Link building

"Paul" <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote

On 8 Aug 2006 13:28:33 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

About linking i think this in big headlines : every link is a good link
as long as you find it worth that the link is where it is.

Not every link is a food link.
No point being on a page with 300 other links. No one is going to
click on it if you are down the bottom.

No point being on a page that is never cached.

No point being on a page if your 20 pages deep.

No point being on a page that is seen as FFA.

There are more, but thats enough.

To add to Paul, focus on links from quality sites. These are the ones to
help the most. Make sure if they have a links page to have no more than 25
link from them. This small # is a good quality link.

Stacey
--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:53:32 +0100, Paul
<lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8 Aug 2006 13:28:33 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

About linking i think this in big headlines : every link is a good link
as long as you find it worth that the link is where it is.

Not every link is a food link.
No point being on a page with 300 other links. No one is going to
click on it if you are down the bottom.

I get links now and then from the bottom of the site map of a client
and I'll get occasional traffic. That's the idea, not PR.

BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/mar...e-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis...una-glass.html

Stacey wrote:

"canadafred" <canadian_web (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1155066816.888109.135260 (AT) p79g2000cwp (DOT) googlegroups.com...

Stacey wrote:
"canadafred" <canadian_web (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1155060535.056749.192740 (AT) m79g2000cwm (DOT) googlegroups.com...
snip

I would like to add however, the above strategy is an attempt to
manipulate the importance of a web page by articially enhancing its
linked value. This is commonly accepted in the SEO circles as being a
standard part of SEO. I disagree with this although that is not my
purpose for intruding in Mark's SEO advice.

So Fred,

I am asking just because it is confusing to understand your stance on
linking. Are you stating you don't do it, or are you stating it is
unethical? You do not try and gain links for sites so they can accomplish
higher ranking? It really doesn't make sense as the SE's guidelines
specify
to get links from related sites right? Or do you believe in creating a
few
sites and blogs yourself for linking? Of course if you did a lot of this
in
a way it could be considered unethical if the sites were closely related
I
think. I mean here recently and on the Dani web as you posted about the
thread that you were battling against someone and it was about link
building
and you were stating over there link building is wrong and you can gain
ranking without links right?

Too many questions Stacey.

Please pick one or two and provide exact quotes.

Well, I'm glad somebody is paying attention. Very good research. I
clearly see my evolution to my present stand. Thanks.

Well I thought it would be easy questions for you as they are all related to
the same thing link building.

Here are your exact quotes:

From this thread:Can some one give me a tip.... (re Google rank)

"Anyone can try their luck manipulating like the best of them if they
want to. It requires no skill really, endurance perhaps and many
answered prayers. This linking faction is not part of the SEO I know. "

"Search engine optimizers; I don't know what they are nowadays. A
warehouse of linking strategists"


From this thread Linking from Directories:
"Find out for yourself what are these web pages that want to link to you
all about? Where do they frequent? Who says what about who? Do you
really want to go into that pile of links?


Build quality content instead. Don't waste your time looking outside
for help. "

Then from:Can linking to my other (non-related) sites hurt

"My opinions are along the same lines. It could be beneficial for both the
Internet visitor and the search engine to have a few keyphrase agendas
cross-linking. My thinking is that together they could create a more complex
and unified group particularly when one web site serves as the index of it
all. I am testing this at the moment. At first glance this theory may sound
somewhat contrary to the standard opinions regarding PR distribution but is
in fact complimentary to those perspectives. I sharpened my pencil and have
done the math. "

________________________But this looks like you are using cross-Linking and
I suppose since you do it it is ok and ethical, so linking is good right?

Back in Feb you wrote this: "It's painstaking as heck sometimes. I have not
seen any results from my last
three months of efforts in quality link building, but I understand the game,
I've been around SEO long enough. Sustained, ethical efforts ultimately pay
dividends. " in the thread Link Vault.

I think you got me with my pants down that time although you may have
me out of context there. It sounds like something I may have said when
I was still wishy washy about this PR pumping thing, it was a few
months ago that one. The green line frenzy foolishness, shit I played
it too for a while ... on my web sites. People change their mind Stace,
SEO is evolution ... I change everyday. Ever been greyed out of the
green, the PR bar. rezultz has been banned twice. Some history rezultz.
Spammed it hard you know. Should run it through the wayback machine
before you judge its scars too harshly. Nice comeback it is making.
Clean comeback. Sustained top positions in my sights. Good ones, very
good ones. Experiments you know. Gotta' try it out somewhere, can't use
mirrors no more; that's not ethical. Can't even get rid of the traces
of those, I have tried your way. I change you know. Once was I black as
night. Took whatever crossed my desk and placed it at the top. Magic
tricks to the untrained eye. Litlle bit at a time, change to grey. Not
pure white, no sirree, close though. Years for me to change. Google has
forgiven me. You should too.

A quote here in the thread any good services for inbound links Last month
"Ya I know them. They are called Dont Put Your Hopes in Me and Waste
Your Money and Time on Link Building Schemes Search Engine Optimization
Website Promotion Internet Marketing SEO Web Site Experts of the
Universe LTD. but I haven't seen their site listed in recent SEO niche
searches. "

.... what's wrong with that, seems clever to me.

Your blog page you posted a day or so ago suggested the Dani web argument in
the thread quoted first..
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.b...riticized.html -
This actually states "was describing my efforts to discredit linking
strtaegists as a viable SEO technique." BTW note the misspelled word, you
might want to fix it. :-)

Damn, just when I thought I was a perfect speller. I usually go through
an entry three or four times before I am finished over the course of
two or three days. Sometimes when I write I change my mind many times
before I win the debate in my head.

Here is a cute quote"For the SEO newbies ... blog spamming is for sissies
and illiterates. " ---Tell me what classifies as spam how many blogs over
100?

.... blogs can be good too, depends on intent. I use blogs all the time.
Good plce to pen unique thoughts quickly, my thoughts. Good place to
have some fun in marketing, can be as crazy as I want on my blogs. My
blogs. I love my blogs. I love spending time writing on my blogs.
Nothing wrong with blogs that are used like blogs. I am a marketer. SEO
is more than just getting the visitor, it is getting the telephone to
ring too. Blog should offer something uniquely angled and behind the
scenes. Don't have to read what you don't like.

You talk here about linking not being necessary.
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforum...ad51706-1.html

Anyway there are more, with don't waste your time on links build content
even on Dani Web. I don't need to post all of the quotes.:-) So as stated
one can be confused on your stance for links. As you flip flop back and
forth. So is link building unethical and why? If you are going to state
because of manipulation cause by anchor text to be unethical, I would be
more confused at you stating this. It is plain and simple Fred is link
building unethical?

In the manner in which is the trendy way to boost content importance
artificially, sure its unethical.

"Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's
ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad
neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected
adversely by those links." Google

Don't get me wrong here, links can be very good. Search engines include
in their ranking factors, the relationship between linked content, the
semantic relationship. They should reward web content that is supported
with its linked associated content, when it is merited do to it being a
natural occurence. The search engines know the difference. Congruency
between linked content, this is a difficult thing to achieve
mechanically or randomely. This has nothing to do with volume ot PR
quality of links.

The link strategist uses PR targets to determine a good place to
solicit, buy, exchange or extort a link, a search engine optimizer
makes sure the content is worthy to be linked. The link strategist uses
targeted keyphrase themes to determine a good place to solicit, buy,
exchange or extort a link buy, a search engine optimzer makes sure the
content is worthy to be linked. The link startegist will go to whatever
means to solicit, buy, exchange or extort links in the volumes and
types it deems needed in order to win a competitive keyphrase race, a
search engine optimizer makes sure the content is worthy to be linked.

If linking is bad and unethical how does a SEO marketer like your self gain
links, besides posting sigs and adverts on relevant NG's?

A search engine optimizer makes sure the content is worthy to be linked

These are viable questions Fred and since you like to have discussions this
would be a good discussion.

A better approach than the first try. The last one clearly was a trap.
Talk soon. I know I have spelling mistakes but gotta' go.

Ethical SEO
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.b...ust-reads.html

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:08:28 +0200, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nr1id29l2abpa9ljfdl5od3kvqpbh37uca (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On 8 Aug 2006 13:28:33 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

About linking i think this in big headlines : every link is a good link
as long as you find it worth that the link is where it is.

Not every link is a food link.
No point being on a page with 300 other links. No one is going to
click on it if you are down the bottom.

No point being on a page that is never cached.

No point being on a page if your 20 pages deep.

No point being on a page that is seen as FFA.

There are more, but thats enough.

To add to Paul, focus on links from quality sites. These are the ones to
help the most. Make sure if they have a links page to have no more than 25
link from them. This small # is a good quality link.

Stacey

And things like rel=nofollow, redirects etc etc.
plh
Paul
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:08:51 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:53:32 +0100, Paul
lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8 Aug 2006 13:28:33 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

About linking i think this in big headlines : every link is a good link
as long as you find it worth that the link is where it is.

Not every link is a food link.
No point being on a page with 300 other links. No one is going to
click on it if you are down the bottom.

I get links now and then from the bottom of the site map of a client
and I'll get occasional traffic. That's the idea, not PR.

Ive been on page 3 up to page 40 - no clicks.
Been on top of pages, no clicks.
Been in the middle and had clicks.

How many links were on that page you mention ?

You are partly correct BB, but PR helps.
No cache - no gain in SERPS.
plh
Paul

BB

--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 8 Aug 2006 16:01:10 -0700, "canadafred" <canadian_web (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

... I change everyday.

So tomorrow you may not be ethical any more ?
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:14:51 +0100, Paul
<lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8 Aug 2006 16:01:10 -0700, "canadafred" <canadian_web (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:

... I change everyday.

So tomorrow you may not be ethical any more ?

Tomorrow his definition of ethics may have evolved. This is too easy -
you got ring-rust, Paul, ring-rust!

BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/mar...e-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis...una-glass.html

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:13:36 +0100, Paul
<lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:08:51 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:53:32 +0100, Paul
lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8 Aug 2006 13:28:33 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

About linking i think this in big headlines : every link is a good link
as long as you find it worth that the link is where it is.

Not every link is a food link.
No point being on a page with 300 other links. No one is going to
click on it if you are down the bottom.

I get links now and then from the bottom of the site map of a client
and I'll get occasional traffic. That's the idea, not PR.

Ive been on page 3 up to page 40 - no clicks.
Been on top of pages, no clicks.
Been in the middle and had clicks.

How many links were on that page you mention ?

You are partly correct BB, but PR helps.
No cache - no gain in SERPS.
plh
Paul

BB

You miss the point of serps; traffic. Traffic isn't serps-dependent.

BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/mar...e-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis...una-glass.html

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:27:05 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:13:36 +0100, Paul
lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:08:51 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:53:32 +0100, Paul
lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8 Aug 2006 13:28:33 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

About linking i think this in big headlines : every link is a good link
as long as you find it worth that the link is where it is.

Not every link is a food link.
No point being on a page with 300 other links. No one is going to
click on it if you are down the bottom.

I get links now and then from the bottom of the site map of a client
and I'll get occasional traffic. That's the idea, not PR.

Ive been on page 3 up to page 40 - no clicks.
Been on top of pages, no clicks.
Been in the middle and had clicks.

How many links were on that page you mention ?

You are partly correct BB, but PR helps.
No cache - no gain in SERPS.
plh
Paul

BB

You miss the point of serps; traffic. Traffic isn't serps-dependent.

Hello ???
Did you not see what I wrote : Been on top of pages, no clicks.
Been in the middle and had clicks.

Clicks = traffic.

BB

--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:27:05 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:14:51 +0100, Paul
lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8 Aug 2006 16:01:10 -0700, "canadafred" <canadian_web (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:

... I change everyday.

So tomorrow you may not be ethical any more ?

Tomorrow his definition of ethics may have evolved. This is too easy -
you got ring-rust, Paul, ring-rust!

Nothing wrong with my ring thanks BB.
Not that way inclined <G>

BB

--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----