'Ethical' SEO? - alt.internet.search-engines

Message from discussion 'Ethical' SEO?

SEO Dave

View profile

More options 8 Nov 2004, 02:55

Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines

From: SEO Dave <seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk>

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:55:52 GMT

Local: Mon 8 Nov 2004 02:55

Subject: Re: 'Ethical' SEO?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward | Print | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message | Find messages by this author
  

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:18:17 GMT, from_...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:17:18 GMT, SEO Dave
><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

>>If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm
>>who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their
>>SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this
>>arrangement, then I don't see a problem.

>Say I design a site for someone and I state upfront that in exhange
>for my services I will place a link on the site's pages I worked on
>[no discount]. I look at the footer of some sites I come across that I
>like the layout/design of - to see who did the work. I sort of expect
>to see it if the site owner had someone else do the site design for
>them.

The link per se isn't the problem, it's the fact an SEO is taking
advantage of a clients site knowing it will hurt the clients site.
They are hired to help, not take advantage.

Most web site designers know nothing about SEO, so like you say their
link is there for advertising reasons not PR. If an SEO argues it's
there for advertising only they are either BSing or not very good at
SEO. Either way you should steer clear of SEOs who expect a link.

>Part of the deal as far as I am concerned - just like the phone
>number listed on a billboard of the company to contact if you too want
>to advertise on a billboard.

Not really the same. The billboard is not owned by the advertiser,
when a SEO or site designer creates a site for a client, it's the
clients site. Also the number on the billboard is not going to reduce
the effectiveness of the ad.

>So if I put my link there - it is there _not_ for the oh-so-precious
>PR but to let others, visiting that site, who did the site design and
>maybe consider contacting me for the same services.

Why would anyone have a problem with the above (assuming the client is
happy with the link of course)?

It's the intent that's the problem here. A small footer link at the
bottom of every page to Billy Bob's Web Design like the phone number
on a billboard will not reduce the effectiveness of the site when a
visitor is viewing. So a site designer adding a link will believe the
link will not do any harm. SEOs know it will, so shouldn't do it.

Of course it doesn't matter if it's a SEOs link or a web designers
link, both will hurt the clients sites SERPs.

>No, I won't go into the following:

>>I want to put a link to our
>>unrelated SEO site on every page, oh and BTW it's going to reduce the
>>over all PR of your site and so you will most likely not do as well in
>>the search engines compared to had we not added the links!

>Why? Because it sounds way overly-dramatic.

It may sound overly dramatic, but it isn't.

1. The reality is every link from a site reduces that sites PR, that's
a fact that can't be argued.

2. If the link has no relevance to the sites content the anchor text
will not benefit any page on the site. i.e. If you sell shoes and link
to a site with anchor text "SEO Firm", that anchor text will not help
the pages shoe SERPs. A similar link to another shoe site (could be to
a competitor) with anchor text "Shoes for Sale" will help any page on
the site with SERPs related to Shoes for Sale (you still loose PR).

3. By adding unrelated links to a page you will impact keyword density
etc...

4. The anchor text of links on a page are given more weight than
standard body text. By linking to a unrelated site some of that
benefit will not go to the other presumably targeted anchor text on
the page.

Every link, every word you add to a page will have an impact on the
pages SERPs and in the case of links the sites SERPs. SEOs should know
this and so should know adding a link to their site is not in the best
interests of the clients site.

>If it is ok to share or sell link space to unrelated site, then it is
>ok to share links to an unrelated site. 'Nuff said.

The two aren't comparable. When a site sells links they receive a
benefit, money. What benefit does the client receive when a SEO links
from their site to their SEO business site?

If it's a agreed that the client will receive a discount for a link I
don't see a problem as long as it's explained.

>Doesn't matter if
>that unrelated site is an SEO company or nursery rhyme site - it's a
>link and likely one that the person, who owns the site, can _see_ is
>there on the page since it is visible in the footer.

If they have hired a SEO they probably don't know it's most likely
going to reduce their SERPs.

>Greatly reduce the overall PR of a site? Please. I seriously doubt
>_one_ link, with an anchor text of 4 to 5 words maybe, even site wide
>will "greatly reduce the overall PR of a site". I am looking at my own
>sites, where I share an unrelated footer link site wide, and I don't
>se how or where it held me back any by sharing it there.

>If it was 10 links or 20 or so, and less than 5% reciprocated, then I
>would see how the "PR Drain" argument could be applied ... but _one_,
>to someone who helped them with their site [design, seo, whatever], is
>going to just suck the PR right out of that site? Doubt it.

The amount of PR lost depends upon the number of links per page. To
give you two extremes

If the home page currently has 2 links from it and you add 1 more (to
a SEO site) you've just sent ~33% of your PR away and the original two
pages receive ~17% less PR.

If the home page currently has 99 links from it and you add 1 more (to
a SEO site) you've just sent ~1% of your PR away (big deal).

I think it's not unusual to see a site with a dozen links per page. So
we could say for an average site one extra link takes ~8% of the sites
PR.

I consider 8% significant. And that's just thinking in terms of PR,
what about the other points I made.

BTW anyone noticed that sites that sell links tend to have a lot of
internal links on every page. They understand that if they bulk up the
number of links per page, the amount of PR sent out to paid links can
be minimised. A client contacted me the other day about buying PR9
links from a site. Turned out that due to the number of links from the
PR9 page the link would of been worth about the same as a PR7 link
from a page with about 10 links from it!

Which would you pay more for a PR9 link from a page with 200 links
from it or a PR7 link with 5 links from it?

>Particularly since I didn't see ONE post sharing that thought when
>someone, last week, posted a request for wanting to pay for site-wide
>links from PR4 or above sites. Not one person - not even you - posted
>about sites that would carry would site-side link would suffer a PR
>drain and not do as well in search engines due to the link being
>'unrelated'.

Why would I, he offered money a reasonable replacement for the loss of
SERPs. BTW I wasn't interested in selling him site wide links, just
wanted to know how much he would pay. Never did get an answer :-(

>Instead I bet the person had some people contacting him
>saying "sure, you can share your link[s] on my site - how much will
>you pay me?"

Exactly.

>Times in the past I have mentioned about themed links
>[related to content] I seem to recall there were a some folks happy to
>chime in a thought about "a link is a link - themed or not" or that
>there wasn't any felt proof that Google or Yahoo cared about themed
>links.

A link is a link for PR purposes and though I don't think search
engines are at the stage of really theming sites, it's not hard to see
adding unrelated links from your site will not help your SERPs and
adding related links might.

There will be a balance where the keyword rich anchor text of the out
going link works out better (in terms of improved SERPs) than the PR
saved by not adding the link to an external site. but you can't use
this argument for unrelated links since there is no benefit from the
anchor text.

>Granted on Google - and only on Google - I may get some PR flow as a
>result; depends though on how many links the person has on that page
>on if I will benefit just a little bit. Whereas a link from my site,
>from a page with links to folks' sites I worked on, may not have a lot
>of links shared on it ... so I will flow some of that PR right back to
>them.

I'm not talking about your linking practices, but if I was it seems a
fair exchange for a link like the above.

>So shucks - if unrelated site links harms sites - then I would
>be harming myself more by sharing all them unrelated links to sites I
>worked on, huh?

Yes. Though you benefit by giving your clients site a boost in their
SERPs, which means more people see your work and so are more likely to
click on that footer link and hire you.

It's not a penalty we are talking about, it's a lack of benefit. If
Google linked to your site from their PR10 home page you would get an
amazing boost to every page on your site. You don't get the boost
because Google doesn't link to you, but it's not a penalty.

By adding unrelated links to a page you are reducing the potential of
that page. By how much depends on various factors as mentioned
earlier.

>And yes, I will get some backlinks as a rsult of that footer link. But
>I would get some backlinks if I paid Joe Blow to have my link listed
>site-wide. Only with the former, I had to work and satisfy the person
>with my work before I got to share that link. Otherwise it wouldn't be
>there. So in a way - I had to work on _earning_ that link.

Let me ask you a question. If I can convince you adding a link to your
site from a clients site will harm the clients site, do you think it's
an ethical business practice to add the link anyway and charge the
client?

I'm assuming you don't want to harm your clients chances of gaining
relevant search engine traffic and based on your response you didn't
realise the possible harm.

There are solutions to this problem. For example you could javascript
the link, 90% of visitors will see the link and so you get your
advert, but Google won't treat it as a link.

>Sorry, but if the OP had not mentioned about the footer link being to
>an SEO company - I doubt anyone would found fault with it. I find it
>humorous that _just because_ it is an SEO firm's link,and one that
>worked on the site, that all of the sudden it is a wholly different
>story and draining the sites of PR and not having them do as well in
>search engines.

What I'm saying is SEOs (only SEOs since they should know better) who
link to their sites from their clients sites (with the provisos
mentioned before) are prepared to harm their clients sites to give
their own sites a boost.

Web designers are unlikely to understand this and so their intent is
advertising, not SERPs.

>*yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*

LOL Well I've enjoyed the discussion, hadn't thought it through in so
much detail before now. I've always known adding a link to my sites
from my clients sites would hurt their sites, so haven't considered
doing it, so not needed to think it out in great detail before.

>Carol

David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/

Reply to author Forward