Many thanks

I like to link to decent articles by writing about a subject and then linking to something relevant I have read that I found interesting and useful.

I like to get backlinks to my things by reading a decent article and then posting a relevant reply.

I believe the best way to link is to do so naturally due to merit just the way Google and Matt Cutts outline. Too many poeple IMHO try to do things the lazy way and take short cuts by abusing the PageRank system with un natural linking methods. I have a top 20 listing for “Best SEO Advice” and am now working on attaining a top listing for “Best SEO Tips” but the fact I already have such an early result for “Best SEO Advice” proves that Google really does reward those who put the effort in to do things properly.

Doug, there are so many data management challenges when it comes to sorting out over a dozen link acquisition methods that we support. Our software was designed pre-Google to take the sting out of dealing with link requests, and the challenges of managing actively publshed exit resources in a variety of publishing models.

Am I the only one that thinks that this is a bunch of BS full of meaningless buzzwords and phrases designed to confuse the great unwashed rather than to actually answer a question?

Joel, no matter how you spin doctor it, no matter how many terms either you or the idiot charade make up (my personal favorite being “full duplex link exchange”…that’s right up there with “procurement” as far as bastardized terms go), the fact remains that link exchange in the manner that you present it is unnatural. The only natural link exchange that isn’t part of a cross-promotional business model (which the SEO definition of link exchange never seems to include) is the implicit agreement that occurs when two site owners or webmasters provide links to each other at separate occasions within a natural context because each believes the other may be of some use. This doesn’t involve software, or “EDITOR BASED LINK EXCHANGE”, or “full duplex link exchange”, or any other silly term you may make up or borrow from someone else who made it up to try and rationalize an unnatural web behavior. It just involves two people who each believe the other’s resource to be of some use and has nothing whatsoever to do with SEO…nor should it.

This isn’t “FUD” (by the way, anyone ever noticed that only the blackhats use this abbreviation?) This isn’t speculation, either. Anyone who has removed a link exchange page (even an “EDITOR BASED LINK EXCHANGE” page) and seen vanished rankings restored overnight can tell you that. This is a really simple concept that people like you have turned around and completely distorted.

If something is useful as a resource to your end users, link out to it. If you get a link back from it, great. If you don’t, you’re still helping your end users and that’s supposed to be the primary goal.

And by the way…organic IBLs can be subject to spikes. Different content spreads differently throughout the web, and some things catch on quickly for human reasons. Ask IncrediBILL about that sometime. He’s got a terrific example of it.

Link exchange is a silly idea propagated by offerors of silly products and services to a populace that hasn’t yet learned how to read political language vs. actual substance.

With all due respect — WHAT?!

Matt Cutts’ site, by the very nature of his involvement with Google get an ENORMOUS amount of link-backs. This blog, by its existence, IS linkbait. Check these stats for mattcuts.com/blog/ :

PageRank = 7 (to put that into perspective, GE.com has a 7 too! Digg.com has an 8, TomCruise.com has a 4 — Matt is more important than Tom Cruise, and just as important as General Electric! At least as far as Google is concerned…)

Links pointing to his domain = 436,404 (he’s a Link Monster)

Links from Technorati Alone = 16,519 (he’s a verifiable Blogosphere Darling)

Links from del.icio.us = 2,544 (he’s a Bookmark Bastion)

Links from Wikipedia = 43 (he’s Wiki Sasquatch)

Matt Cutts has what amounts to a major brand name… Matt Cutts, Inc. A true celebrity in Webmaster/Search Industry circles.

And by his appearances at major conferences & tech shows (SMX, etc.) he is marketing his personal brand quite well…

If you’re a startup or small business, and you want the sort of power/traffic that Matt Cutts, Inc. has…this is the sort of publicity you can only achieve by “knowing the right people”, and/or by spending millions in Venture Capital on advertising & marketing.

Yes, he’s grown his site by publishing a lot of content that a lot of people want to pick apart like a riddle — looking for a few nuggets of info that will give them some sort of insight into the Great Black Box that is Google. But even if half of his posts per year were just photo collages of cats, he’d still be Bigger Than Tom on the Net.

In principle, for the most part, I agree with the “publish great content and they will come” idea.

However, you will NEVER achieve the sort of PageRank & notoriety that Matt has by content alone. The Net is simply too big, and audiences too fragmented. You need to be a celebrity to achieve what Matt Cutts, Inc. has.

If people keep it simple and network their business as they would offline, results will follow.

I agree with Rick Trethewey though that even localised search terms can be hard to rank for though these days – maybe more needs to be done in the algorithm to allow the smaller, less ’seo savvy’ business owners fight off the national brokers, agents, directories etc whom seem to rank above the small guys for even the most local of search terms.

Doug, there are so many data management challenges when it comes to sorting out over a dozen link acquisition methods that we support. Our software was designed pre-Google to take the sting out of dealing with link requests, and the challenges of managing actively publshed exit resources in a variety of publishing models. Contact me directly if you would like to discuss.

I just think that as more time passes and as more and more businesses are established online, spiders need to keep up and understand that there is more to a website than a backlink. More weight needs to be put on original content. A LOT MORE. It takes a minute to get a link but it takes a lot of effort to come up with a page of content. And even if you get thousands of links, there’s always a quick, black hat way to do it. On the other hand, original, fresh content still is created the old-fashioned way.

Just because a website is established a while back doesn’t mean that it’s the best one out there. In fact, many established websites have stopped trying because they make money anyway because they’re on top of Google.

You wrote this:

“I simply wanted to explain that no matter what software you use to manage link building, make sure it doesn’t force you to link to any site willy nilly without editorial discretion. When editorial discretion is maintained, a natural link acquisition rate occurs.”

Why would someone need to “manage” links in the first place? That’s the main question I do not understand and I’ve been at this longer than most. If a link IS natural, no need to manage it, right? The only times I know of when someone might need to manage links is if it’s an exchange and you are concerned the other link will stop linking back to you. If a link IS natural, you don’t have that concern in the first place as you are linking to another site because of your visitors and not because of a search engine.

I doubt it makes a difference how you answer my questions Joel. I feel link companies like you are the biggest prob we all have for new webmasters and new site owners. They get confused about what the definition of “natural” really is since there are link manager things out there, which taken all by itself is just not natural at all. Do you see?