i want to link my hubs to a blog and then to link the blog back to my hubs
do you use this approach?
is this a good way to get more traffic for both sites?
No harm in trying! The more links to your work, the better!
apparently they cancel each other out, so going mostly/all one direction would be better
No. They don't cancel each other out completely, but they are devalued.
One way links are always best. Choose one - Hub to blog or blog to Hub - not both.
One way links are more valuable from what I have learned.
You can point a bunch of hubs at one location, but that location shouldn't be pointed back to your hub. It should be pointed somewhere else, which could or could not be pointed back to your hubs.
The object is to create a wheel type approach. Pick something to be the centered of attention and build one way links outward.
I hope that helps.
Be careful of reciprocal links - in most cases the incoming link simply balances out the outgoing one and isn't of any additional value...
Reciprocal links that I have on my website all show up in Backlink checker and I think they are of value if you share banners with other sites willing to exchange because people will see this when browsing the other persons site..not much point using your own blog for reciprocals though
How about HubA links to blog and blog links to HubB and hubB links to HubA?
Are these 2-way links?
@Sunseven - are you sure about that? I'm not, but I think the different page links may not be viewed as completely as reciprocal as they would if they were directly pointing back and forth to each other.
Again - only speculating, not declaring - but I see it this way:
your site.com has ten content pages - if you write ten hubs that all point to yoursite.com, and then yoursite.com links back to your hubs - that's reciprocal and those ten links to yoursite.com would only count as 1 link from HP.com - and then would also be less valued because they were reciprocal.
But, if each hub linked to a specific yoursite.com content page, then each yoursite.com would have a incoming link credit, plus if as mentioned - Page A linked back to Hub B, (instead of incoming Hub a link ), I'm not sure that would be seen as reciprocal by Google - it's sort of an internal link wheel.
But the snag in that concept is ensuring related content links.
Anyway - That's only my perception, not definitive, and perhaps wrong. But I hope not because I am putting a lot of effort into that strategy across several Big-Domain platforms
I reiterate my post above.
No hard feelings, may be its my belief against your knowledge.
If Hub A was a website, and Hub B was a website, and Hub C was a website etc - then you would be right. But Hubs are not separate websites - they are all part of the same website - so Sunseven is right.
So, to get a valid link to a domain I must always use separate domains?? Thats a steep ask seeing that there are only so many web 2.0 publishers.
Well, this turned out to be one of those "black-hole" issues that once you start researching just seems to draw you in deeper and deeper, sucking you down more information link-trails than you intended when you started
But my discovery was this... (purely a conclusive opinion - not authoritative expert advice)
1. Since the search engines aren't talking - ALL the information presented was assumptive conclusions. Some by experts that are knowledgeable, but most by "experts" that aren't!
2. Some of the conclusions were assumptions based on actual data-mining research and extensive testing, but most wasn't. Most search results were just the experts-that-aren't rehashing what they assume is "common knowledge" and putting it out as their expert opinions and "inside" information. Baloney!
Ended up spending a few hours, (about 5 hours Net' reading since yesterday's Sun Seven response),and a couple hours reading Matt Cutts, (Google guy) blog archives to try to glean some idea of who's right.
Remember, I said this was just my own conclusions from what I found, - NOT an definitive expert opinion!
1. reciprocal links are not necessarily bad, or automatically devalued, or cancel each other out. Google seems to place a LOT of weight on content relevancy.
But, the definitions of BAD reciprocal linkage was almost universal:
1. Unrelated content reciprocal linkage ie. bible selling site and sex site linking
2.Blog roll lists - link relevancy could be a moderating factor, but it appears Google's algo doesn't highly value long lists of links, and could be worse than just devalued links, it could hurt the site's authority rating
3."Resource" pages, (pages of nothing but links) Generally viewed as a negative impact to a site IF content linkage was not relevant AND linkage was reciprocal
4.and of course; link farms, buying links, and that kind of stuff
My conclusion - reciprocal links can be a good beneficial tactic if the result will also benefit the reader and not just the the sites linked.
Multiple links from domain to domain
This one was a little murkier, and harder to find definitive clues, but, again, relying on info from Matt Cutts;
The point being - it appears webpage link addresses are first consideration in the algo, and domain link address is secondary - AS LONG AS THE DOMAIN LINK ISN'T ALREADY A KNOWN "BAD" NEIGHBORHOOD LINK.
Again from Matt's own posts, examples of article directories, like ezine, (although Matt did not mention any specific ones), were referenced as legitimate links to site content pages, also again, AS LONG AS IT WAS RELEVANT RELATED CONTENT. Google's new algo seems to be heavily tilted to evaluating link relevancy in relation to the actions or flags it attributes to links.
I said it was murky, but it appears that multiple links from one domain's pages to another domain's pages, (but not all to the same page) would count as individual links to each page, affecting the pages ranks individually, but NOT accumulating as multiple link juice to the domain link itself.
The cumulative benefit seems to be what the individual page rank increases could to for the domain link, not the links feeding benefit directly to the domain link.
Whew! Sorry for such a long post, and you folks that are much more experienced or knowledgeable than myself can shred my logic on this, but I think I will stand with my original opinion about reciprocal links to different webpage link addresses.
was having connection problems when I saved this post.
It was fine in preview - but when I just re-read it - 2 whole paragraphs referencing sources for
"1. reciprocal links are not necessarily bad, or automatically devalued, or cancel each other out. Google seems to place a LOT of weight on content relevancy. "
were not saved. Bummer!
but to try to restate them:
That conclusion was based on Matt Cutts posts that detailed how Google's algo "flagged" link value based more on relevancy than a cut-and-dried "is it one-way or not" evaluation.
He referenced a couple SEO articles concerning that, (I hope it is safe to assume he would not reference authors he did not trust or agree with), that spoke of the benefits of "good" reciprocal links be judged as natural editorial links in Google's mind.
or something like that - I was disappointed that my original post did not show this because it looked as if my conclusion was just a broad statement based on my perception alone.
Gus, your original post and this one are terrific, and it's great to see someone doing their research. I wish more Hubbers would realise that writing online is more than just writing - there's a huge amount to learn.
Your post was really useful to me, because I've never seen the whole thing summarised in one place before, so it helped crystallize things in my mind.
You are absolutely right, practically everything about SEO is pure guesswork - educated guesswork, but still guesswork! Unless Google reveals its algorithm - which it's not going to - how could it be anything else?
Your post does confirm what I already knew - exchanging links in a sidebar or a links page is useless. I'd say it's even debatable if you're using a RSS feed or a links capsule in your Hub, to link to your site - because when Google talks about "natural" links, they usually mean contextual links (links in the body of an article).
It's long been advised that contextual links are the most desirable. What you've added to the conversation here, is evidence that they are still valuable even if they're reciprocal. Good to know!
What about links here on HP? Links between hubs - if I write a hub on, say, UFO's, can I link several of them together? Such as list subtopics on the general UFO hub, then link them to one another?
I've always done this but now am not sure if that's the way to go.
Hey Dolores, I am not aware that two-way links within the same domain hurt. I could be wrong, but I've not heard of anyone saying that they are of less value.
There is so much information here I am reading and rereading this and following this thread.. I just would like to say thanks to all those who have contributed here some of my doubts have been cleared.
by Dorsi Diaz4 years ago
I am working on one of my new websites - and I want to link back to my hubs here. How many times is this OK to do on a website page before it is overkill?
by Writer Fox2 years ago
To everyone who is using the Disavowal Link Tool on Google and/or has had a loss of traffic, be sure to remove any articles you have on EzineArticles and any other article sites you may have used to post links to your...
by Pandoras Box6 years ago
I read somewhere before that what you do is create several different pages on the same topic on several different sites, linking them all in a big circle. Never made sense to me. But now I think I understand that the...
by GlendaGoodWitch2 years ago
Is there a way to restore our traffic after this Panda update?
by wytegarillaz6 years ago
Has anyone paid for these backlinks at all and had benefits from them ?I keep seeing the advert so thought I would ask.Thanks
by Paul Goodman5 years ago
Article for discussion. I know that this recent development has already been mentioned by some hubbers in forums. But I am now wondering if this might be the main reason why we are seeing the current traffic...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.