SEO

Following Matt Cutts' recent announcement that Google will allow users to report paid links, Andy Beard has taken the bold step of submitting his own content to Google's webspam team, in the hope of getting some official statement out of Google. I certainly hope he gets a response, but it seems unlikely.

The disturbing truth is that the only noise out of Google about paid links comes from Matt Cutts' "personal" blog postings. And Matt's stance on the need for machine-readable disclosure of paid links seems to contradict everything Google has ever said about building sites for people, rather than for search engines.

There's obviously a considerable gray area regarding what constitutes a paid link, and Andy's post does a good job of listing many cases where a link may be motivated (directly or indirectly) by financial gain. If Google is serious about identifying and penalizing "paid links," and would prefer that webmasters avoid them, it would seem that the obvious first step is define what constitutes a "paid link." But rather than offering such a definition, or at least some clear guidelines, Google seems content to remain silent while Matt drops hints and spreads FUD.

It's also very troubling that, while no precise definition has been offered, the only "paid links" Matt seems to be concerned about are the cheap ones. Buying links for a few hundred dollars (through TextLinkAds, PayPerPost, ReviewMe, etc) is bad. But links gained through multi-million dollar corporate partnerships are okay.

Currently there's a live link to Google at the bottom of every page of Adobe.com. Are we to believe that this is simply an editorial endorsement of Google by Adobe, and that it has nothing to with the partnership between the two companies? That would be an odd coincidence, since Google's ubiquitous presence on Adobe.com began in in May of 2006, just a month before the announcement of an agreement to distribute Google's toolbar with Adobe software (terms of the deal were undisclosed).

Maybe trading links for financial compensation is okay if it part of some larger business dealing? What about a more clear cut case? Andy says:

Companies are allowed to buy links from the Yahoo directory, which is well known to confer a large amount of trust to a domain, and has been propping up Google's algorithms for years. Will we soon see Google state that the Yahoo directory should be made nofollow for all paid inclusions? Matt Cutts has previously stated that the Yahoo directory is OK because there is editorial review.

So it's alright for Yahoo to sell links because of their "editorial review." Certainly the paid reviews that Andy submitted to the webspam team required much more editorial review than the Yahoo directory can afford to give to the many sites it receives, so if Google's stance on the value of "editorial review" is consistent, Andy should be in the clear.

But then, Matt Cutts doesn't speak for Google, according to his blog's disclaimer, so we're left to wonder about Google's official stance on "paid links." Hopefully, some day soon they'll tell us plainly, rather than making us read between the lines of their employee's personal blog. Is that too much to ask from the company that pledged to "Do No Evil?"

How much thought do you give to the anchor text used on your blog or web site? I'm not talking about the anchor text of your incoming links, but the anchor text you use in every post to link out to your fellow bloggers.

All of us are guilty, from time to time, of being lazy with our anchor text. Using descriptive words in your links can actually have many benefits for your readers, your peers, and the search engines. When your anchor text accurately describes the resource you're linking to:

• Your readers gain a better idea of what they'll see when they follow the link.
• The sites you link to may get better search engine rankings (and thus more targeted traffic) for the keywords used in your links.
• Search engines can use your anchor text to better understand what the site or page you link to is really about.

Still, many of us construct our links with less descriptive text such as names (of people and companies), post titles, and generic terms. For example, it's common to use a company name as the link to their web site, such as:

My friend Josh runs Wavefront Web Design, a Half Moon Bay web design company ...

That's certainly an accurate use of anchor text, but it doesn't really give the reader (or the search engines) much information about the site we're linking to. What if we use the description of the site as the link, rather than the company name:

My friend Josh runs Wavefront Web Design, a Half Moon Bay web design company ...

Now we've given our readers a bit more information about the site on the other end of the link, and we've helped the search engines understand what the site is about.

Linking with post titles can also be problematic, especially when when titles are written more to arouse curiosity than to be descriptive.

Check out this great post from Rob Watts called "What’s your tumbleweed ratio?", about using comment counts to measure the success of your blog posts ...

That sentence tells you what the post is about, but not until you've already read past the link. And the title, while it may make you curious, doesn't really tell you anything about what you're going to see on the other end of the link. How about this instead:

Check out this great post from Rob Watts about using comment counts to measure the success of your blog posts ...

The second version conveys the same basic information to the reader, but the new choice of anchor text will help search engines understand what the post is really about. I doubt many people have ever typed "Tumbleweed ratio" into a search engine, but there are probably some people looking for a way to measure their blog's success. Your choice of anchor text can help the search engines return more relevant results, which benefits both searchers and the blogs you're linking to.

The best anchor text simply describes the target of your link accurately. It's usually easy to describe a specific blog post in a few words, but it can be a bit more difficult when you're linking to the front page of a web site that may cover a variety of subjects. Sometimes you may want a little help in choosing your anchor text.

Francesco Mapelli suggests asking bloggers for their anchor text preference. It sounds like an effective tactic, but it's not always practical. I actually sent an email to Francesco to ask what anchor text he prefers, but it must have gotten eaten by his spam filter. Fortunately, most web sites contain very obvious clues to the keywords they're focused on.

Just by looking at the title tags on his blog's front page, I can guess that Francesco would appreciate "blogging tips" as the anchor text when linking to his blog. Similarly, a glance at my front page would reveal that I'm partial to "california web design" for links to the front page. But the best anchor text is your own concise description of the resource you're linking to. It's helpful to your readers and beneficial to the recipient of the link.

Just something to think about the next time you link to another site.

Even new webmasters quickly grasp the importance of incoming links for building traffic and ranking in search results.  Links are fundamental to the operation of the Web, and everyone wants more of them.  However, the means you use to acquire new links can be just as important as the links themselves, and all links are not created equal.

Link exchange is one widely used method of acquiring links, wherein two web sites link to each other. It's a simple and apparently equitable transaction, but when  used without caution it can be hazardous to the health of your site.

The Good

Exchanging links can have beneficial results provided you link to revelant web sites that are likely to be of interest to your readers.  Your visitors benefit from access to additional resources they may not have been aware of, and you and your link exchange partner benefit from some additional traffic and new readers.

Don't try to stretch the definition of "relevant web sites".  If your site is about fishing, it's fine to exchange links with other fishing sites, camping sites, etc.  A link exchange with a car insurance site isn't a good fit, even if it's likely that most of your readers drive cars. Choose your links with your readers in mind.

The Bad

If your primary reason for seeking link exchanges is better rankings in the search engines, look elsewhere.  The major search engines rely on sophisticated algorithms that can easily pick up on this sort of reciprocal linking behavior, and links acquired thru simple exchanges are unlikely to provide any serious benefit to your site's ranking. And if you get really excessive with your link exchanges, things can get ugly...

The Ugly

Certain types of link exchange can actually have a negative effect on your search engine ranking, and in some cases even get your site completely removed from the search results. Don't believe it?  Maybe you'll believe Matt Cutts of Google, who in a May 2006 post revealed some reasons why a site may be dropped from Google's index.

Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling.

From this statement it's obvious that Google can detect reciprocal links, although it's not clear just what they consider "excessive" (though I suspect it's a rather high number).  Even if your link exchanges don't fit the criteria for being excessive, you may still be penalized if you link to sites that Google considers "spammy".

Whenever you link out to another site, you are (to some extent) vouching for that site by indicating that you found it worth linking to.  If the sites you exchange links with fit the criteria for a "spammy" or untrustworthy site, some of that bad karma rubs off on you, and may increase the likelyhood that your site will be penalized.

Link Carefully

The promiscuous link-exchanger may find that all of those swapped links ultimately do more harm than good.  Luckily, a little common sense should be enough to avoid most linking pitfalls.  Keep the needs of your readers in mind and link only to valuable, relevant sites.  If you wouldn't link to the site without getting a link back in return, you probably shouldn't link to it at all.