If you place socialposter on your website, and each day you bookmark a few different pages, what does G think about it? Do they think you are just bookmarking yourself and discredit those links or do they think it's nice that you have that option available for your vistors?
SocialPoster on website, What does G think?
- Thread starter RalphyBoy
- Start date
If it could happen naturally Google love it.
Google doesn't see that you have that option available really - Google only see the bookarking site and takes notice of it. What you should do is create several different accounts and bookmark your pages from different ones.
Google doesn't see that you have that option available really - Google only see the bookarking site and takes notice of it. What you should do is create several different accounts and bookmark your pages from different ones.
matapples01
Regular Member
- May 15, 2008
- 358
- 210
Google likes backlinks and what general z said is correct. They wouldn't have any way to know it was you bookmarking your own site, just someone with a bookmarking account.
seomanifest
Regular Member
- Oct 5, 2008
- 363
- 81
I think for google it is most important that the links come from similar contextual sites and most importantly that the quantity of your links is gradual, having a ton of links coming to your sites immediately is almost sure to get you sandboxed
This topic is always interesting..
I don't believe that you are a 100% correct seomanifest. I would suggest that not every link is 100% relevant or even close. It is more *NATURAL* that people that don't only write about... let's say marketing sometimes happen to mention it and then point out RalphyBoy's site because they heard it from a friend or whatever (word of mouth is still the absolutely most powerful marketing tool their is).
I believe natural is the key and I also strongly believe in a "natural" mix of both quality links, relevant links and those really piece of shit links like guestbooks, links from irrelevant sites etc. If you have a ratio of 90-100% quality links it doesn't take a genius (or a bot) to guess that something fishy is going on.
It's a bit the same as having 10 000 links in one day. It isn't natural and wouldn't probably occur for a fresh no-name site the same way not every marketer would instantly write about a new marketing site (that google have never heard of).
Imagine we launch a site about Graffitti, it's such a great site that other relevant sites mention it - but if it's so grand and great.. how many NON-relevant sites do you think mentions it and what's the ratio of sites that is purely about 1 thing (or very close to "graffitti" like something about street art maybe) and the sites that is about an array of things like blogs and such? The ratio is probaby 1:10 000.
Prove me and my boring logic wrong and you have done me a favor of teaching me something new.
I don't believe that you are a 100% correct seomanifest. I would suggest that not every link is 100% relevant or even close. It is more *NATURAL* that people that don't only write about... let's say marketing sometimes happen to mention it and then point out RalphyBoy's site because they heard it from a friend or whatever (word of mouth is still the absolutely most powerful marketing tool their is).
I believe natural is the key and I also strongly believe in a "natural" mix of both quality links, relevant links and those really piece of shit links like guestbooks, links from irrelevant sites etc. If you have a ratio of 90-100% quality links it doesn't take a genius (or a bot) to guess that something fishy is going on.
It's a bit the same as having 10 000 links in one day. It isn't natural and wouldn't probably occur for a fresh no-name site the same way not every marketer would instantly write about a new marketing site (that google have never heard of).
Imagine we launch a site about Graffitti, it's such a great site that other relevant sites mention it - but if it's so grand and great.. how many NON-relevant sites do you think mentions it and what's the ratio of sites that is purely about 1 thing (or very close to "graffitti" like something about street art maybe) and the sites that is about an array of things like blogs and such? The ratio is probaby 1:10 000.
Prove me and my boring logic wrong and you have done me a favor of teaching me something new.
seomanifest
Regular Member
- Oct 5, 2008
- 363
- 81
General Z,
You do have a point, but what I meant is that most of your links should come from "good neighborhoods" This is only logical and it will enhance your SERPS as it is known that a link from a similar site will carry more weight (obviously there are exceptions and other factors to consider but as a rule of thumb that is the way it is).
Regarding getting a ton of links at once that is also arguable since there can be situations where it could happen legitimately; a simple example would be a new bad that hit the charts could get a ton of links and i believe that would be considered legit.
You do have a point, but what I meant is that most of your links should come from "good neighborhoods" This is only logical and it will enhance your SERPS as it is known that a link from a similar site will carry more weight (obviously there are exceptions and other factors to consider but as a rule of thumb that is the way it is).
Regarding getting a ton of links at once that is also arguable since there can be situations where it could happen legitimately; a simple example would be a new bad that hit the charts could get a ton of links and i believe that would be considered legit.
This topic is always interesting..
I don't believe that you are a 100% correct seomanifest. I would suggest that not every link is 100% relevant or even close. It is more *NATURAL* that people that don't only write about... let's say marketing sometimes happen to mention it and then point out RalphyBoy's site because they heard it from a friend or whatever (word of mouth is still the absolutely most powerful marketing tool their is).
I believe natural is the key and I also strongly believe in a "natural" mix of both quality links, relevant links and those really piece of shit links like guestbooks, links from irrelevant sites etc. If you have a ratio of 90-100% quality links it doesn't take a genius (or a bot) to guess that something fishy is going on.
It's a bit the same as having 10 000 links in one day. It isn't natural and wouldn't probably occur for a fresh no-name site the same way not every marketer would instantly write about a new marketing site (that google have never heard of).
Imagine we launch a site about Graffitti, it's such a great site that other relevant sites mention it - but if it's so grand and great.. how many NON-relevant sites do you think mentions it and what's the ratio of sites that is purely about 1 thing (or very close to "graffitti" like something about street art maybe) and the sites that is about an array of things like blogs and such? The ratio is probaby 1:10 000.
Prove me and my boring logic wrong and you have done me a favor of teaching me something new.