robots txt to prevent crawling of freesites

[Mr. Blue]

Excellent post Halfdeck, you've really explained the topic perfectly and now I do agree with your stance on it. Just a few things.

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

The way I'd go about free site mirrors now would be this:

/index.html
/main.html
/gallery1.html
/gallery2.html
/doorway1.html -> links to main.html
/doorway2.html -> link to main.html

That's the way I used to do my freesite linking for mirrored pages but it seems like a lot of linklist don't like that format for linking. I started to do the linking differently to meet with the requirements, but it annoyed me enough where I decided to go down to a small tight focused group of LinkLists instead.

P.S. Off topic, but if I ran a LL, I would think about tagging links to free sites with NOFOLLOW, as does Technorati tag pages, which are starting to rank very well on Google. You eliminate the reciprocal linking issue (turn all free site links into one way links), and possible negative trust brought on by linking to supplemental/duplicate content pages on untrusted domains.

Just two comments on it. When you refer to tagging links you mean the links coming in would have a rel="tag" type tagging? So, to use your above example domain if I were a LL owner...the link would be included as

<a href="http://www.nastyxvids.com/keyword/index.html" rel="tag">Keyword</a>

Something like that?

Also, since we're really talking about small link lists and their rules (as big linklist probably don't have to worry about the No Follow rule). Wouldn't it be wiser for smaller link lists to use recips more like TGPs use recips? Sorry, I'm more of a tgp guy so I'm going to explain this in those terms...but for TGPs we use a single recip with almost no hope of getting SE off that recip. What we use it for is more or less getting a percentage of traffic from other tgps that list the same gallery (hopefully getting listed with tgps of equal size or bigger than your own). So the focus of the recip is heavily on branding the domain name / name of the tgp or if it's a niche tgp highlighting the niche quality of your tgp that might draw people off of a general tgp to your site if they have a specific fetish.

Shouldn't smaller link lists move to that single recip that heavily brands instead of a category recip?

[virgohippy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

Just two comments on it. When you refer to tagging links you mean the links coming in would have a rel="tag" type tagging? So, to use your above example domain if I were a LL owner...the link would be included as

<a href="http://www.nastyxvids.com/keyword/index.html" rel="tag">Keyword</a>

Something like that?

I think halfdeck is referring to this:

<a href="http://www.nastyxvids.com/keyword/index.html" rel="nofollow">Keyword</a>

A nofollow link is like wearing a condom.

[Linkster]

Well - I guess I better fess up as to why I went to the cat recips - and it actually had nothing whatsoever to do with SEO - as a matter of fact the submitters will be happy to know that Im switching back - but it will be a text link not a gif file

The reason I did it is that I knew that a certain gif file of mine was in some autosubmitters programs - I used it as a tool to find the autosubmitters (at least the first part of the detective work anyway) and it worked

I would say that based on what I have experienced and some other LLs have seen, that category recips dont mean shit unless you also go the route of requesting that the recips be on a page already in Google - similar to what one sucessful LL owner did to get some really nice spots - but I have to agree that branding in this day and age is ten times as important (building bookmarkers) than trying to run a LL based on SE's only - it may work for a few months, but then when Google tweaks something you try to fight Google instead of expending the energy on making your brand and getting "return surfer trust" - believe me - that group spends way more money

/added - I know that putting the submitters through having to do the cat recips was a little extra work ontheir end - but I think the benefit of having less competition for spots on LLs gives a bigger benefit to free site makers

[Halfdeck]

I think halfdeck is referring to this:

<a href="http://www.nastyxvids.com/keyword/index.html" rel="nofollow">Keyword</a>

Yep.

I can think of a few other wembasters who stopped submitting to a few lists because of this. As a word of caution, just as a LL owner wouldn't want to recieve a nofollow in their link, I don't think a submitter would be too happy to get one either.

If I had a choice, I'd rather link to fewer sites and send more of my traffic to submitters who make quality sites and unique warning pages. IMO, doing so not only benefits both of us as far as SEO is concerned, but it also maintains a quality brand for my own LL.

As a submitter, I wouldn't like it either. I'm not advocating the idea; just pondering it. Not something I'd try with a new LL with just a handful of submitters.

However, LL aren't meant to be cheap directories, PageRank boosters, or reciprocal linking networks. LL is a source of traffic, plain and simple.

Slapping a nofollow on your category page links *may* result in higher SERP positions, because your incoming links from free sites are all one-way.

Technorati /tags/ pages are a good example imo of a site that seems to be gaining SERP positions thanks to massive one-way links (also doesn't hurt that many of these links are from reputable/authority/relevant sites):

52,309 posts currently tagged "seo" (assuming a high percentage of them pointing to technorati with rel="tag" links). Result?

http://www.google.com/search?q=seo&s...en-US:official

9th out of 11 million results.

If you look at the top of their page:

"http://www.technorati.com/tags/SEO"

you'll see:

<meta name="robots" content="index,nofollow" />

(Not a scientific test).

John Battelle recently released an interview with Matt Cutts regarding wc3 deciding to use nofollow on all their $1000 links.

question:

W3C Schools is listing its supporters' websites on Page Rank 9 and PR7 pages in exchange for donations, $1000 a pop in cash or trade (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/sup). Speculation on this is buzzing because though W3C is a well respected educational resource many SEO blackhats endorse similar tactics. Does Google consider link selling a type of webspam against Google's TOS? And if so, should we expect to see some kind of a censure on W3C? Or how does it differ from what Google considers webspam?

You can read Matt Cutts' answer here:
http://battellemedia.com/archives/002917.php

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

As a submitter, I wouldn't like it either. I'm not advocating the idea; just pondering it. Not something I'd try with a new LL with just a handful of submitters.

I've been thinking just the same. I'm not going to do it because I'm that smaller LL with submitters that I don't want to freak out. But, I'm pretty sure that once what we all believe is confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt (ie straight recips don't bring PR or listings anymore like they used to) that this is the way to go. I've been seeing similar thoughts at a whole bunch of boards that basically agree.

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

However, LL aren't meant to be cheap directories, PageRank boosters, or reciprocal linking networks. LL is a source of traffic, plain and simple.
Slapping a nofollow on your category page links *may* result in higher SERP positions, because your incoming links from free sites are all one-way.

If this is proven to be true then the submitter benefits from more traffic.

[virgohippy]

Originally Posted by DJilla

If this is proven to be true then the submitter benefits from more traffic.

Only problem is making 'em believe it.

I know one big reason I jumped into freesites so strong was because of the SE benefits.