__/ [David] on Wednesday 09 November 2005 11:30 \__
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:19:59 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Also avoid code that is embedded in your site and transparently
>>>> indicates link exchanges programs.
>>> what do you mean by the last bit?
>>creates links from a pool of related sites and indicates a 'sythetic' link
>>exchange (server-side would be hard to detect reliably). There are all
>>kinds of programs that are mucking the algorithms and ruin the indices, so
>>sites which participate can be penalised. Fear and threat end corruption.
> Google wont care you are linking that way.
> since it doesn't make any difference to SERPs Google won't ban the
> Basically the only increase in traffic would be through visitors to
> the various sites clicking a link.
> Are you getting confused with the likes of
> http://www.digitalpoint.com/tools/ad-network/ which adds random links
> to a participants page which does act as a backlink so does count
> towards Google rankings?
> I think the above network is pushing the boundaries and it's only a
> matter of time before something bad happens!.
> Reciprocal links on a one to one type basis, setup manually are highly
> unlikely to result in a Google problem by themselves. How else are
> website's to get backlinks?
Commercial sites can rely on directories.
Good articles can get cited by people who acknowledge them as they are useful
That was probably the idea behind PageRank in day one. It's based on
following a trail of citations to find influential pages. Unfortunately, not
everyone links to the best papers from MIT and shops that are the cheapest.
As soon as the algorithm come out of the bags, people misuse them.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Avoid missing ball for higher score"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:40am up 6 days 7:38, 4 users, load average: 0.44, 0.53, 0.54
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms