Does Reciprocal Linking Work?
Recently I saw the Blue Gecko SEO forums ranking at #10 for SEO. Most of his link popularity looked like it was from link trades associated with his webmaster resources directory. The reason people say link trades do not work are mostly because:
they are usually slow and expensive to build if you do not outsource or automate
most people exchanging links in bulk are not doing so with quality sites
DMOZ Weighting in Yahoo!:
I created a one page site about Effexor which is listed in DMOZ. I have not built any other linkage data, and it is ranking in the mid 30s for Effexor out of over 7,000,000 sites.
Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine one of the top results for cellular phone is "The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention", a study which explains in great detail the distractions and risk associated with conversing on a cell phone while driving. This search result came up first because of its high importance as judged by the PageRank algorithm, an approximation of citation importance on the web [Page, 98]. It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.
a few years later:
It looks bad, coming days after the recent song-and-dance at the Google Factory Tour about how much energy is supposedly expended on core search and ads. Here's a personalized home page, but don't worry, we're not a portal, Google said.
Funny, this type of inattention is exactly what made people get turned off from the portals of the past, when they lost focus on search quality. Yahoo seems to have fixed this redirect hijacking problem, but Google is still struggling with it?
Should write a press release about Google not being about to control their search index, and nefarious webmasters hijacking other sites to remove them from the search index. Why?
Currently the ball is in Google's court, with SEO being branded as spam and scum of the web.
If someone could push the idea that Google could not even control their own index, or how to rate their own site, then perhaps they could somehow shift the frame, saying that Google does not know how to control their index and needs the help of good SEOs to improve their search relevancy.
freely using webmaster content, and knowingly publishing false or deceptive helpful webmaster information to those same webmasters
consumer confidence in search relevancy
Most consumers do not realize how search results are manipulated, and most don't even know where the ads are.
It would be cool to see an SEO more daring or less lazy than me use this opportunity to toot their own horn and talk about how they help Google solve a problem it hasn't fully figured out yet - relevancy.
It would certainly be cheap marketing if you get national media coverage with the current feeding frenzy for Google's stock.
For those who spin all the ethics stuff, do you think Google knew of the problem and was lying when they said it was no big deal? If so, is it ethical for them to tell blatent lies? If not, how is it that SEOs know more about their search engine than they do and they generally disocunt the whole concept of SEO?
Yahoo! Q Challenge: whats up with a $5,000 prize - that surely is not much payout for the value they could create with that contest. I might need to create a similar marketing program for myself. hehehe
There is a website that qualifies you and prints out your ordained ministor certification in under a minute. A person today tried to justify me giving away my business model to them because they spent the minute to print one out.
SimCity was always one of my favorite games. kpaul recently noticed a new site by the name of Chicago Crime, which overlays crimes with their locations using Google Maps. Pretty scary to see that in Chicago there was over a murder a day last month.
What kind of ad marketplace would Google have if they:
integrated Google maps and public data into a social network
which linked to - or allowed people to upload - business feedback (think Local Froogle)
should I buy from here?
what other businesses are cheaper or provide better service?
should I consider working here?
who else is hiring in this field or near here?
and destination reviews
is this place worth visiting?
when is best?
who has the best travel deals?
They also could show the history and trust rating of reviewers, as well as letting you determine how many social connections away you were willing to accept reviews from, maybe they could match up personalities or demographic profiles if people gave them that data, or they could let you create your own combined metric.
Add a strong recommending engine technology to that (like how Amazon.com says "of the people who viewed this product ultimately 37% ended up buying XYZ") and Google will serve ads that know what you want even when you don't.
Google has data worth lots and lots of money. It will be interesting to see how they aggregate content and collect feedback to leverage their market position.
Any merchant heavily exposed to the web which is not building communities or other hard to replicate assets may end up in the hurt locker in the next couple years.
Google's ad serving technology is still somewhat primative. As time passes and more major networks leverage their market postions more and more merchants will get marginalized by the forces that be.
Google Inc. on Wednesday launched a corporate version of its desktop search application. The Google Desktop Search for Enterprise allows employees at companies to search for information on their computers. The free, downloadable application is based on its desktop search tools introduced last year. Google said it collaborated with IBM on the program, which is able to search IBM Lotus Notes messages, among other features.
The purist will hate the ads, but if RSS is going to transition from early adopter to mainstream it will need to pay for itself. The two options are that the RSS post is a summary that brings visitor to your site to see ads or you place ads in your feed. Google wants ads in your feed.
Syndicate the full text of your articles. The more content that is available in a siteâ€™s feed, the better the user experience, and the more likely people are to subscribe your feed. If you canâ€™t put the full text of your articles in your feed, then in addition to the headline of each article, include as informative a snippet as possible of the articleâ€™s text.
Typically most people do not view a feed until after they subscribed to it, so how does showing the full content of your post in your feed make people more likely to subscribe?
I think I link to every article he writes. his latest: Hiring is Obsolete, which says if you are the young & motivated type you can let the market determine your value by starting a startup instead of going to work for mega corp for lower than market value wages.
Visitors to Yahoo's Music Unlimited will pay $6.99 a month for access to Yahoo's 1-million-song library. That's less than half what Napster and Real Networks' Rhapsody charge for similar services that permit the transfer of songs to portable music players. source