<snip>
Does anybody know if my approach is helping me or hurting me?
Should I be trying to ensure all inbound links are to my home page?
</snip>
I would say that your approach is neutral in its effectiveness.
It depends on what you see as conversion. If conversion for
you is newsletter subs then yes keep them coming to that page
why take the chance that the user doesn't find it. Also consider
that PR is complicated in that you can pass PR internally through
link structure. All pages linked to from the page are passed some
PR whether the link is internal or external.
Internal cross linking of related pages is extremely useful and
helps engines to learn what your site is about!
Trying to force all links to certain pages on the site is near
impossible if you have a good site with quality content. Many
sites don't even tell you they linked to you. These IMHO, are of
more value then reciprocal links because you aren't passing any
PR. No matter how good your content is if you told me I had to link
to your home page it would be totally contrary to my policy for
linking. I believe links are about user experience and making them
look for what I found worthy is a negative. If you have other good
info I will tell the user to have a look around the site if they have
the time.
Links should be based on user experience and not PR. I don't care
if you have PR10 and are willing to link to me if I link to you. If I
see nothing of value to my user no link will be added. Conversely
if you have PR2 and good info useful to my users then I don't
even care if you reciprocate. This also sets my pages apart
from all those who use PR and other nonsense in the decision.
I have good links that others either don't want or don't know
about. IMHO, that means users will not see my links as just
the usual stuff.
What is Pr1 today could be PR10 in a years time. If you come back
looking for a link if the guy is smart he is going to tell you to take
a hike! As the postee below mentioned linking was a promotion
strategy before Google so it does have benefits other than as part
of an optimization campaign. In fact, IMHO, if you are using the
strategy only for SE optimization then it is less effective and full
benefits aren't going to be accrued.
<snip>
When you think about it, it is next to impossible for Google to
determine if links are placed on a site due to an aggressive but
proper link request campaign or via unsolicited beneficial
placement, without undermining their basic premise that links are,
for the most part, a good indicator of a site's "value".
</snip>
Perhaps, but Google Bombs and overly aggressive linking campaigns
definitely leave "real clues". Google IMHO, changed its algo and
link analysis to stop the Google bombs and what I call "link
conspiracy". The clues they leave are too many closed loops of
links. If a high % of links to your site are reciprocal then that is
a clue to the degree of link conspiracy. Further, if these are
unrelated sites then you are leaving yet another clue to a
conspiracy.
Another clue is the amount of external links to internal pages. If
all or most of the links are to the home page then a large number
of links becomes suspect. If the site is so important why are so
many of the links pointed at the home page and not specific info?
Most home pages main function is navigation and explaining what
the site has to offer. So this is another possible indicator of
conspiracy.
Just prior to and after the most recent Google Dance I have seen
PR drop across the board. Further when you look at the sites linked
to they have often also experienced the same PR drop. Coincidence
or has Google started to weed out link conspiracy and unrelated
links?
When almost all discussion on Google optimization keys on links and
not content optimization and development it is time to make some
adjustments. IMHO, the change to the algo has begun and it will
become more evident with each new refresh. In short if you are
seeing PR drop it may continue dropping.
In my case many are clients that are linked to my business site.
These sites are unrelated by content the relationship has no value
to most users. SEOs who are forcing or "encouraging" clients
to link to them are quite possibly hurting themselves and their
clients. One clue to this is its specific mention in the Google
webmaster Guidelines.
The last two dances have definitely shown there has been a major
change to the algo. IMHO, that change has something to do with
link conspiracy, linking as a reward, forced links for use of a service
or inclusion and unrelated links. These all to some degree are similar
to known PR killers ie: affiliate links, FFA and link farms. In other
words if there is reason for a link beyond the content quality, IMHO,
it is penalized and is a drain on overall PR. I have looked at several
factors to determine the new algo and all I've seen and buzz on the
forums seems to point to a change in the link analysis algo.
Believing as Dirk mentioned above that this can't be determined is
just not being realistic about the link analysis capabilities of Google
and engines such as Teoma where link analysis is important to how
they determine relevancy. If Dirk is correct Google wouldn't have
been able to control Google Bombs the way it seems to have.
Many will disagree with my theory, but IMHO, they are whistlin'
while passin' the graveyard! Some sites will experience lowering
of PR, others may just see a drop in ranking with no change
to PR. But the Google SERPs I'm most familiar with and have been
watching for years all indicate it isn't optimization in nature but
seems to be tied to link analysis. It has been a while since I've
been unable to quickly pick up and make changes to my Google
optimization techniques.
This had me stumped for over a month before I felt confident
enough to mention what I think is the reason for the recent drops
or gains on Google. I've never seen an algo change that changed
the SERPs so much without dropping some sites entirely. It's also
the first time I've seen a change that wasn't easily reversed with
adjustments to optimization techniques. Further, it is the first time
an algo change has dropped me far enough in the SERPs to
concern me. Usually the sites I work on rise not drop with a change
in the algo because usually they are spam related.
