Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'm also seeing the same. Checked on several sites and they all had this issue.

This is pretty rampant and shouldn't be all that surprising.  There's a great video called "First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy" (can't recommend it enough) that illustrates why people do this.  It's not enough to be compelling / interesting.  People need to feel safe that you are worth following... that they won't feel like idiots for thinking your stuff is good.

On Twitter, your Follower:Following ratio is a quick way to gauge value.  Sure, it's a flawed measure that's easily gamed, but it's something that inherently feels like it should work... and it definitely influences how many people follow you and who will follow you.  "Fake it 'til you make it" applied to social media.

The correct way to handle this (and quite frankly, any javascript functionality) is to build it to work without javascript (keep the pagination), then have the javascript remove the pagination and implement infinite scrolling.  This ensures that visitors with JS disabled get the full experience of the site, search engines can easily crawl your full catalog, and users with JS enabled get the "enhanced" experience you desire from a UX standpoint.

It's not an "either or" scenario.  You can absolutely have an easily indexed site that extensively uses JS.

Depending on how large the OSE list is, you can run it through a free bulk status checker like this one: http://www.seoautomatic.com/unique-tools/bulk-url-checker/

That will return the status codes of the urls you drop in but it only accepts 50 rows per batch.  You could easily create a similar tool using a scraper that would accommodate more URLs per run -- using PHP you'd just have to use the curl function to pull in the pages being linked to, then use curl_getinfo($curl_handle,CURLINFO_HTTP_CODE); to grab the response code.  If it's a 404, you write that entry to an export file.

Hope that helps!

Eppie

Right, but the question is more about the ethics of paid placement than the quality of the link, isn't it?  Obviously manipulative = bad because it's more likely to be caught.  Discretely placed links = better because they're harder to detect and seemingly add value.  That all skirts the fundamental ethical issue, though.

Would the link exist without payment? Is there an effort to manipulate search rankings with the link? Google would say that if you really cared about the context of the link and wanted the traffic it would send, you'd have no problem nofollowing it.  In that case, paid placement should be fine.  If you're letting it pass authority, it shouldn't be paid.  There's really not any wiggle room in the TOS.

It all comes down to a risk / reward calculation.  If your link is legitimately contextually relevant, the content you supply is good, the site it's published on is high quality, and the site being linked to is likewise a quality site, there's minimal risk.

I tend to disagree with John about what constitutes a paid link.  Just because a paid link is embedded reasonably in content doesn't mean it suddenly aligns with Google's TOS. The intent is to manipulate search rankings and the link wouldn't exist without payment -- I think that's the easiest criteria to apply to these questions.

From my perspective, scenario 2 and 3 are pretty clearly violating the intent of Google's guidelines.  That said, this type of approach is pretty much undetectable, particularly if the post published on the site is of high quality, the site being linked to is of high quality, and the publishing site doesn't publicly solicit this type of arrangement.

Links are website fuel.  A fueled up Pinto can beat an unfueled Formula 1 car in a race, so from my perspective, link building is always an SEO priority.  You can rank a page with poor to mediocre on-page optimization if you have enough high quality links pointing to it.

Put your effort into acquiring links and make sure you have the on-page basics covered (keyword in title tag, meta description, h1 tag, page copy).

Yes, you could you damage your SEO efforts with a poorly implemented widget campaign.  Done correctly, it could provide a huge boost to your rankings.  If I were you, I would:

• Avoid overusing an important anchor text term if you're taking a simple approach to the widget -- you're better off with a URL link than an exact match term if the widget will have broad distribution.
• Create a feature within the widget that limits the number of pages on the site the anchor text is displayed on (only the homepage of a site, perhaps) so that you don't end up with a profile full of only sitewides.
• Configure the widget to vary anchor text based on the page it's embedded on. You can grab the URL of the page (or the time of access if you prefer) and use that to seed a random number that correlates to anchor text variants.  You could also potentially alter the page that's being linked to, which would keep it more natural.  Just cache that data so that the specific page gets the same anchor text and destination repeatedly.
• You could extend the last idea for greater flexibility by having the widget make a call to your server to get the anchor text to use.  Have it cache it for a defined period of time, so that you can later adjust your anchor text distribution if needed.
• Potentially have the widget vary its own footprint (insert random class and id names that aren't used, add extra markup like superfluous divs, change the position of your link slightly, etc) -- this would increase the likelihood that each instance of the link would be considered unique.

With any of these options, you should be clear about what the widget links to / how it links so that you don't end up with upset users.  I'd also recommend providing an easy option for people to disable the link if they don't want it there.

Hope that helps.

eppie

Ahrefs and Majestic SEO both track historical link acquisition, though the reliability of this information isn't the greatest given that they're reporting when they found the link, not when it was actually created.  Obviously, Google has more resources to crawl the web and would find the link sooner than these services would.  Despite this problem, it should still be enough to give you a rough feel for when a large chunk of links were created.

Ahrefs and Majestic SEO both track historical link acquisition, though the reliability of this information isn't the greatest given that they're reporting when they found the link, not when it was actually created.  Obviously, Google has more resources to crawl the web and would find the link sooner than these services would.  Despite this problem, it should still be enough to give you a rough feel for when a large chunk of links were created.

Your guest posting strategy depends on what your goals are.  If you're just looking to accumulate links, you're much better off distributing across a range of websites.  You'll get better ip diversification, a higher number of linking root domains, and each link will count fully since it's from a unique source. The interlinking of posts that you propose would have a very negligible impact on the flow of authority through the sites you post on.

If your goal is to develop a position of thought leadership or to develop a following from the audience of the sites you're guest posting on, multiple posts is the correct strategy.  This way, you get seen by the same audience over and over again.  If they like what you write, they'll be much more likely to follow you / pursue your content on other sites.  It's basically an exercise in brand awareness -- you need the same people to see your message repeatedly in order to have any impact.

Hope that helps!

There are tools out there that specialize in compiling this kind of data.  My personal favorite is SEMRush, but Spy Fu and Keyword Spy also offer similar services.

If you're looking for a free alternative, you could run the keywords you know through the Google AdWords Keyword Tool and look for additional suggested keywords.  It's not going to be nearly as informative as an SEMRush report would be, but it's a no cost solution.

Hope this helps!

Shane,

Everlasting links means it's placed once and it stays without need for ongoing payment.  The tools I noted absolutely fit that requirement.

Further, noting that a tool accepts spun content doesn't require him to create spun content.  You can push unique content through AMR and ALN -- it's all about how you use the tools.

I do agree with you 100% that guest posting is a great approach to this question as well, though it's definitely slower as it requires 1:1 communication.

I'm no fan of spun content and I don't think blog networks should be nearly as effective as they are at manipulating rankings... but I'm also not going to pretend that stuff I dislike doesn't work.

Hyperbolic or not, it's a service that actually answers the OP's question. I don't believe he asked for a debate about the ethics of spun content or link networks -- he asked where he can drop links without paying a monthly fee.  ALN fits the bill.

It's fine to caution against the dangers of such an approach -- and there certainly are some -- but I think it's also important to actually answer the question.

If you're looking to do article submissions, you can get a product like Article Marketing Robot, which has a one-time fee and will submit to a wide range of article directories.  It accepts spun content as well.

If you're looking for a blog network (which it sounds like) that doesn't require a monthly fee, your best bet is to join Authority Link Network (http://www.authoritylinknetwork.com/regis.php), which is free if you add in your own domain(s) to their system.  Keep in mind that the domains you add in need to have PR.

Outside of those options, all the major blog networks I can think of require monthly fees and many are closed to new membership.

Yes, it's possible to outrank Wikipedia, .gov sites, and about.com -- the key is that you want to target terms where these sites have very few links pointing directly to the ranking page.  If they are ranking exclusively based upon their domain authority, but the pages themselves aren't inherently authoritative, they're much easier to surpass.

Even if those pages do get links pointed to them, it's not an impossible task -- you just have to create something really exceptional and pull in a lot of links.  Do a Google search for family history or genealogy and you'll see Wikipedia knocked down the SERPs by more commercial sites.

Also, as Alan noted if the term is one that will have a mix of informational and commercial searches, being below Wikipedia won't matter at all.  The key is to be the first site listed that's relevant to your target audience's search intent.

Good luck if you decide to pursue the terms!

Yes, you can track revenue to a specific keyword using Google Analytics.  The most thorough way to do this is to implement e-commerce tracking.  Google's documentation for this process is here: http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/gaTrackingEcommerce.html#Guidelines

That allows you to record both the transaction totals and the specific items included in the order.  If that's more info than you need, you can use event tracking to dynamically set a goal value.  To do that, you would just add this line of code on your checkout confirmation page:

_gaq.push([``'_trackEvent'``, 'Cart'``, 'Checkout'``, 'Success'``, 40]);

Just dynamically insert the cart value (as an integer) where 40 is in the code and that will record a new event in Google Analytics that includes the value of the order.

Then, within Google Analytics, set up goal tracking based on the occurrence of an event (Cart Checkout Success).  When you configure the goal, make sure you select "Use the actual Event Value" for the "Goal Value" option.

Links from more authoritative sites are more important for improving rankings than links from related sites.  There are tons of examples of sites that rank well that have almost no relevant links.  One such example that illustrates this is pitchingmachines.net, which currently ranks #1 for the term pitching machine.

While this site has the benefit of being an exact match domain, its link profile is full of links from sites that are unrelated.  70% of their live links come from a paid blog network where the sites cover a wide range of topics (but all have PR), 5% are from article submissions (again, sites that aren't topically related), 4% are blog comments and another 3% are blogroll listings (from unrelated sites).  That's 82% of their links coming from sites that aren't topically relevant.

Another 6.5% of their links are forum profiles, web directory submissions, sidebar links, and links lists.  That means that at best, roughly 10% of their links are legitimate contextual links from related sites.  In reality, it's less than that, as most of those links appear to be from another blog network -- I just haven't been able to identify which one yet.

Is there risk in this approach? You bet.  If Google decided to stop allowing the blog network they're getting links from to pass authority, the rankings would tank.  Worse yet, if Google decided to penalize sites getting these types of links, they may never be able to recover their rankings.  Other than the blog network links, though, I think the risk is minimal.  Blog comments, directory submissions, blogroll links... those are all types of links legitimate sites might be expected to have.

So, don't stress out too much about obtaining relevant links.  Tons of sites rank without them.

No, you don't need relevant links to improve the rankings of your website.  You need links from sites with authority using anchor text variations that include your target keyword.

I could give you hundreds of examples of competitive search results where the sites ranking #1 pull all (or a vast majority) of their links from unrelated sites.  For the sake of brevity, I'll give you a single example that illustrates the point very well.

Do a Google search for pitching machines and you're likely to see pitchingmachines.net as the first result.  This site has an advantage in that it's an exact match domain, but if you explore its link profile you'll see that a huge chunk of their links come from a blog network and almost none of their links come from relevant sites.  Most of the websites they get links from include content covering a wide range of topics.

As to potential harm to your site later, I'd exercise some caution.  My personal rule of thumb is that if it's a site I can't afford to get banned (a client's site or a real business of mine), I only build links I'd feel comfortable explaining to Google.  If you're not afraid of a potential ban and just want to rank and bank as much as you can quickly, then don't worry about it.