Mon 6 Jul 2009
Your Link On ‘Links To Useful Sites’ Pages – Yuck!
Blurb by Shaun Anderson (Hobo)Part of linkbuilding month for beginners At Hobo!
Don’t accept a link from “links” pages on sites as these are about 1% as useful as your signature link on the 10th page of a forum thread – e.g. next to useless! – unless of course the Page is a PR 9 with a lot of back-links itself!
Google hates links pages. Try it – throw up a “links to useful sites” page on your website and watch as Google ignores your page unless you have a LOT of online business authority. Google doesn’t want to list pages with nothing but links on it and actively identifies these pages and nukes them from their SERPS in a LOT of cases!
If some one wants to list your site on their links pages, consider how much value these links really are. If there are a lot (100+) of links on there – any benefit to your site is microscopic.
- Check if the links page is in Google at all utilising the info operator -Â info:www.hobo-web.co.uk
- Consider how authorativie the site in question is – is it an important site within your industry? (If it is, it’s perhaps worth getting a link here just in case.)
- Find out the Google Pagerank of the actual page the link is going to feature on – not the PR of the home page. Some people PR is totally useless – it’s not, not for a quick check on what Google thinks of the page.
- Check how many backlinks point to the links page from within the actual site, and if it has any external backlinks using the Yahoo site operator.
Some links pages might be useful if it’s on a very authorative site, but most link pages go the way of the Dodo within time. Avoid getting a link on links page if at all possible.
Did you know when you link to a Hobo SEO post we have search engine friendly links back to your site if approved? Our comments are also search engine friendly you know (once you've commented on a few posts)! Do you need any more encouragement to get involved in the conversation ;)
This is an interesting theory but you make it sound as if you should avoid these links at all costs… as if they hurt your cause. Are you really trying to say this? …or are you trying to say don’t try to get links on these pages because it’s not worth your time. Are you sayign that we should actively try to remove ourselves from lists like this? I’m a newbie so maybe I’m cluseless but this doesn’t seem to make sense to me. If someone wants to link to me I would be inclined take it no matter where it is on the other person’s site.
Good question Brian
No, I’m not saying have them removed, I’m saying don’t bother with them, or actively pursuing them, or agreeing to have your site listed there. Your time is more valuable spent in other areas.
Even if Google ignores the page and doesn’t give you any benefit? Why?
You want your link on a page with a only a few outgoing links, that’s in Google’s index, and has Pagerank (simply speaking). Most links pages do not meet these criteria I’m afraid.
I see your point and understand your theory but if I have no control over where they link to me from then why bother asking them to remove the link from a link-page-hub?
I would assume that if we were doing a link exchange and I had some say in where my link would reside then things would be different but if some random blogger likes what I have to say and they include a link to my blog in a page with 50 other links then what is the harm it letting it stay there? I didn’t actively seek this link so it didn’t take up any of my time or effort; what harm could it do? Could it even do harm?
I would guess that it’s not worth my time to seek links like this but if they appear organicly then I don’t think it’s worth my time trying to get rid of them either.
I would not put effort into get links removed unless you knew they were negativly effecting your site. I think what Shaun is saying is that links from links pages with no other content could be even less value than we currently think (most of us think they were low value anyway).
This does bring up an issue I see quite a lot on the web when reading about SEO, its very easy to get confused between what has no SEO value and what has a negative SEO value.
Of course we have to say that this is a purely Google related question and not related to traffic. Some of these sites that are just links (directories( are still great resources for traffic to your site, not search rankings.
Of course GOOG does like DMOZ, Yahoo and BOTW but they have said that it is becoming way less. But, that doesn’t mean that some people are not still using it.
I do agree with Shaun though, I do not spend any time on these. For me I need 2 things. I need to write post that send traffic to an authority source and get links back from those sources, obviously relevance is important too.
Without searching your blog, do you know if you have written about link building for a business? I am looking to get quality links to my site that are not from blogs or forums..Besides writing articles or press releases is there another way?
Thanks,
I’ll answer that shortly Jim
I still think Yahoo is a good link for new sites BTW.
Shaun’s ideas makes sense for master bloggers who have better use for their time than pursuing links of little or no value at all. As for us newbies in the field, every little link counts, not necessarily for PR purposes, but most importantly for traffic drawing purposes. ‘Spreading the word’ means spreading it out, wherever their is some place to spread. Probably, when my site kicks off beyond the mediocre phase that it is now, I’ll do some ‘finesse’ work such as the ones Shaun is suggesting.
Don’t get me wrong, a link is a link. I’m just trying to point out there are plenty of crap ones
why bother – go straight for the meaty ones.
The other thing you need to watch for is some spammier webmasters are creating “links” or “resources” pages etc, and then doing reciprocal link exchanges. You get a link and it al looks good, but they are actually killing the link through robots.txt. You don’t see any nofollow on the actual page, but its there. So don’t forget to check that if you are taking a link on a link-farm page!
I do mostly agree with you. But I think your view is a little to simplistic. Well, probably not your view, but rather the way you expressed it in this particular piece. Let me explain.
“You want your link on a page with a only a few outgoing links, that’s in Google’s index, and has Pagerank (simply speaking). Most links pages do not meet these criteria I’m afraid.”
Right, but you do not know, if these pages will meet (all or some of) these criteria in the future. The value of links gets stronger with time and a link on a links page that is 10 years (even one) old is definitely good. So your effort could eventually be rewarded (or not).
Also, link diversification is key. You have to have at least a couple of links from “all the corners of the internet” to look as “organic” as possible. Some have even suggested that you have to have a couple of bought links (although this is where I draw the line) in your profile.
I have such a links page on my site and I think it is very valuable. It is a page I created where I refer visitors to trusted colleagues.
If you look at the links on this page:
1) There are only 3 entries (as of now) but lots of deep links to their websites. Linking to the best conetnt on there. This is after all a great value add for the reader.
2) The content is purely editorial in nature.
If more links pages were like this (and most are not) then it would be very good advice to get a link from there. So instead of dismissing this technique you could go out and rewrite these links pages into something like I did. Then give it to these webmasters and in a second step do link building FOR these enhanced links pages. Make pages stronger that are not ranking good, are not indexed or don’t have PR. It could be easier/cheaper than building direct links to your highly competitive page. As you can probably see, I am thinking longer term here. It’s what I have to do, because in Germany there is a really all encompassing link scarcity. People just don’t easily link to you or anybody for that matter. You really have to do something for THEM first.
Also, your wording of “don’t accept” really throws newbies for a spin, like you can see in the comments. I would probably write: Don’t “concentrate” on…
I know exactly where your going with this, but I think that this could be worded a lot sharper.
I really do enjoy your blog and look forward to this monthly thingie
Cheers,
Sasa from the Linkaufbau-Agentur (Link Building Agency)
PS: Can I say, since this is my first comment here, that Scotland is probably the most beautiful place on earth
(beer is also superb, and the whiskey…)