Site wide links question

[Johan007]

Originally Posted by minstrel

Where is the evidence that relevant reciprocal links have been devalued at all?

I never said reciprocal links as they are still just as powerful. We are talking about reciprocal links coming from every page of side A to B and of every page from site B to A. This effect could be a result of only one Class C ip giving a vote so that the above quote apears to be true but not as a direct effect from reciprocal links .

[minstrel]

OK. I, Brian was the one who suggested reciprocal links were devalued in Jagger - I assumed you were responding to Brian's post when you said "'devalued' means they are not as powerful as they used to be pre-Jagger update however they still carry some weight in the SERPS".

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by JS

I think it is algorithmically likely. I have never tested it, and have never seen any tests done. But insofar as it is easy for SE's to filter reciprocal links, I would expect it to be targeted sooner or later, if it is not already targeted.

But why would Google WANT to filter reciprocal links? As I said, these can an do occur organically. It's not reciprocity that's the problem. It's non-relevant reciprocity. And we also know that Google does a pretty good job of determining relevance. If I were Google, that is what I'd be filtering.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by minstrel

But why would Google WANT to filter reciprocal links?

Google seems to have it's own idea of what meaningful linking relationships are, regardless of the relationships SEO's and webmasters would like to establish. And Google has been keen to devalue link exchanges before, especially through large-scale programs such as Arelis. It doesn't mean to say that link exchanges have no value - there's more to SEO than Google. But as a reply to the original question - if I understand it right, Site A links well to Site B, and you're asking if Site B should link well to Site A. Such a straight 2-way linking relationship should be relative easy for Google to spot, and could be potentially devalued even before Jagger. I certainly wouldn't advise it if Site B wishes to maintain the value of its existing links from Site A.

[minstrel]

If Page A and Page B are about the same or similar subjects, there should be absolutely no reason to worry. If Page A and Page B are about entirely unrelated subjects, in all likelihood the links will not help you much if at all (although being devalued is different from being punished/penalized for the existence of the link).

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by minstrel

If Page A and Page B are about the same or similar subjects, there should be absolutely no reason to worry. If Page A and Page B are about entirely unrelated subjects, in all likelihood the links will not help you much if at all (although being devalued is different from being punished/penalized for the existence of the link).

Actually, off-topic links work fine. Certainly at the moment, but it's always been a question of when, not if, Google really pushes on theming. They may have already started, but if so, it's not a big issue - yet.

The heart of the question is about linking up sites - it's always been on the table that if you have a handful of sites, and interlink them directly, then you face Google devaluing the links. Which means an effective waste of linking opportunities.

The fall-out from Jagger really underlines connectivity issues - that Google may indeed be trying to devalue links where they are reciprocated between sites. I don't use link exchanges myself, but I know people whose opinion I value who believe that this has been an issue with their own client sites losing rankings. They may be wrong - I take the note of caution.

The safest course has always been (past couple of years) to not directly link up sites, but instead link in a roundabout way.

For example, if I have Site A about General Widgets, and sites B, C, D, E and F, all about different niche types of widget: B may use a RSS feed to link to latest topic on A; C may link to D; and D may link to E, which in itself publishes a different RSS feed from A. F links to nobody.

All the time I've done SEO, it has been generally considered a risk to link A, B, C, D, E and F, directly among themselves.

2c.

[minstrel]

Different interpretations, I guess. If you believe that Google's intent is to devalue reciprocal links, then three-way linking schemes make sense. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that the intent is to devalue non-relevant links (especially purchased non-relevant links), then not only is the three-way linking strategy an unnecessary effort, it's actually a waste of time, because no matter where those links come from they won't help you.

All the time I've done SEO, it has been generally considered a risk to link A, B, C, D, E and F, directly among themselves.

I know that this has been a widespread belief. I've just never understood why and I've never seen any convincing evidence that it's true or necessary.

[Buskerdoo]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I would really just avoid site wide links. But I do think the number of links matters. 75 wouldn't be that bad. But, I think percentage of total matters more. If a large percentage of your links comes from a limited number of domains / IP's, it is bad, IMO.

I have a site with a bunch of banner ads pointing to another site. I guess I don't want those to have links that can be followed. How do I make those ads so the bots ignore them but humans can click on them and go to the new site?

Also, isn't everyone of the adds on these pages considered a link? Like the sevenseek ad.

[John Scott]

Yup, they are links. I believe the older they get the safer they are. We aren't going to go changing the links on the V7 Network now.

[Buskerdoo]

But, if I did want to make them no-follow links that would still take a user to the site, how should I do it?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Buskerdoo

But, if I did want to make them no-follow links that would still take a user to the site, how should I do it?

<a href="whatever.com" rel="nofollow"><img src="whatever.gif" border="0"></a>

[Buskerdoo]

Thanks Ferre.