Comments on: Link Building Structures: Hunters and Collectors http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:19:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Drabdesign http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/comment-page-1/#comment-934236 Drabdesign Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:30:42 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/#comment-934236 I like things that get me thinking and this page has. Love the graphics and glad I have found your site. As to your last comment, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Thanks I like things that get me thinking and this page has. Love the graphics and glad I have found your site.

As to your last comment, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Thanks

]]> By: Raj Dash http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/comment-page-1/#comment-460891 Raj Dash Wed, 09 May 2007 15:54:46 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/#comment-460891 @Ken: Because if these sites never link out, then it's a clique. Google, I believe, wants to promote more connected graphs (the0retical). It helps them to index sites. Linking out is a sort of human filtering for them, and supposedly gives a vote of relevance to a linked to site, other factors considered. Lack of new outbound links doesn't add to the process. And who knows what algorithm changes are queued for the future :) @Ken: Because if these sites never link out, then it’s a clique. Google, I believe, wants to promote more connected graphs (the0retical). It helps them to index sites. Linking out is a sort of human filtering for them, and supposedly gives a vote of relevance to a linked to site, other factors considered. Lack of new outbound links doesn’t add to the process. And who knows what algorithm changes are queued for the future :)

]]> By: Ken Savage http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/comment-page-1/#comment-460875 Ken Savage Wed, 09 May 2007 15:34:16 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/#comment-460875 What's wrong with 5 or 6 sites that know each other's comments that link to each other almost exclusively? What’s wrong with 5 or 6 sites that know each other’s comments that link to each other almost exclusively?

]]> By: Raj Dash http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/comment-page-1/#comment-447281 Raj Dash Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:39:42 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/#comment-447281 SEOs are probably like doctors or scientists in that they disagree with each other at times. I've believe I've read - though my memory fails - that bi-directional hubs are not of much value, and that's better to send traffic in a particular direction. I supposed it depends on how you plan to use the "hunter and collector" sites and their traffic. SEOs are probably like doctors or scientists in that they disagree with each other at times. I’ve believe I’ve read – though my memory fails – that bi-directional hubs are not of much value, and that’s better to send traffic in a particular direction.

I supposed it depends on how you plan to use the “hunter and collector” sites and their traffic.

]]> By: Raj Dash http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/comment-page-1/#comment-447279 Raj Dash Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:36:25 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/#comment-447279 @Michael: Okay, I wasn't aware that link farms had fully-connected graphs. I was under the impression that that wasn't necessarily the case. My terminology is by no means official, but tends towards graph theory in general. I didn't use pure SEO terms because I'm discussing generalities. By "clique" I mean a "network" of fully connected sites. I.e., each hyperlinked to another. That may or may not mean a link farm, especially since a blog network falls under the legitmate use of this graph structure. But a topical clique, where every site covers the same topic and is connected to every other site in the group, leans more towards being a link farm. Hence why I didn't use that terminology @Michael: Okay, I wasn’t aware that link farms had fully-connected graphs. I was under the impression that that wasn’t necessarily the case. My terminology is by no means official, but tends towards graph theory in general. I didn’t use pure SEO terms because I’m discussing generalities.

By “clique” I mean a “network” of fully connected sites. I.e., each hyperlinked to another. That may or may not mean a link farm, especially since a blog network falls under the legitmate use of this graph structure.

But a topical clique, where every site covers the same topic and is connected to every other site in the group, leans more towards being a link farm. Hence why I didn’t use that terminology

]]> By: Michael Martinez http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/comment-page-1/#comment-447254 Michael Martinez Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:55:40 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/link-building-structures-hunters-and-collectors/4726/#comment-447254 What you call a "clique network" (a term used in academic literature) has been known as a "link farm" since around 2000 in the SEO industry. However, link farms are only one type of clique network, but many people will quickly recognize the model. The stigma associated with link farming makes clique networks in general less attractive to the SEO community. A bi-directional hub offers SEO value in that it helps ensure an equal, improved chance of crawling for all node sites. A unidirectional hub offers less opportunity for crawling unless it is well-linked from other points on the Web. Given a choice between a unidirectional hub with no inbound links and a bi-directional hub with 1 or more node points, the bi-directional hub offers greater SEO value. Given a choice between two hubs regardless of whether either is bi-directional or unidirectional, the hub with more value-passing inbound linkage offers the greater SEO value. What you call a “clique network” (a term used in academic literature) has been known as a “link farm” since around 2000 in the SEO industry.

However, link farms are only one type of clique network, but many people will quickly recognize the model. The stigma associated with link farming makes clique networks in general less attractive to the SEO community.

A bi-directional hub offers SEO value in that it helps ensure an equal, improved chance of crawling for all node sites. A unidirectional hub offers less opportunity for crawling unless it is well-linked from other points on the Web.

Given a choice between a unidirectional hub with no inbound links and a bi-directional hub with 1 or more node points, the bi-directional hub offers greater SEO value.

Given a choice between two hubs regardless of whether either is bi-directional or unidirectional, the hub with more value-passing inbound linkage offers the greater SEO value.

]]>