__/ [Stacey] on Monday 24 October 2005 03:56 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:djhbdk$6iu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>* http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002654.html
>>
>> * http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32672
>>
>> * http://forums.seochat.com/showthread.php?t=53424
>>
>> * http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/more-info-on-updates/
>>
>> So it seems as though reciprocal links in one way or another being
>> penalised.
>> This has many unfortunate implications. It also appears as though it's
>> here
>> to stay.
>
>
> You know, I read those and I am not seeing that in the SERPs I have been
> watching. If it were then I would be penalized and I am not. I feel it does
> have to do with links though and like I had told John, you have control
> over who you link with. Making sure those keep good linking practices and
> making sure that they also don't like to crap. This meaning not just to a
> bad neighborhood but just plain linking to everything and every type. If
> you link to a site that links out to crap(gambling, drug, etc) you need to
> remove them ASAP.
>
> Stacey
The misfortunate thing is that I cannot compare the effect on referrals
across sites. One has to be familiar with SERP's in order to do that. Beyond
this conspicuous level, everything is in the logs.
I know very many sites that, much like mine, distribute content (projects)
across domains, then link to these domains, as well as link back. Why this
should entail a penalty is beyond me, but I imagine I was penalised for
that. Centralising unrelated (or loosely-related) content in one generic
domain is probably worse practice then selecting and accommodating
meaningful 'chunks'.
Roy
|
|
