|
Last week's Link Whore firestorm really made me re-think things....
At what point does a link-building tactic make the leap from acceptable to not? When does white hat become black hat? Or gray hat? Or pink?
And who is to say what is acceptable and what isn't? What works is what's acceptable, and vice-versa, right? It's not your fault blog comment spam got out of control. It's the other guy. If he'd stop link farming so would I. Ok. Sure. I give.
I think the whole white hat / black hat link-building and SEM argument clouds the larger point. Appropriate link building tactics will be different depending on the site you are seeking links for. This site needs a different approach than this one. Your link pursuits should always be driven by your content, and yes, I agree sometimes your content can even be driven by link opportunities, though that's a slippery slope.
In its most simplest terms: to me a white-hat non-link-whore link-building tactic is link you seek for reasons other than search engine rank. But this isn't all. Even non-SEO links can be spam and make the web an uglier place. "Intent" is at the core of the white-hat / black-hat debate. Why do you want that link? Answer that queston honestly and you'll see why I wrote last week's post.
The sad downside of the new algorithmic link analysis is that when combined with increased user generated content and links, the intent of the linker can no longer be trusted. So links today are becoming like meta tags 10 years ago. Anything goes as long as it get's me traffic, right?
Wow, four one-way inbound links to me in one sentence...That was some impressive link building.
Or was it?
Eric
|
Comments
What Google brought to the party was increased relevance for search results, in large part because they gave a good deal of weight to inbound links in determining relevance. At the time, my favorite search engine was HotBot and search was way too time consuming. Google was like a breath of fresh air.
But inbound links are still only a surrogate for relevance. They're a much better surrogate than META tags were, but they're still a surrogate.
It's about time for another breath of fresh air. It may come from Google or it may come from elsewhere, but the reverse-engineers are coming dangerously close to catching up to the engineers again, and thus devaluing the relevance equation again (ask Ann how much time she spends deleting blog spam. If it's as much time as I spend, we're both in deep doo doo...)
The trick to keeping the white hats one step ahead of the black hats is continual evolution of the surrogate we use for relevance. It needs to be getting better all the time. Can you imagine what would happen if Google were able to use a new technology to completely eliminate link spam in its relevance algorithms? We'd have a completely different currency in short order. The link spammers would be worthless overnight and folks who produce valuable and relevant content would be back on top.
It boggles the mind.
Posted by: Tom Hespos | 05.30.06
Tom wrote: "Can you imagine what would happen if Google were able to use a new technology to completely eliminate link spam in its relevance algorithms? We'd have a completely different currency in short order."
Amen, Tom -- can you IMAGINE? I would be the happiest woman on earth!! I am the *first* to admit that I lack the Geek Gene, but I truly don't get why the fix isn't there yet.
p.s. As for how much time I spend deleting blog spam....the short answer: boatloads.
Posted by: Ann Handley | 05.30.06
I haven't had much problem with blog spam, what with word verification and all. I may be crazy, but I like blog spammers, because I can fill whatever down time I might have by going back to their site and posting ugly things to their blog/site
Posted by: J.D. Matthews | 05.31.06
Once the technology changes, I'd like to see all those big SEO companies who bought space for links on the popular news sites, either change their tactic, or B.S. more people while ripping them off.
Posted by: Igor M. | 05.31.06
Loved both this post and the previous one. I do admit that we are re-doing our website and making our internal links prettier but I can happily say that, otherwise, we have engaged in no link-whoring tactics that I can identify.
I am looking forward to the search engine algorithms continuing to evolve. I want them to think like I do because then I'm more likely to get what I want when I search... and so are our potential customers.
"Why do you want that link?" I'm going to keep that question firmly in mind as I go about my job. :) Thank you for making it just that simple.
Posted by: Ariel | 05.31.06
My hunch is the engines will/are giving greater "trust" to links that appear on certain sites or even domains. For example, a link from a .edu site has more "algorithmic credibility" than a link from a .com or a .biz etc. Likewize with a link from a .gov, .mil, ac.uk, etc. The engines know how to count links. They are just now figuring out which links truly matter.
Posted by: Eric | 05.31.06
Mr. Ward,
Is "rel = nofollow" considered white hat? Can it be considered as a "breath of fresh air"?
I don't know, precisely, what white hat means!?!
If Goo didn't place (ranking) value on "links", would you?
Is Goo white hat? If not, are you? (The correct answers are no and no)
What is the REAL REASON for Goo's association of "links" to search?
What is its intelligence? (no, I'm not asking for a wikipedia summary, I'm asking for its pure intelligence).
What are and how have links been used, if at all, in the world's #1 container of information initiated & created years and years ago?
How can we learn by it and apply it?
Are those who whore links at fault or is Goo and its propagators at fault?
If Goo did not associate linking-value to intelligent search, then, 1) would Goo's server work load be dramatically reduced and 2) would the work load on those of us who use the W.W.W. to conduct intelligent search be dramatically reduced?
If information is properly indexed would you be able to find it, less ranking, less link-ranking?
Mr. Page rates Goo's search efficiency at 30%. And you rate Goo at ___%?
What steps can you (we) take to improve this efficiency?
Are you or anyone else in your industry in constant communique with Mr. Page regarding links and search? (no, not Mr. Cutts, specifically and only Mr. Page)
I like blue. Do you have any blue hat links?
Kind Regards,
Vladimir A. Toman
Posted by: Vladimir A. Toman | 06.01.06