Page 3 - The Evil of SiteWide Links Test

if site wide links only count as one link then it shouldnt make a difference. ;)

they dont count as one link, they just dont count as being so powerful since its fromt he same domain

LOL I love this banter. Sitewide links just dilute the link it self. Also when google see so many new links in triggers a filter so that you dont get credit for all the links. This ensures a normal link building pattern.

sorry i disagree....because ive tested this personally on several of my websites and sitewide links not only help my SERPS...but bring better traffic to my site

Here is my 2 cents on this topic... Accessive sitewide cross linking between domains is a great way to get de-indexed in Yahoo and I am sure Google and MSN will follow. Sitewide links without return sitewides I don't believe will cause a site to be de-indexed. IMO

Glengara none of them turned up there.

A couple of my other sites did but i have walled of those sites intentionally to run this test.

I try and run differing strategies on all of my sites because i dont want to look like i am trying to network sites to occupy seveal of the top spots.

In fact even the domains are registered all over the place with different names.

Having many sites in the same market can be very beneficial but also very dangerous unless you use differing techniques. Bearing that in mind i have always followed this general strategy.

Cheers,

BB

Hmm all i can tell ya is i got bombed in all 3 but msn and google started to recover 3 days after i had removed the sitewides.

The msn algorithm seams to be VERY sensitive to linkage at the moment i have tracked 3 of my closest competitors rise to the 2nd page or so on the main money phrase only to see them bombed 1 month or so ago.

So i checked their linkage in yahoo and msn guess what ... they had new sitewides chached 5 weeks ago

Does this settle the matter ??

Maybe not but well i will draw my conclusions as we all must in this game.

Cheers,

BB

OK

So there is a disagreement on this issue. I am dilibrately trying to see if I can get one of my test URL's out of the rankings by doing this and another into the rankings by doing this. Both URL's have no other changes done to it. To see if this will damage or not.

This still doesn't make sense to me that the SE's will actually allow such a big gap for BH's to hit sites. But I must say that my sites that does have allot of Site wides have been dropped on all SE's. However there are to many changes involved on them which allows for other factors to have played a role! So I'll run a clean experiment to test.

Good work Chat,

If two test show the same results we have a more conclusive data set to work with.

Cheers,

BB

P.s. it took approx 3 days after deepcrawls for this to happen.

Clairify something for me please... Are we talking sitewide links or sitewide cross linking between domains?

OK,

I have run IBP on accross all SE's globally and closed of my ranking report for the sites involved. I have also closed my stats for the traffic and sources of traffic for these sites. I have been deep crawled last night (my time) so now it is sit back and wait! The sites involved only had about 50 backlinks and were competing very well on some competitive keywords on MSN, YAHOO and Google. The amount of site wide links added is just over 200. I feel it is safe to say the experiment is small enough that it shouldn't trigger any filters. Any opinions about it out there? Did I perhaps miss something?

Can i just add to this thread that all of the sites that had previously bombed in msn are now in the top 30 with 2 on the first page.

Cheers,

BB

Broker Boy,

So does this mean that MSN seem to be fine with the Site wide links?

Anyway just to give some feedback, in all the SE's there has been evry slight fluctuation to both positive and negative, but nothing major happening yet.

No chat they bombed when the sitewides were spidered and have recovered after they were taken down.

cheers,

bb

Did you tank for only KWs in site-wide anchor, or across the board even for secondary KWs that did not appear in anchor?

/*tom*/