Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If it is a negative user response it will be a negative SEO response in most cases.  In your case there could be very negative affects.  An instant 'back' click is a bad sign to Google, especially it being the homepage.

$550k and google is not treating it well at all...damn.

I agree, it's basically impossible to figure out what the hell to do anymore.  Sometimes I just want to do nothing.

I completely agree with hand selecting and making sure they use the most random anchor text possible.  Ironically most would probably naturally use what google would consider over optimized keywords because it's not "in post / in content" links.

My theory is that its the same as someone linking to your site via an article.  You're providing a source of information therefore should be credited for it.  Now, if we only knew if the algos were set to think the same way...

We've created a tool for our website visitors that I believe is quite useful and one of a kind.  While we'll never make any money off the tool, and I'm in the type of industry where webmasters don't link out, I think our visitors will find it useful.

My question is, to monetize this the only way would be to give it to other webmasters (it's worth 10k) whereas they would have to link to our tool via the same page they post it on.  By monetizing I mean boosting that page in rankings and having it rank for a related popular keyword.  I'm assuming it would be a sitewide linked page from other webmasters because of the usefulness.

Is this method of getting links a no-no these days?  I'm thinking with Penguin we would have to highly monitor who we gave the tool out to...

Any thoughts?  thanks..

Thomas did what we did and it worked fine.  We lost a ton of Yahoo rankings for significant keywords though.  I now personally never change /url/keywords unless I don't care about the Yahoo traffic (or there is none).  Google has no problem with it.

This was just mentioned in Rand's white board video, tip #3.  The only thing is it conflicts with SEOmoz's linking, as they have about 20 links on the footer.  Are they there because they are getting clicked on?

I'm pretty sure nobody clicks on my footer links and am in the process of removing them and adding customized side navigations on specific pages to add a better navigational structure.

To SEOmoz, why so many footer links on SEOmoz if it's a 2012 no, no?

Note:  Must be logged out to see footer links.

Right.  I was just thinking and I don't know if this is blackhat but because the news posts always rank better than pages, I'm going to test 301 redirecting a news post to a new page and see what happens.

Normally I would just leave it be, but I would like to set up navigational columns within these posts and can not do so because of their structure.

Basically:  Make a news post => let it rank for a week => 301 it to its permanent 'page' home.

This is not something I would normally do except for somewhat aged sites where not much new static content is added...

EGOL - Any way to tell google that for the 'pages'.    Or, do they just categorize 'posts' to deserve this and rank higher even if they don't deserve the freshness/news boost?

Hi guys, thanks for the input.

Sean - The url structure is the same, except for it is in a /news/ folder and I tend to leave the path the same as the page title (for whatever reason that actually helps it even if its long).  But not using any time sensitive permalinks on any of the sites.

Sha - I definitely hear what you're saying, when we are the first to post about something it definitely continues to rank highly even after the competition comes in.  The thing is, we could put up a 'page' and it wouldn't.

Just seems to make no sense how google treats posts vs pages whether they're in G news or not.  I haven't tried it, but I'm pretty sure I could just post a 'post' with no content and it would rank good whereas a 'page' wouldn't get indexed likely.

I use wordpress for most of my sites and generally have a post 'news' section.  What I've noticed is that just about every time a post will always rank much higher and much faster than a 'page'.

As long as I don't let it get buried in the news archives it continues to rank well, better than if I were to create a 'page'.

Is there any sort of reason this might occur?  I'd like to be able to just create 'pages' but at this point in time it makes no sense.

Thomas did what we did and it worked fine.  We lost a ton of Yahoo rankings for significant keywords though.  I now personally never change /url/keywords unless I don't care about the Yahoo traffic (or there is none).  Google has no problem with it.

If it is a negative user response it will be a negative SEO response in most cases.  In your case there could be very negative affects.  An instant 'back' click is a bad sign to Google, especially it being the homepage.