|
I received an RFP from a company that ought to know better that wanted to know how much I'd charge...
...to get their site 500 one-way Pagerank 2 or better links. Another company wanted to know how long it would take me to seed 1,000 blogs with a link to their site in the blog comment field. And another wanted to know how many links I could buy for their site for $25,000.
What am I, a link whore? For the right price you think I'll engage in sleazy link building tactics normally only used by gambling or viagra sites?
Nope. And it's not because I think I occupy some sort of high moral ground. It's because these tactics make the Web experience worse and simply don't work. And the sooner everyone stops being link whores, the better, in my opinion.
Quit trying to fool Google already. They have enough problems with the Adsense spam that's the Web equivalent of Kudzu. It's everywhere. Combine blog spam with Adsense spam... and you have one majorly unfufilling search experience.
There are many ways you can be a link whore. You might not even know you are a link whore.
Here's a few:
* Do you have social bookmark accounts just to post client's URLs?
* Have you ever commented on a blog post just because you wanted to leave a URL behind with it?
* Have you bought one-way links from sites that have nothing to do with your site but do have a high pagerank?
You, good sir, are a Link Whore.
* Have you used trackbacks just for the link?
* Do you have a reciprocal links page that you only created so the engines might give you credit for it?
* Have you gone back to existing links and changed the anchor text just to look nice for the bots?
* Do you send out press releases every week about absolutely nothing just so you can fill them with so many deep links they look like site maps?
You slut.
There are other far more nefarious tactics that make some link whores look like Girl Scouts. Link hijacking anyone?
I'll admit I'm tempted. Yes, even I, the so-called whitest of the white hat link builders, will sometimes ponder doing something that is just a little slutty, like maybe digging my own or a client's site, or submitting to a bunch of legit directories that few people ever heard of and ever fewer use. I'm not ruining your Web experience that way...so no harm, no foul -- right?
Yes and no. I can say with 100% confidence that you can be successful and rank well without having to do anything even close to slutty. I know this is the case because I have first-hand experience at it.
Want to see an example? Have a look at this search result. The first five results are all either for me or for articles I've written. And I have never once in 13 years asked for a link, bought a link, swapped a link, or done any slutty linking tactic. NEVER.
So how then can I possibly rank so well? Simple. Google is algorithmically rewarding my good linking behavior over the course of the past 13 years.
There can be no other explanation. Google doesn't like link whores.
|
Comments
As a blog owner, when I see one of those comment/spam things appear in my comments section, I almost immediately delete them. I have no use for them whatsoever, and I think the vast majority doesn't either. While it's a noble idea to get involved in the community, it seems that many businesses have tried to find the shortcut by sending anonymous, meaningless comments with links back to whatever they're selling. It doesn't work.
If you want to make the blog game work for you, you have to approach it honestly and get involved in the community. (Gosh, did I just channel Mack there?)
Posted by: J.D. Matthews | 05.18.06
Amen J.D. And how sad is it that Wikipedia has an entire entry devoted to blog spam - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_spam
Posted by: Eric Ward | 05.18.06
Hey Eric,
Contrarian blog posts do attract attention, that's for sure. I agree with just about every of your criteria with one exception:
"Have you gone back to existing links and changed the anchor text just to look nice for the bots?"
Changing anchor text from "click here" to a product name is not a bad thing. That's as much a usability issue as it is a search engine friendly issue.
Personally, I find the reference you make in the title disappointing. Why? Because you're a blog whore.
See, using controversial or strong language in a blog post is a trick to get people to read it. Isn't that as "sleazy" as digging your own articles or commenting on a blog post with a link?
I see ericward.com has over 4,000 links - that's pretty good!
My main company site has 140,000 links. Are some of them slutty? I'm sure some of them are. But who doesn't like "mostly nice", but just a "little slutty" when it counts? :)
Posted by: Lee Odden | 05.18.06
Hi Lee - I wondered how long it would take before someone commented that my blog post was in some ways the very thing I was criticiaing. That's why I purposely did not link to my own site anywhere in the post. THAT would have made me a link whore.
And your link count is so far off it's comical. I don't use Goolge numbers, I use my server own logs, which are far more accurtate, and which show traffic to my site coming from over 116,000 different sites in calendar year 2006 to date. If you are going to plug your own company by comparing links tome, do it honestly, you slut. :)
Posted by: Eric | 05.18.06
"Have you gone back to existing links and changed the anchor text just to look nice for the bots?"
YES I HAVE AND I'M PROUD OF IT.
"Because you're a blog whore."
OMG - Moses, what say you to that?
;)
Posted by: Debra Mastaler | 05.18.06
I think it's a short-term/long-term issue. Taking a controversial angle or purposely being argumentive in your posts will get you a short-term bump in traffic, and likely erode your traffic long-term. Likewise, if all you do is go from one 'A-Lister' blog to another leaving 'Great point, check out my thoughts here: http://sendsomelinkstomycrappyblog.blogspot.com', then you might get some hits that day, but nothing after that.
I think the way to use links the most effectively is as a tool to POINT readers to RELEVANT posts on other blogs/websites that better explain/expand the point you are trying to make. And personally, I try my best to find a way to point my readers back to bloggers that are kind enough to comment on my blogs, or link to me.
And again, it's in the context, I try to stay away from 'Hey David has a great blog, check it out!', and go with 'David makes a great point about using bloggers as a marketing tool, and it really ties into what I posted about yesterday. Check out his take HERE'.
Bottom line is that it's like you said, good linking habits are rewarded.
Posted by: Mack Collier | 05.18.06
Great post!
Signed,
http://www.GetViagraNow.com
:)
hahahahahah Just kiddng Eric
Posted by: Rich E | 05.18.06
Eric -- Thanks for the wikipedia link. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I *am* surprised that it has its own entry.
Blog spam is a huge annoyance/nuisance for me on the MarketingProfs blog, so much so that I had to change the comments on this from unmoderated to moderated -- in other words, I need to approve every single comments, clarification or throat-clearing. Which is too bad...because in my view it takes some of the freshness out of the conversation, if you have to run it by an editor first.
Pisses me off that Spammers have ruined it for the rest of us. In fact, I get so much Spam and get SO annoyed that I wish Moveable Type offered me another option in moderator mode -- not just "Publish," "Delete," or "Junk," but perhaps "Maim," "Kill," or "Slit Spammer's Throat with Hot Butter Knife."
Posted by: Ann Handley | 05.18.06
"See, using controversial or strong language in a blog post is a trick to get people to read it. Isn't that as 'sleazy' as digging your own articles or commenting on a blog post with a link?"
I don't think that's the same thing at all, Lee. Eric's post headline related to its content, and the content was on-target; it delivered as promised, in my view.
Is it strongly worded? Sure...but Eric backed up what he said. His post shed some light; it wasn't just about getting attention.
Posted by: Ann Handley | 05.18.06
Readers of this post should know some context. I know Eric a little offline, so that makes him available for some sarcasm (from me).
Congrats on getting this blog gig Eric, I didn't realize it was new. Now on to the fun stuff.
"That's why I purposely did not link to my own site anywhere in the post. THAT would have made me a link whore."
This statement makes it seem like linking to your own site within a blog post is bad, and that's just silly. If your own site contains a resource or additional information relevant to the post, link away I say!
As far as link counts and measuring things, revenue is what it's all about baby and from where I'm sitting things are looking very nice.
I'm glad to hear you don't use Google numbers, neither do I. Where did you get that from?
"If you are going to plug your own company by comparing links to me, do it honestly, you slut."
Ooh, that's some language there. For kicks, here are the numbers from Yahoo Site Explorer.
ericward.com - 4,087
http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=www.ericward.com&bwm=i&bwmf=s&searchbwm=Explore+URL
my site - 141,746
http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=www.toprankresults.com&bwm=i&bwmf=s&searchbwm=Explore+URL
See, I didn't even mention my site url, I'll let Yahoo do that.
Happy Blogging!
Posted by: Lee Odden | 05.19.06
Let's not kid ourselves, "...it wasn't just about getting attention.".
Using a word like "Whore" is ALL about getting attention.
Did the post contain good info? Sure it did.
Could the post have been presented less offensively and still provide good information? Yes.
A post title such as "Seven Linking Tactics to Avoid" would have been just as useful to readers AND accurate.
But then it would not have received as much attention.
Posted by: Lee Odden | 05.19.06
Eh, you got my URL wrong, Mark :)
Posted by: link_monkey | 05.19.06
Um, Lee, I'm a one person business working from my house, always have been. I never ask for links for my own sites. Just my clients. Never submit my own site. My site costs me 12 bucks a month. If Google dies tomorrow I'm fine.
So please stop trying to make it look like my site is somehow "underlinked" by comparing your site to mine. The sites are not even in any way designed to compete. Your site rocks. It's CNN and mine is a shack in the hills of Tennessee. If I had decided, back in 1993, to create a company with employees and a web site to match, my conservative hunch is I would have a 4.21 gazillion links. That anyone links to my site at all is a bonus and a miracle.
On the other hand, I have helped build over 25,000,000 links to PBS.org.
That wasn't a typo.
See, I'd rather build links to my client's sites than my own.
But that's just me...
Eric
Posted by: Eric Ward | 05.19.06
The term 'link whore' is pretty common in the blogosphere. It might be offensive to someone that hasn't encountered it yet, but since this is a blog, we have to assume bloggers are going to read it, and I think most of them have heard and possibly even USED the term 'link whore'.
Posted by: Mack Collier | 05.19.06
So, am I a whore for referring to Eric's original post as "ballsy" in my own blog?
Because, you know, using controversial language like that is just a trick to get people to read it. ::rolls eyes::
Posted by: Tom Hespos | 05.19.06
Um, Eric I think it's pretty clear you invited the comparison. If you're going to write something like this:
"If you are going to plug your own company by comparing links to me, do it honestly, you slut."
That warrants a reply.
It goes without saying that your skills and reputation as a site promoter are undisputed.
If you'll excuse me, I have my own clients to attend to.
Posted by: Lee Odden | 05.19.06