LinkBuilding - If a Tree Falls Does it Make a Sound?

[LilBlackDress]

If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it....does it make a sound?

Yesterday I read a report that said if a link is placed on a PR0 site or
a site where no one sees it (resulting in no traffic), it carries no weight with
Google.

Agree or disagree?

[markshields]

I would most likely agree with this yes purely because its not likely to be a popular link resulting in link popularity

[LilBlackDress]

So you are saying you do not feel the anchor text would count as a vote for the website for that keyphrase?
If this is the case..then why all the vendors selling services that post articles with the desired anchor text on rarely seen blogs or article directories.

[Scott Ames]

I think it counts. Besides, that PR0 site may not stay PR0

[Jason_V]

I completely disagree.

A link is a link.

However, I would also venture to say that it would be most important that the site is a do follow site as opposed to a no follow site.

I will also add the disclaimer that despite Google claiming they give no weight to links from no follow sites, there is a lot of debate amongst SEO experts whether they actually do or not.

Me, I prefer to leave links strictly at do follow sites. Of course, if there is a an opportunity to leave a link at a site with a lot of traffic with high visibility at a no follow site, then of course it makes sense to leave the link so you can potentially get a lot of click through traffic. Whether Google counts that link for SEO purposes is of little importance in that situation.

[Justin Jordan]

Maybe.

But a lot, maybe even most, websites that are PR 0 have that page rank because they're new. When they get a page rank, things will change.

I think people sweat this stuff more than is necessary, much like the dofollow/nofollow thing. Just drop your links in places hat are appropriate and not in link farms and don't stress out over it.

[LilBlackDress]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

I completely disagree.

A link is a link.

However, I would also venture to say that it would be most important that the site is a do follow site as opposed to a no follow site.

I will also add the disclaimer that despite Google claiming they give no weight to links from no follow sites, there is a lot of debate amongst SEO experts whether they actually do or not.

Me, I prefer to leave links strictly at do follow sites. Of course, if there is a an opportunity to leave a link at a site with a lot of traffic with high visibility at a no follow site, then of course it makes sense to leave the link so you can potentially get a lot of click through traffic. Whether Google counts that link for SEO purposes is of little importance in that situation.

What are you disagreeing with - that it has no value?

As far as no follows not giving any juice I have read experiments that indicate that no follows DO give juice and in addition it looks more natural to Google to have them mixed in with the do follow links.

[seamusb]

Originally Posted by LilBlackDress

If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it....does it make a sound?

Ex-philosophy postgrad, beware asking questions like that.

First, define your terms...

Sound - the subjective sensation of hearing something

So when the tree falls, it causes movements in the air. This is a given. However, if there is no ear to interpret these movements in the air as sound, then there is no sound. Voila!

SEO 101 - Grab all the good links you can and leave the rest to Google.

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by LilBlackDress

What are you disagreeing with - that it has no value?

As far as no follows not giving any juice I have read experiments that indicate that no follows DO give juice and in addition it looks more natural to Google to have them mixed in with the do follow links.

Yes, I disagree that a link at a PR 0 site or a site with little traffic isn't worth getting. For me, so long as the site is a do follow link, I will leave a link. Even better if you can leave an anchor text link.

Yes, that's why I said, that there is debate among SEO experts as to whether Google actually does give weight to a no follow link or not. Both Google and Matt Cutts INSIST they do not. As you said, others claim they do. You decide for yourself.

As far as "mixing" like you say.

Think about it, if I wanted to sabotage my competition all I would have to do is just put a whole bunch of links on nothing but strictly do follow sites. Google will penalize them then according to this theory, right?

In reality all I'd do is boost their rankings and their page rank value.

Fact: Google is NOT the ALL SEEING ALL KNOWING entity people like to make them out to be. While this works tremendously in their favor that people believe they are. They aren't.

Again, as I said, I, personally only leave links at do follow sites, unless the site is a no follow site with high traffic and my link will be highly visible. Otherwise, I don't waste my time. It takes just as much time to leave a link at a do follow site as it does a no follow site.

You just have to decide what strategy you want to follow and works best for you.

The bottom line:

A link is a link.

If you believe that Google strictly adheres to the no follow rule then leave it at do follow sites and don't leave it at a no follow site

If you think they do give weight to no follow sites despite what Google and Matt Cutts say then leave it no matter what type of site it is.

[Intrepreneur]

The biggest mistake you can make is to get low value links (Pr 3 and below).

This is why many fail because of the low value factor.

[disi]

Originally Posted by markshields

I would most likely agree with this yes purely because its not likely to be a popular link resulting in link popularity

I am not sure about it. When I check backlinks of my competition I can see that they are all some "link factories" with empty sites and some links. Many of tem are 0-2 PR...they have +1,000 of such backlinks and it works for them.

On top of that I will add that they use only "pure" backlinks without keywords! And apparently it works for them.

Look at their links:

https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.co...&bwmo=d&bwmf=u

[evertd]

The question isn't whether the page gets traffic or not, the question is do the spiders know the page ,with your link on it, exist? If the page never gets spidered, then obviously the link has no value. So it is up to you to let the spiders know that the page exist.

[moneyfreak]

Even its PR 0, a backlink is still a backlink.. maybe its valued less!

[turbohips]

I have a ton of competitors for my business and keywords used. Most of them farm work to India and use garbage links with zero PR. They are still ranking higher than my site. I'm guessing the link farms they are using are getting high traffic only from other link farmers doing the same thing. When I check out the forums they post a million links to they are completely lame. Fake topics such as dating posts with a ton of link in them from various clients.

I'm only using high PR sites 4-10 and still below my competitors. Because these are hard to come by I don't have many at all. only around 90 reporting but I've submitted around 200. I'm way down on pages 4-20 for any given keyword phrases. I'm thinking about getting the crap links just to have them so my ranking goes up. I'm still not sure if I want to go this route.

Judging from my experience with my business this is a tough question. Many say stick with only high PR sites but there simply aren't enough of them that I can get links from very easily and quickly. On the other hand getting crap links is fairly easy. I have started any article writing campaigns yet and I think that will be my next step before venturing into crap links.

[capone2009]

better pr0 backlink than no backlink

[mrozlat]

just as anything in life... you need a good BALANCE!

[nettech]

Exactly what I was going to say, one must always think long-term in internet marketing. What happens in a year or so when that same directory goes up to PR1 or more? Then I'm sure your link will be worth a little more don't you think?

Originally Posted by Scott Ames

I think it counts. Besides, that PR0 site may not stay PR0

[4morereferrals]

Really? What happens if you do?

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

The biggest mistake you can make is to get low value links (Pr 3 and below).

This is why many fail because of the low value factor.

[nettech]

I'd stay with quality links if I were you, short-term pain for long-term gain as they say. Google is on top of crappy sites and links, its a matter of time before their filters kick in and your site(s) increase their rankings. Just keep buulding with high quality pr links and you'll be fine.

Originally Posted by turbohips

I have a ton of competitors for my business and keywords used. Most of them farm work to India and use garbage links with zero PR. They are still ranking higher than my site. I'm guessing the link farms they are using are getting high traffic only from other link farmers doing the same thing. When I check out the forums they post a million links to they are completely lame. Fake topics such as dating posts with a ton of link in them from various clients.

I'm only using high PR sites 4-10 and still below my competitors. Because these are hard to come by I don't have many at all. only around 90 reporting but I've submitted around 200. I'm way down on pages 4-20 for any given keyword phrases. I'm thinking about getting the crap links just to have them so my ranking goes up. I'm still not sure if I want to go this route.

Judging from my experience with my business this is a tough question. Many say stick with only high PR sites but there simply aren't enough of them that I can get links from very easily and quickly. On the other hand getting crap links is fairly easy. I have started any article writing campaigns yet and I think that will be my next step before venturing into crap links.

[Charleskidd]

Well I agree, backlinking with garbage sites for the sake of backlinks will not help you for long. I would rather tell you to find sites that have a page rank of over 2, then link.

[4morereferrals]

Certainly adds an interesting twist to the Quantity vs. Quality debate now doesn't it.

I submit to you that if you have successfully placed your keywords in anchor text on 200 pages where these actual pages [ not the sites home page ] has PR of 4 or greater - you have done a masterful job of backlinking that ... 90% of Internet Marketers will NEVER // EVER be able to accomplish.

You are right .... hundreds of PR4+ pages are plentiful on the net ... but getting your links ON THOSE EXACT pages ... not some PR n/a inner page, is damn difficult.

You need to get over your self induced stygma you've associated with "crappy spam" links. Links are links. Its html code to a bot and electrons for an algorithm. Trying to personify this stuff borders on folly, and adds elements of complexity to your workload that is totally unneccesary.

Thing is ... your competitors are kicking your ass with the very thing the pervasive SEO wisdom keeps telling us all doesnt work! Things like ...

Quality vs. Quantity ... [ likely true but who among us will ever get enough true HIGH PR pages to hold our backlinks ? So now what? ]

Relevant sites ONLY - [ BAh! proven false DAILY ]

Do Follow sites Only - [ still testing but others swear they work great! ]

High PR sites are the only ones worth having - [ knock yourself out - I'll take em all ]

Dont knock it till ya try it :-)

Originally Posted by turbohips

I have a ton of competitors for my business and keywords used. Most of them farm work to India and use garbage links with zero PR. They are still ranking higher than my site. I'm guessing the link farms they are using are getting high traffic only from other link farmers doing the same thing. When I check out the forums they post a million links to they are completely lame. Fake topics such as dating posts with a ton of link in them from various clients.

I'm only using high PR sites 4-10 and still below my competitors. Because these are hard to come by I don't have many at all. only around 90 reporting but I've submitted around 200. I'm way down on pages 4-20 for any given keyword phrases. I'm thinking about getting the crap links just to have them so my ranking goes up. I'm still not sure if I want to go this route.

Judging from my experience with my business this is a tough question. Many say stick with only high PR sites but there simply aren't enough of them that I can get links from very easily and quickly. On the other hand getting crap links is fairly easy. I have started any article writing campaigns yet and I think that will be my next step before venturing into crap links.

[turbohips]

OK after hours of extensive checking of my competitors sites I've found that they don't even have freakin meta keywords in their coding at all. WTF? I also found that most of the 1000 links they have all come from junk link directories from India with 0 PR. That's it I've made up my mind. Links period from any source is still how you get ranked faster and higher. My competitors have been in the top spot for years because I've only been targeting high PR sites.

I'm off the fence now and will start uploading my site to the crap directories just like they did. With my mix of high PR links I should be fine. They have 1000 links and I only have 100 quality links currently. I'll submit another 250 crap links and report my findings.

[Steve Crooks]

So long as the page where the link is on is indexed then it will pass some reputation and a fraction of PR will flow also. If the page is not indexed then no it won't but that is not to say it won't in the future. In fact you could try a bit of social bookmarking and blog commenting to that page to get it indexed.

[turbohips]

I'm going to try the crap links first which I've already submitted and I also had just started with article submissions to ezine and hubpages. I'm hoping that this extra work will start to pay off some. I should have some results by Monday.

My next step was using SENuke.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by turbohips

OK after hours of extensive checking of my competitors sites I've found that they don't even have freakin meta keywords in their coding at all. WTF?

Ummm...Google hasn't used the keyword meta tag for ranking since about 2003. It really has been a very long time. The exception would be there was a time that Google did consider it for mis-spellings, if they couldn't find another website that contained the same mis-spelled word(s) and another site did contain the mis-spelled words in the keyword meta tag.

[Intrepreneur]

Hehe I love SEO debates.

Some rather rash arguments for and against the many factors in here but a lot of sense being made too.

The answer I gave was about linking from crap (low Pr sites) was an answer that should be taken seriously but also taken lightly.

Anyhow here's a formula.

Content < High Pr Backlinks / Low Pr Backlinks / Any Damn backlinks you can find - maybe even XRumer it.

Still High Pr is winning every time unfortunately.

[turbohips]

OK so where does article building and submission come into the equation? I'm assuming part of the high PR back links? This is still a debate being that some article sites are now offering no follows right? I still don't really understand this stuff fully but I'm sure not many really do. So simply get as many high PR links and we will be happy right? Lots of hard work just getting to that point. Today I've added around 250 crap links and around 16 100% unique articles on both hubpages and on ezine along with around 15 high PR links. We will see what that does for me by Monday.

[jasonmorgan]

Turbohips... would you mind giving out your competitors url? I'm curious about this and they may be doing something that you aren't seeing. I don't think anybody here is going to move in on your territory and knowing the actual sites you are trying to bump would make it a lot easier to figure out what they are doing and what you may need to do to top them.

I'm only using high PR sites 4-10

The actual page your link is on has that PR? I'd wet my pants if I had a true PR 9 or 10 backlink.

btw.. I love a good seo debate as well. I feel I really learn the most when we all butt heads over this stuff.