Site wide links question

[minstrel]

I received this question in a PM at another forum and I'm not sure of the answer... comments? thoughts?

If a large site has deep linked to individual articles on my site would doing a site wide link exchange with that site devalue the natural links any?

My partial response:

Honestly, I don't know. I keep hearing people say that sitewide links are devalued. I'm not sure that's true but I'm not sure it isn't either.

Want me to post the question at v7n forums?

His answer was "yes"... so here we are

[John Scott]

If he is asking about site wide linkage where all of one site's pages link to the same page of another site, I'd say bad idea. Site wide links are devalued, you know.

The better way to do it is more labour intensive, but much more effective.

On each page, put a unique block of text in, with the link inside the text. And each page links to a different page.

[minstrel]

I'm not sure he has that option. Thanks for the input, though.

[Hodgedup]

Thanks for asking Minstrel.

A lot of large entertainment sites have as part of their menu a list of "friends" or "favored websites". Since it's part of their menu it ends up being a site wide link.

The sites normally have a large directory section somewhere else where all the people that don't send a decent amout of traffic end up.

My question is if I provided a site wide link back to them would it devalue the link they gave me?

[nandini]

RSS includes can help... Ask the seller if they are willing to include a rss file, so that he can change the links in internal pages.

Site wide links are not helping much in terms of SERPs, incfact they seem to pull you out of SERPs if you are a new site, or don`t have many authority links..

[John Scott]

Hodgedup,

Welcome to the forums.

A lot of sites do have "Partner" links, like Internet.com. We put tens of thousands of dollars into that, and got hit with PR0.

Site wide links can be dangerous.

[Hodgedup]

Thanks for the welcome. I'll get around to posting in the intro thread.

I've noticed some of the sites have a pool of say 100 links and they are rotating each out every refresh and on every new page. (The ones that are on their menu under friends) What about that? Would that be a better option?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Hodgedup

(The ones that are on their menu under friends) What about that? Would that be a better option?

Which site is it you are referring to?

And, rotating links would probably be a better idea.

[Hodgedup]

collegehumor.com does rotating links.

smithappens.com keeps the same links on each page. The box just moves places sometimes.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Hodgedup

collegehumor.com does rotating links.

Most of those links do not appear to be direct, PR-passing links. They go through a tracking script.

I really don't see any site links passing much PR these days. The Internet.com network has some pretty amazing PageRank, including several PR8's, but their link partners don't seem to benefit much from it PR wise.

[Buskerdoo]

John,

You have any feel if the number of pages in a site using site-wides make a diff? For example, if 75 pages from a site point to my site versus 1000 pages.

[John Scott]

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.

[Buskerdoo]

Thanks

[Hodgedup]

Thanks for your answers John.

[I, Brian]

My impression is that Google now restrict the amount of PR from a single domain - so that sitewides offer very limited PR value, though if the anchor text is different that can still have useful effects (as John details above).

After Jagger, though, I'd recommend caution linking back to a site already linking to you - general reports are that Jagger especially devalued 2-way linking - so if Site A links to Site B, Site B could lose the benefit of that linking relationship if it then links back to Site A.

2c.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

After Jagger, though, I'd recommend caution linking back to a site already linking to you - general reports are that Jagger especially devalued 2-way linking - so if Site A links to Site B, Site B could lose the benefit of that linking relationship if it then links back to Site A.

I have a lot of respect for your posts, Brian, but this one I must disagree with. I see no evidence whatsoever that Google is devaluing reciprocal links per se. What I do see them doing is devaluing "artificial" reciprocal linking -- see several posts by Matt Cutts in his blog regarding link buying and selling, for example. I think reciprocal linking is and always will be a natural part of organic linking -- ensure that the linking is topic relevant and I think you'll be fine.

[Johan007]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

After Jagger, though, I'd recommend caution linking back to a site already linking to you - general reports are that Jagger especially devalued 2-way linking - so if Site A links to Site B, Site B could lose the benefit of that linking relationship if it then links back to Site A..

"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]

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

[John Scott]

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.