Can promoting affiliates with similar themes ro your site backfire?

Is this a proper dilemma or am I imagining it?

You have a successful site on widgets.
You find a company who doesn't do well in SE's who repair widget bits.
You enter into an affiliation with them because you rank highly on
"repair widget bits".
You then plaster your site with appropriate affiliate links using the
keywords "repairs widget bits".

Is it possible for your promotion of them, to so boost their SERP's
that they could start beating your own site for the term - and start
getting the traffic directly instead of through your links?

--

Free washing machine help and advice.

www.washerhelp.co.uk

www.xyzed.co.uk/newsgroups/top-posting.html

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:49:06 +0200, XyZed <xyzed (AT) xyzed (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Is it possible for your promotion of them, to so boost their SERP's
that they could start beating your own site for the term - and start
getting the traffic directly instead of through your links?

Highly doubtfull - you can pass only part of the 'juice' you have. To beat
you they will have to be linked from several sites like yours. If I am
wrong, you have just discovered new black hat technique 'chain sites'

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-Nernst-equation
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

__/ [ Borek ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 10:07 \__

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:49:06 +0200, XyZed <xyzed (AT) xyzed (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Is it possible for your promotion of them, to so boost their SERP's
that they could start beating your own site for the term - and start
getting the traffic directly instead of through your links?

Highly doubtfull - you can pass only part of the 'juice' you have. To beat
you they will have to be linked from several sites like yours. If I am
wrong, you have just discovered new black hat technique 'chain sites'

Links farms were just the mutual boosting of one another, which is similar,
albeit it makes much more sense. I guess that chain sites would be the
equivalent of an endless accumulation of energy, whereas link farms are
closed system that preserves its total energy. Sadly for many search
engines, they used to inject energy for links (what the OP suspects is still
the case), which gifted a farm link spammer with energy out of nowhere (no
point of origin), even with organic, automagically-generated content.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "On the eighth day, God created UNIX"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:05am up 40 days 15:38, 11 users, load average: 1.32, 0.65, 0.44
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:49:06 +0100, XyZed <xyzed (AT) xyzed (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Is this a proper dilemma or am I imagining it?

You have a successful site on widgets.
You find a company who doesn't do well in SE's who repair widget bits.
You enter into an affiliation with them because you rank highly on
"repair widget bits".
You then plaster your site with appropriate affiliate links using the
keywords "repairs widget bits".

Is it possible for your promotion of them, to so boost their SERP's
that they could start beating your own site for the term - and start
getting the traffic directly instead of through your links?

That could happen in any case. Other people could promote them through
links. Do you want reciprocal traffic or not, that's the question.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-services.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lempicka-prints.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/armani/index.html

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:13:42 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

closed system that preserves its total energy. Sadly for many search
engines, they used to inject energy for links (what the OP suspects is
still
the case), which gifted a farm link spammer with energy out of nowhere
(no
point of origin), even with organic, automagically-generated content.

200k generated pages indexed in Google, all pointing to the main page,
didn't improve PR of the main page. Tested

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-Nernst-equation
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

__/ [ Borek ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 11:17 \__

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:13:42 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

closed system that preserves its total energy. Sadly for many search
engines, they used to inject energy for links (what the OP suspects is
still
the case), which gifted a farm link spammer with energy out of nowhere
(no
point of origin), even with organic, automagically-generated content.

200k generated pages indexed in Google, all pointing to the main page,
didn't improve PR of the main page. Tested

Yes, I know, but it sounds as though you were crossing a certain line there.
Many of my pages (never 200k and surely nowhere close after the recent
Google blunder) point back to primary pages. The PageRank of the front page
is *not* the highest in the site. "/" PageRank is often a poor indication of
traffic also owing to size.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:30am up 40 days 17:03, 11 users, load average: 0.81, 1.02, 1.77
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:17:41 +0200, Borek
<m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:13:42 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

closed system that preserves its total energy. Sadly for many search
engines, they used to inject energy for links (what the OP suspects is
still
the case), which gifted a farm link spammer with energy out of nowhere
(no
point of origin), even with organic, automagically-generated content.

200k generated pages indexed in Google, all pointing to the main page,
didn't improve PR of the main page. Tested

Best,
Borek

I reckon it would. I think it would when PR started appearing anywhere
in the site as it would be concentrated on the main page. Assuming
that every page didn't also have links to every other page, or some
such diffuse arrangement. Test again, I reckon.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-services.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lempicka-prints.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/armani/index.html

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:49:17 +0200, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

200k generated pages indexed in Google, all pointing to the main page,
didn't improve PR of the main page. Tested

I reckon it would. I think it would when PR started appearing anywhere
in the site as it would be concentrated on the main page. Assuming
that every page didn't also have links to every other page, or some
such diffuse arrangement. Test again, I reckon.

That was my thinking before the test. It looks like Google ignores such
pages for some reason (not unreasonable reason I must admit). It even
occasionally brings these 200k pages back to the index, but nothing
changes in the SERPS of the site in question.

Right now I doubt it can be tested - with the problems Google have with
spidering and keeping in index exisiting pages I doubt it will chew
through 200k new pages before we all retire from SEO.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-Nernst-equation
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl