The A to Z Guide to Getting Website Traffic
- Thread starter RJD
- Start date
- Status
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
I think I like "O"
I know everyone will snarl, but here again, an independent resource shows the true advantages of linking from directories in your field.
Snarl Away, just don't argue with the experts.
Flower Power
I know everyone will snarl, but here again, an independent resource shows the true advantages of linking from directories in your field.
Snarl Away, just don't argue with the experts.
Flower Power
No snarling here.
I see two great reasons to be listed in directories - especially on authority sites.
1) If the directory is a destination, used by many, it makes sense from a pure traffic standpoint. Users go there and you want to be found.
2) Most (but not all) will pass along some page rank as well as an on-topic inbound link which is helpful to search engines in identifying relevance to specific topics.
Once again I'll mention my belief that most of our national, state and local trade associations have missed a tremendous opportunity to help consumers find local florists by not providing current, on-topic, spiderable member directories. There are a few notable exceptions but most of the organizations with the highest PR don't.
What do you think about Google's Matt Cutt suggestion that sites accepting payment for text link listings (like newpapers and perhaps paid directories?) use rel="nofollow" in anchor tags or risk having their entire site devalued?
I see two great reasons to be listed in directories - especially on authority sites.
1) If the directory is a destination, used by many, it makes sense from a pure traffic standpoint. Users go there and you want to be found.
2) Most (but not all) will pass along some page rank as well as an on-topic inbound link which is helpful to search engines in identifying relevance to specific topics.
Once again I'll mention my belief that most of our national, state and local trade associations have missed a tremendous opportunity to help consumers find local florists by not providing current, on-topic, spiderable member directories. There are a few notable exceptions but most of the organizations with the highest PR don't.
What do you think about Google's Matt Cutt suggestion that sites accepting payment for text link listings (like newpapers and perhaps paid directories?) use rel="nofollow" in anchor tags or risk having their entire site devalued?
Google has no way of knowing which text anchor links are paid listings.
SEO newletters, articles, websites, and forums have been using paid text anchor links for years. There is no way Google is going to penalize Danny Sullivan's and all his paid anchor listings...
SEO newletters, articles, websites, and forums have been using paid text anchor links for years. There is no way Google is going to penalize Danny Sullivan's and all his paid anchor listings...
It looks targeted toward Link Farms
SE are cracking down on Link Farms. But they still must give props for relevant links because it's the best way to justify a tool like Page Rank. As the article states, a common oversight is listing on pages with language about "purchasing or buying links."
I cannot really understand why he suggests the extra coding to break the significance of the link. The only thing I can offer as an explanation is the phrase that he uses to preface the suggestion:
"What if a site wants to buy links purely for visitor click traffic, to build buzz, or to support another site? In that situation, I would use the rel=”nofollow” attribute."
If a site is buying the link PURELY for those reasons alone, I guess I might agree. Otherwise, stay away from sites that contain language about "buying or purchasing links." Afterall, the author mentions websites removing this type of language as proof that this is an indicator for the SE. They cannot remove the significance of links...OR the significance of the Search Engines' very own paid link programs. Language of the link page is key at this point.
Just my two cents though
SE are cracking down on Link Farms. But they still must give props for relevant links because it's the best way to justify a tool like Page Rank. As the article states, a common oversight is listing on pages with language about "purchasing or buying links."
I cannot really understand why he suggests the extra coding to break the significance of the link. The only thing I can offer as an explanation is the phrase that he uses to preface the suggestion:
"What if a site wants to buy links purely for visitor click traffic, to build buzz, or to support another site? In that situation, I would use the rel=”nofollow” attribute."
If a site is buying the link PURELY for those reasons alone, I guess I might agree. Otherwise, stay away from sites that contain language about "buying or purchasing links." Afterall, the author mentions websites removing this type of language as proof that this is an indicator for the SE. They cannot remove the significance of links...OR the significance of the Search Engines' very own paid link programs. Language of the link page is key at this point.
Just my two cents though
Yep, the loss of PR benefit by advertisers would definitely hurt SEW's income.mlou said:
You think Google would suggest they replace it with AdSense? :tongue
Like Yahoo's directory?flowerchild said:
Google seems to be better able to discern off-topic paid links. I remember when some OGs were buying links from the Hindustani Times and other higher PR news sites and killing eveybody in the SERPS with their doorway pages - for less than $1K a month.
I still don't think a florist with a paid link from SEW will benefit as much as someone with relevant web services. That's a good thing.
CHR said:
LOL
your right...
I don't think PR is that imporant anymore. I think inbound anchor links (one way) take the top prize at the moment.
.
- Status
