Google Dislikes Pages Like This?

[Licker4U]

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?

[Bobc01]

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

[Mr Spock]

Originally Posted by Bobc01

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?

[Bobc01]

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.

[Halfdeck]

"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.

[Bobc01]

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

[Halfdeck]

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.

[Bobc01]

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

Come up with real facts that prove it does hurt.

[Halfdeck]

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:

The other thing I noticed is that it looks like you silently changed the terms of your contest and didn’t mention that to anyone....I believe your original linking terms said:

“You can describe the draw any way you like, as long as you link to my homepage (www.davidairey.com) using logo / graphic design-related anchor text. A few examples of what you could link back with include: logo designer, best logos, Edinburgh graphic designer, graphic design in Scotland, great logos etc. Be creative with it. Here’s an example contest entry you could use:

David Airey, an Irish designer who aims to create the best logos, is holding an anniversary prize giveaway. There’s more than $4,000 worth in free prizes! Find out how to enter by reading the details on David’s graphic design blog.

Feel free to add any other information you like, PLUS, for every 5 prize sponsors you link to (they’re all listed above), you’ll get 1 extra entry into the draw.”

David Airey says:

During the initial stages I did ask for specific anchor text - ‘logo design’ (I design logos), but was eventually warned off it. Too late perhaps?

Matt's final response:

Given that you’ve written about nofollow before and posted on e.g. Digital Point about selling links, and that you changed the linking terms of your contest without mentioning it in the updated post, I have to admit I’m skeptical that you didn’t think selling links could be an issue with Google. But I’m glad that you changed how you urge people to link to you and that you’ve stopped selling links on your site. It sounds like you’ve submitted a reinclusion request; I’ll ask someone to check on the status of that.

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

[Bobc01]

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.

[Halfdeck]

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

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.

[tigermom]

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".

[Bobc01]

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?

[Halfdeck]

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

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

what would be the point in having web directories

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

how would anyone get any kind of ranking if they didn't link exchange?

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:

Reciprocal links by themselves aren't automatically bad, but we've communicated before that there is such a thing as excessive reciprocal linking.

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.

[Bobc01]

I'm starting to see now.

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

[Halfdeck]

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

No problem man.

[Licker4U]

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|

[Halfdeck]

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?

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.

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...

It probably will

[Fonz]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

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.

So linkdumps are actually a good thing? Or not?

[Licker4U]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

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.

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. Kinda keeps things mixed up a bit and not look too structured.

[papagmp]

Great Info Halfdeck - thanks