Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: to link or not to link?

  • Subject: Re: to link or not to link?
  • From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
  • Date: 11 Jun 2005 16:05:50 GMT
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: Castle Amber - software development
  • References: <op.sr6hd6je584cds@borek> <Xns9671C860EB3F1castleamber@> <d8dn9c$1h8v$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>
  • User-agent: Xnews/5.04.25
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk alt.internet.search-engines:61615
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Definitely link. That's what the Web is about, as long as your links are
> justifiable. One of the wonderful things about the World Wide Web is that
> you get contextual networks or channels. If nobody links, all that we get
> is a bunch of islands whose only meaningful entities are metadata and
> domain names. A site that has no external links will sooner or later be
> considered a secluded, uninteresting source. Search Engines will have no
> inclination to favour egocentric sites.

Yup, I would say: link to sites that provide (very) relevant extra info to 
your visitors.

I have sometimes the impression that people over SEO: they count the exact 
number of keywords, the density, the number of links, the number of lines 
before the content starts, etc, etc. Mostly based on rumours, and wrong 
ideas. A waste of valuable time which often could be used to write another 
page with good content, or adding a few interesting links.

Moreover, at a next update such a very fine "tuned" site can drop to 
position #993 and it's game over.

John                       Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
                 Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index