Really i agree with you. It is much useful for all members .
I Agree with addz123!! It is really nice to stick with your initial keywords until Google (Goggled) with it. It makes a good sense.
PTC endorses your strategies.
Agree with addz123. Imo Google is very smart, but hypocrites. They say link bombing is unlikely to harm a competitor's site only to dissuade people. They categorize sites these days and look at brand value to apply their filters. If your competitor is tagged as an "informational resource", like Wikipedia or CNN, I doubt these links will do anything. If Google views your competitor as a "thin affiliate site" without brand value, and it suddenly gets 5000 "gay porn" links overnight, it will be nuked. Google is very harsh towards what it considers unestablished affiliate sites. So I think the answer is it depends, but many folks have been penalized for far less in the affiliate industry.
There's SEO people that have proven if you add too many links with the same anchor than your site or page will be penalised with an automatic filter. If you blast enough links to your competitors sites than they will get penalised (authority sites are much harder to penalise). I don't think it's a "theory" that building natural backlinks to your website is positive either, it's common sense.
hmmm, personally I'm not convinced by this at all. If this is true I would systematically go through my competition add "gay porn" as the anchor text to thousands of cheap links I can buy from anywhere online in the fact they will then be removed from google, however it's not that easy. The only thing that would happen is that my competition ranks for "gay porn" and they get hits from it! This OP is a theory and should not be taken into account as the gospel truth. PS - Google ranks on relevancy! For example one site has 10 pages on a subject and another site has 1000 pages on the same subject, which one will rank higher?
Great post hey, the anchor has to look as natural as can be. many a times people seem to go a bit overboard with their anchor text. I've always wondered why some sites with less exact anchor text links to mine always outranked mine. This was probably because my links didnt look so natural
In future, when i tell you something useful, don't tell the whole world about it.
Great post Aids123! Addz123*
I think you can get away with it more if you have an exact match domain, because its natural for people to link to your site using the website name. But yeah, you should definitely mix it up with anchor text like domain.com [url]http://domain.com[/url] etc
Really appreciating. A good one.
Excellent post, much better than mine.
I don't buy into the alien technology. It would be bad for google to execute an all-in-one algorithm ranking the grammar, content quality and uniqueness of sites for all the different markets. Let's look at twitter and facebook. Both play a huge part in the growth of social media yet anyone who "twitters" is going to use short, text-speak, slang sentences. There's a difference in content quality between grownups, teenagers and academics. Blogging has become huge on the internet, but again lots of popular blogs (especially footballers) and recreational blogs aren't going to have impeccable, superfluous sentence structure. News sites, even the top ones, are all effectively repeating the same content. Case in hand, the Royal Wedding. There's not much difference between 10 affiliate sites writing program reviews, and 10 news sites writing news peices on the exact same story. Basically, I have full respect for what google is capable of, but I don't think it would help their index to roll out an all-in-one algorithm where the metric for "what is user value" doesn't change between markets and industries (which it really, really should).
I think Google has borderline alien technology to rate content, much more than black and white in fact - that's why they rolled out Panda, etc... I also think they create a hierarchy of sites : identify which ones are the original publishers/announcers, and which ones are further down the chain and just republish watered down crap. By the way, this discussion is very interesting for exact match domains, and could explain why they rank better. For example, onlinepoker.com could probably get away with a lot of "online poker" links, because Google thinks this is referring the domain name, and it is. If your site was mywashingmachine.com and it got the same amount of links with "online poker" as the anchor to the homepage, I think it would be nuked. That could explain the boost we've been seeing for exact matchs, and confirm that brand value is an important piece of the algorithm. What do you think ?
[QUOTE=Sebastian;bt5206]Yeah, I read from Google Webmaster Guidelines that content quality is especially important for affiliate sites, and that they should pay particular attention to their homepage quality. [/QUOTE] Martinez hit the nail on the head though when he said that although quality content is an important metric, it's HOW they judge quality content that's important. I don't know if google is really capable of going further than distinguising between poorly spun and unique content. For example, I doubt using big words in my poker strategy articles is going to make much of a difference. And in terms of traffic looking for "UB reviews" or "clearing poker bonuses", review type pages on affiliate sites are going to provide high quality experience to users. If googlers are intent on looking for reviews of programs then it should tell google that they are not simply wanting to go straight to the program. They want to read information about it, and the middle men for this is usually affiliates.
Yeah, I read from Google Webmaster Guidelines that content quality is especially important for affiliate sites, and that they should pay particular attention to their homepage quality. That means that they can detect affiliate sites. I guess the dentist site wasn't categorized as such. This tells me that affiliates sites need to rise up to Google standards by offering different and useful content, basically what Pokerprop and Randy Ray do. However, once you're pegged as an affiliate site, I would be careful with Google. They hate us so much that I would be weary of abusing anchor text practices, even if you have good content. It's a tough affiliate game these days. The trick is passing through all these hoops by creating natural sites. Any time you try to game something, you'll end up in the sandbox or in SERPS hell. I've learned the lesson a few times, but the sites that stuck made me a ton of money. I guess it's kind of like the tunnels underneath the Mexico border. Most are found, but the few left make most of the revenue of the smugglers. Although we're not crooks in the business :D
Yes, and considering 95%+ of penalties are algorithmic it's extremely easy to have a quick look at your backlink profile to see if there's anything fishy. Google nows notifies webmasters who submit site re-inclusion requests whether it is a manual penalty, so this makes it easier for affiliates to figure out what's wrong. Having thought about it, I don't think google could realistically punish sites for being "thin". If you're talking about small websites with only 10-20 pages than I don't think google could wipe these out of their index arbitrarily. There are plenty of small page sites that are good enough to be in google's index. My local dentist has hist own professional website which is only 10 pages. I think the "thin and low quality debate" is going to be defined by poor quality backlinks, poor spun, low quality articles and poor user metrics. Not just because your site only has 15 pages. In either case, I'm going to continue building a couple more mini-sites using natural link building methods and see how these get on. If they get penalised then we can confirm it's because they are thin, affiliate sites. If not then we can see that as long as you have natural, authority backlinks and nothing too spammy than it's ok.
Excellent post, I think we've all had some penalized sites recently. Most of these penalties come from backlinks like you said: either incoming, or who we are linking too. I agree that it's a great idea to build branded links first. Seb
i was joking cunttards.
Glglgl. I'll be a reader.
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
