Google Dislikes Pages Like This?
 

On my link list I have a page that tells webmasters what text to use and URL's to use to link back to me: http://www.girls-that-squirt.com/link-trades.html. Does Google dislike pages like this, and if so, why?

As long as the anchor text is relavant to your site then google is fine with it.

Wouldn't it be better though if linking texts were different and unique?

It is if you want to score on different search terms it is.
I know on my own anchoring texts, if i want to target a keyword i put in the page content and anchor it in a backlink.

"Does Google dislike pages like this, and if so, why?"

Yes, Google doesn't like stuff like that. Why? Because Google doesn't want people telling other webmasters HOW to link to another website. If you dictate what anchor text someone should use to link to you, you are, from Google's POV, nothing but a spammer.

Hasn't done link lists and web directories any harm.

And you know that I suppose because you ran an exhaustive analysis on link lists/directory SERPS. Don't draw conclusions when you have no facts to back them up.

Well if it did, would they still have the recip info in place?

Come up with real facts that prove it does hurt.

Come up with real facts to prove it does, otherwise your statement "Hasn't done link lists and web directories any harm" hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Google does not like manipulative links. Manipulation includes stuff like paid links, link swaps, and link injections. Reciprocal linking happens naturally on the web, and Google has a relatively high tolerance of them as long as they're not excessive and they don't have blatant manipulative footprints.

When you ask someone to link with a specific anchor text, you are making it painfully obvious to Google that the link is there not as an editorial vote for your site but to influence search engine rankings.

Now for the hard evidence.

A while ago, a relatively highly visible blog run by David Airey suddenly tanked on Google. He couldn't make heads or tails of it. Then Matt Cutts, head of Google's Spam Team, responded on his blog:

David Airey says:

Matt's final response:

Moral of the story: Any blatant signs of artificial link manipulation is a potential red flag. Relevance will not protect you.

Looks to me like the guy was trying to bribe people into linking to his site (paid links?)

Link exchanging is different because if i submit a site, i then specify the anchor text and in return i add a recip with a specified text in return.

It's a mutual agreement rather than an influenced one.

No Bob. People were paying him to link to them. TLA pays you $100-$1000 per month to have you link out to other sites. You just keep your links up and you get money in your PayPal account every month.

Read the articles when you have the time. David ran a link bombing contest to have thousands of bloggers link to his website with a specific anchor text in exchange for a prize.

"It's a mutual agreement rather than an influenced one."

It doesn't matter. A genuine vote from Google's POV means I link to you without any agreement, without me being asked for a link. Why would I link to you with no kickback? I would link to you if I thought your site rocked, and that is the kind of link Google is looking for.

Excellent resource there Halfdeck. I think I read somewhere that Google is using actual human beings to catch websites that try to manipulate SERP's in any blatant form, specifically selling links for their PageRank "worth".

It's difficult to work out but i'll have a read and thanks for the link.

Obviously without any backlinks you won't get indexed or any rankings in the SERPs and again on a link list it's a traffic trade.

I know people linking to you in a blog for example where they might be discussing your site is better but how would anyone get any kind of ranking if they didn't link exchange?
And with that, what would be the point in having web directories and LL.

Confusion anyone? |jester|

Thanks. Yeah, the latest Toolbar PageRank (TBPR) update involved Googlers manually penalizing link sellers' TBPR.

The value of directories are quickly dwindling. Many of them were "fixed" this year by Google (some no longer rank for their site name) especially those who blatantly sold PageRank to submitters.

For example, Aviva Directory does not rank anywhere on the front page right now for "aviva directory" (they used to be #1).

URLTrends shows you they went from TBPR 6 to TBPR 4 in the last update:

http://www.urltrends.com/viewtrend.p...adirectory.com

Link exchange isn't bad, if done in moderation. Google will penalize you if you link exchange excessively, as the owner of Skyfacet.com found out:

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013340.html

Matt Cutts:

What exactly is excessive? If you have enough of them to make a bot think your backlinks aren't votes, but instead are part of an artificial link pop inflation scheme, I'd say that's excessive.

SEOs moved away from reciprocal link exchanges years ago. Today, SEOs hunt one-way links, and operate under the radar to try to make their artificial links appear natural.

I'm starting to see now.

Halfdeck, this is great info and many thanks for posting it up. |thumb

No problem man.

OK, so if I want link trades for Girls That Squirt it's better to have webmasters contact me via e-mail to discuss how we're going to link to each other and not have a page telling them what text I want? I guess the best thing to do is to sit back and wait for webmasters to want to link to my site because it's a good site but that might take years...|badidea|

Right. You want to randomnize your anchor text a bit anyway. If you can dig up websites that will link to you without requesting a linkback, so much the better.

It probably will :)

So linkdumps are actually a good thing? Or not?

I would look a linkdump site three times over before trying it out. Main problem with linkdumps is - yes, you get one-way links - but a linkdump links out indiscriminantly. The chance of Google considering a link dump a bad neighborhood is high. Google looks at a site that links out uneditorially like a slut that fucks anything that moves.

I guess that's why recently I've seen webmasters asking for links to one of their link lists offering links back from another of their link lists. |thumb Kinda keeps things mixed up a bit and not look too structured.

That's not gonna fool Google, unless they either hide their whois or register their domains using their dog's name. But its better than having thousands of non-contextual links with the same anchor text pointing at one page.

You're saying Google compares websites/whois/domain names/link trades, etc. and can determine that someone is spamming? I read "1984" back in the 60's and that sounds Orwellian....

If you have 1000 domains hosted on the same IP, some belonging to the same webmaster, the only useful info Google has to work with to run a full link analysis is the link graph (Google has its own copy of the web) and whois info.

There's no proof Google checks whois, but after all Google is a registrar and has access to that data.

Even if you have 10 sites about 10 different topics that don't crosslink or link trade with the same set of websites, a Googler may look at your entire domain collection to pass judgement on your character as a webmaster.

Well, I only have four domains, two are from years ago with free sites and no cross linking. The other two have a few links to each other but not many. I've taken down the offensive page on one link list so anyone wanting to trade links needs to contact me via e-mail |goodidea