swee'pea99
Squire
Anyone know anything about SEO?
1) Have good engaging content that people want to read and is updated fairly frequently;
2) Have valid, standards-compliant page markup;
3) Profit.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. Most of these 'SEO' techniques you hear about are snake oil.
Why would you not want to link to other sites? That's how the web works! (Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?)Try not to link back, or if they want a link back link to them from another website, to another website.
It's because Google knows that people get into arrangements to trade links so it doesn't give as much credit to reciprocal links as one-way links in terms of SEO. It might be very useful in terms of more people finding the links and visiting you through them, but it won't be so helpful in getting you high in the Google rankings.Why would you not want to link to other sites? That's how the web works! (Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?)
Right, okay, I think I got the wrong end of the stick there. Linking is not bad, but link trades are. Which is, y'know, common sense.It's not so much not linking to anyone else, as not swapping links.
No, it wouldn't. The system is not so naïve as all that. It's not just the presence of the link but the source of that link which also affects ranking. A link from cnn.com will carry more search weight (and drive more traffic) than one from cyclechat.net (sorry, Shaun!).If Google didn't do this, you could just create 1,000 tiny sites and link them all to each other and Google would think that they were all super-important because they had loads of links to them!
In some ways the system is naive because otherwise it wouldn't pay people to just go out and blitz their sites with crappy links from all over the internet but it does, so they do.No, it wouldn't. The system is not so naïve as all that. It's not just the presence of the link but the source of that link which also affects ranking.
That's true from one point of view - that cnn.com has more general weight. If the subject of the target page was cycling, however, then CycleChat links could have more weight than CNN despite its lower PageRank, except for the fact that a link from CycleChat wouldn't carry any weight at all because they are all nofollow!A link from cnn.com will carry more search weight (and drive more traffic) than one from cyclechat.net (sorry, Shaun!).
I certainly hope so!But, I'll reiterate, all of this cargo-cult linkbaiting is for nought if you don't have good content and well-formed structural markup.