard for Google to penalize those links unless there is a lot of keyword stuffing going on. I am currently testing that. It is possible, as others are speculating, that too many internal links to the home page stuffed with the same primary keywords could be getting flagged by Penguin.

    The second would get millions of blogs wacked due to the use of Blogrolls on the sidebars. Personally, I have never done this, but I don't think Google could legitimately penalize site for this because its use is so widespread. When I provide sidebar links to my other sites, favorite related sites or friends' related sites, I only link from the home page. I never use a sitewide Blogroll and never link to unrelated sites.

    The latter is getting sites penalized and there is plenty of evidence of that. Cutts has been saying for years that sitewide footer links to unrelated sites can result in a penalty. It is just too obvious that they are paid links. In one case, he cited an example of footer links that pointed to a ring tones site and other unrelated sites as the probably cause for a penalty. Another time he inferred that this activity could negatively affect the rankings for ALL of the sites owned by that site owner. That is the scary part that no one talks about, which could explain why so many people have seen both their good and spammy sites get hit by rank reductions. There could very well be a penalty that is applied to all sites owned by one site owner. It is hard to hide that from Google because they are a domain registrar and I think they do have access to raw WHOIS data. That includes all of the domains registered under a registrar account.

    Scroll down to the Reading Current Feedback section of this 2006 page on Matt Cutts' blog.

    http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/

    Linking to a free ringtones site, an SEO contest, and an Omega 3 fish oil site? I think I’ve found your problem. I’d think about the quality of your links if you’d prefer to have more pages crawled. As these indexing changes have rolled out, we’ve improving how we handle reciprocal link exchanges and link buying/selling.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  11. Thanked by:

    bogart (16 February, 2013), iowadawg (16 February, 2013)

  12. #27
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The Penguin update penalizes sites with poor anchor text diversity or sites with too many low quality back links. I don't think that sitewides will in of themselves get you penalized. The issue is with using money keywords in the anchor text.

    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    If sitewide links penalized sites?
    Look at all the blogs that would NOT be in the top 10 in google seaches!
    It's a percentage game. If 99% of your IBLs are crap, Google assumes your site is crap. If you have strong, old links and your site has been around, sitewides are being ignored by their algorithm.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  13. Thanked by:

    bogart (16 February, 2013), iowadawg (16 February, 2013)

  14. #28
    iowadawg's Avatar
    iowadawg is offline Free Cell Champion
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Not in Texas
    Posts
    2,071
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 360 Times in 309 Posts
    IBLs are the big problem for any blog/site.
    Not much can be done there, if someone links to your blog/site because they like it.
    But much can be done on your own link building, just do not go to spammy directories, spammy blogs, etc and get links on there.

    I am talking about Outbound Links on a blog.
    Again, as a blog owner, I can control that one.
    Someone with a crap site wants a link on my blog, denied.

    With a blog, really the best place for a link to another site is in a blog post.

    Anyways, as always, I do not get excited about links, panda, penguin and the hamster.
    Mike Dammann likes this.

  15. Thanked by:

    bogart (16 February, 2013)

  16. #29
    Mike Dammann's Avatar
    Mike Dammann is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Geographically flexible
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 182 Times in 148 Posts
    I have never accepted random link exchanges before, simply because it didn't feel right. If it's a friend's site or something I consider of value to my readers ... sure. Inside of the blog posts also makes sense. A simple write up about a page, post or site and a link to find out more.


    Whatever I can somehow justify to myself and a potential editor I do.


    Worrying about who links to me seems silly in a way. And again: 5 years ago I gotten panicky emails from people wanting me to remove their links fearing it was me that gotten their lame site penalized. The good sites listed in my directory I was never once asked to remove, and even though some of those had lots of garbage IBLs pointing to them, those sites are way up there.


    Rather than following the herd, I prefer to look at what the ones are doing who have a strong presence.


    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    IBLs are the big problem for any blog/site.
    Not much can be done there, if someone links to your blog/site because they like it.
    But much can be done on your own link building, just do not go to spammy directories, spammy blogs, etc and get links on there.

    I am talking about Outbound Links on a blog.
    Again, as a blog owner, I can control that one.
    Someone with a crap site wants a link on my blog, denied.

    With a blog, really the best place for a link to another site is in a blog post.

    Anyways, as always, I do not get excited about links, panda, penguin and the hamster.
    For blood type dating go here. If your blood type is rhesus negative, go there. If you are bored and feel like liking a Facebook page, hit this one.

  17. #30
    Sami4u's Avatar
    Sami4u is offline Butterflies Forever
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,421
    Thanks
    695
    Thanked 292 Times in 220 Posts
    Hi,

    What if the site wide links come from a related site? I feel the one that are hit the hardest are the ones the come from unrelated sties. Just a guess.

    Sami

    After thought: I wonder if google is also thinking links from directories and other search places are bad? I could almost see it happening that they would try to control the market.
    Current Celebrity Gossip Movies & More TV Site
    Find out how I'm able to get up to 420 backlinks for month, by spending 30 seconds per day...all for FREE! - Click Here

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •