Comments on: link swapping (or veni, vidi, vici toronto) http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/ Insight and opinion from the world of employment. Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:01:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: jeu flash casino http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-114358 jeu flash casino Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:01:16 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/#comment-114358 <strong>jeu de casino virtuel...</strong> ... jeu de casino virtuel…

…

]]> By: joel http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-660 joel Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:42:13 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/#comment-660 Link farms and automatic link solutions have been a no-no for a long time. Manual link-swapping was an effective strategy up until the next-to-the-last update at Google around 6 months ago. Now, not so much. My free SEO advice to any site is to work hard creating link-worthy content. Link farms and automatic link solutions have been a no-no for a long time. Manual link-swapping was an effective strategy up until the next-to-the-last update at Google around 6 months ago. Now, not so much.

My free SEO advice to any site is to work hard creating link-worthy content.

]]> By: James Durbin http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-657 James Durbin Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:28:35 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/#comment-657 I believe when you say this Joel, but linkswapping was common just two years ago, and I've seen it make a big difference in the search engines. Maybe we need to be less blatant about it, but linking games work when they are done right. My original idea may not work anymore, but there has to be ways for communities to build traffic in the world outside their online communities. What would your suggestion be for bloggers who don't have the money to pay for Search Engine Optimization? I believe when you say this Joel, but linkswapping was common just two years ago, and I’ve seen it make a big difference in the search engines. Maybe we need to be less blatant about it, but linking games work when they are done right.

My original idea may not work anymore, but there has to be ways for communities to build traffic in the world outside their online communities.

What would your suggestion be for bloggers who don’t have the money to pay for Search Engine Optimization?

]]> By: Jason Davis http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-656 Jason Davis Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:26:22 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/#comment-656 See what what happens when you don't post for a few days? all hell breaks loose. See what what happens when you don’t post for a few days? all hell breaks loose.

]]> By: joel http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-655 joel Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:11:38 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/#comment-655 You've got the idea, but it's a little bit more complicated. Google most likely will not penalize every recruiting blog that links to the other. (Non-related sites such as Viagra and online casinos would be different.) The question is how much benefit each reciprocal link delivers to the other. So, in your example, let's say I link to you today. Then a week later, you link to me. Google would not look at that as shady. The Recruiting.com swap party is dangerous because if you get a bulk of blogs all linking in a short period of time, then you risk tripping a link farm spam filter, which you don't want to do. You’ve got the idea, but it’s a little bit more complicated. Google most likely will not penalize every recruiting blog that links to the other. (Non-related sites such as Viagra and online casinos would be different.) The question is how much benefit each reciprocal link delivers to the other.

So, in your example, let’s say I link to you today. Then a week later, you link to me. Google would not look at that as shady.

The Recruiting.com swap party is dangerous because if you get a bulk of blogs all linking in a short period of time, then you risk tripping a link farm spam filter, which you don’t want to do.

]]> By: Steven Rothberg, CollegeRecruiter.com http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-654 Steven Rothberg, CollegeRecruiter.com Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:55:31 +0000 http://www.cheezhead.com/2006/04/27/a-word-on-link-swapping-or-veni-vidi-vici-toronto/#comment-654 My understanding is that the search engines reward sites (and therefore blogs) that have a higher quantity and quality of links from other sites and to other sites but that the search engines also are smart enough to detect if a significant number of those links are reciprocal. If so, the search engines will infer that the primary reason for you having those links is to try to improve your search engine rankings, which is a big no-no. So if Cheezhead links to CollegeRecruiter.com (which it does) and CollegeRecruiter.com links to Cheezhed (which it does), that's a reciprocal link. But because the vast majority of Cheezhead's links to other sites are not reciprocal, the search engines will not penalize Cheezhead for its link to CollegeRecruiter.com. Yet if a significant number of Cheezhead's links to other sites were to sites that also linked back to Cheezhead, then the search engines would likely penalize Cheezhead for trying to spam the search engines. The penalty could range from a figurative slap on the wrist (Cheezhead's pages would come up lower on the search engine results pages than they would have otherwise) to the death penalty (Cheezhead removed from the search engine results altogether). The bottom line is that sites should do everything they can to create content, design their pages, and link with other sites in ways that are beneficial to their users. If your site is good for users, the search engines will reward it with higher rankings and you'll therefore be rewarded with a higher quantity and quality of traffic. Is that right? My understanding is that the search engines reward sites (and therefore blogs) that have a higher quantity and quality of links from other sites and to other sites but that the search engines also are smart enough to detect if a significant number of those links are reciprocal. If so, the search engines will infer that the primary reason for you having those links is to try to improve your search engine rankings, which is a big no-no.

So if Cheezhead links to CollegeRecruiter.com (which it does) and CollegeRecruiter.com links to Cheezhed (which it does), that’s a reciprocal link. But because the vast majority of Cheezhead’s links to other sites are not reciprocal, the search engines will not penalize Cheezhead for its link to CollegeRecruiter.com. Yet if a significant number of Cheezhead’s links to other sites were to sites that also linked back to Cheezhead, then the search engines would likely penalize Cheezhead for trying to spam the search engines. The penalty could range from a figurative slap on the wrist (Cheezhead’s pages would come up lower on the search engine results pages than they would have otherwise) to the death penalty (Cheezhead removed from the search engine results altogether).

The bottom line is that sites should do everything they can to create content, design their pages, and link with other sites in ways that are beneficial to their users. If your site is good for users, the search engines will reward it with higher rankings and you’ll therefore be rewarded with a higher quantity and quality of traffic.

Is that right?

]]>