Google amends Webmaster Guidelines: “Excessive” added to SEO linking guidelines
As you probably have read in “Google to Webmasters: Reciprocal Linking will get you BANNED!” there has been quite a reaction to Google’s Webmaster Guidelines’ update regarding reciprocal linking for SEO as opposed to reciprocal linking for. The original guideline stated:
|
In order to clear things up for everyone, it now reads….
|
They have added the words “excessive” in an attempt to clarify the situation and to avoid any confusion. First thing that comes to mind… what’s the definition of “excessive?”
What is the point of having SEO guidelines that are written with such subjectivity?
So what do we take from all this? Look; we don’t have a problem with Google, Matt Cutts, or Adam Lasnik. We love Google! Seriously! Google is the greatest search engine on the planet and may very well be the greatest company ever. For veteran webmasters, a “common sense” approach to building inbound links to a site is probably second nature by now. The problem is; when you create “Webmaster Guidelines” that are vague at best and downright misleading at worst, Google is only asking for a reaction. When Googlers (employees of Google) insinuate that all of these concerns are “manufactured” and posts regarding these topics are “linkbait,” you add even more contradictions to these guidelines and how they suggest you go about building inbound links in the first place (when content is compelling enough to be linked to naturally, it is considered to be compelling content… unless, of course, it is pointing out flaws in Google’s communication with their customers… then it is “linkbait”… not compelling content).
There are a lot of other factors that go into Google’s Algorithm regarding reciprocal links. And, maybe all this concern is “manufactured.” Are we just spinning our wheels trying to derive any actual value from Google’s Webmaster Guidelines? As Reno stated in a recent WebmasterWorld.com post:
If we could review the Google algo, we might find that there are dozens of criteria just related to reciprocal linking, such as:
- the age of the site adding the link;
- the age of the site being linked to;
- the number of 2 way links on each site;
- the number of 1 way links on each site;
- the number of 2 way links on that specific page;
- the number of 1 way links on that specific page;
- whether the link is text or graphic;
- the relevancy of the text in the immediate vicinity of the link;
- is the text in the immediate vicinity in keeping with the theme of the page;
- is the text in the immediate vicinity in keeping with the theme of the overall site;
- the day/week/month frequency by which each site adds new external links;
- the average number of links added per day/week/month
- the total number of links on a specific page;
- the total number of links on that page vs other pages;
- number of internal links vs number of external
- the position of the link on the page (top/middle/bottom);
- whether the link sits by itself in a “natural” sentence structure, or is clustered with other links;
(and obviously the PageRank values relating to each page/site would also come into play)
… etc etc…
As far as we’re concerned, Google can write whatever they want in their Webmaster Guidelines. They will always be convoluted at best. What is Google going to say? Create a site with 4.7% keyword density with 6% synonym weight, 4:1 text to code ratio, 41 inbound links spread out thru 43% of your internal pages and 89 inbound links pointing to your homepage with at least a 3 year old domain with a semantically contextual domain name and the same algorithmic variables aforementioned and you shall receive top 3 search engine placement for 18% of your sites anchor text keywords? Would that clear things up a bit?
Search Engine Optimization is as much an artform as it is a skill. There are “SEO Best Practices” and there are people with aptitudes and good intuition. As with anything in life, there are no guarantees. Just go with your best judgment and let the chips fall where they fall.
Link:
August 24th, 2007 at 7:23 am
[…] EsotericLabs.com wrote about Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and SEO Reciprocal Linking, Google has amended the section calling reciprocal linking a “link scheme” that could […]
August 31st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
The whole issue is confusing to me as well. I’ve been trying to figure out how to tweak the “external links” and it’s darned near impossible.
I get a good search result for many pages, although some I can’t just seem to get on Google. I guess time will tell.
Ken Udut
http://free.naplesplus.us
Collier County Florida Business Directory - Naples
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
I sympathize with the need to try and obviate the likelihood that less scrupulous webmasters will always try to find ways to beat the algorithm — The more natural and normal and real and realiable yor website, its content and its growth is the better you SHOULD do when it comes to Google SE. That is as it should be…
But this does mean that trying to ‘get into’ google will never be a GRQ methodology!
I agree that the term excessive, is excessively vague, though. How many links is excessive related to number of pages and age of site? Though I won’t pretend that I wouldn’t be only too glad to see the back of reciprocations and the drudgery of dealing with requests and amking them!
I liked your idea for a more detailed definition, though! Did you just pluck those % out of thin air, that is…To what extent is there a vestige of veracity in your verisimilitude?
Asmith