Linking from a site you own to a site you own, good or bad?

[ARZ]

Sites with same content, just translated to another languages should be linked via hreflang. Google will take it loke some help from your side to get him understand your project.

 

[pokersidor]

I think it's ok to link from site X to site Y. When I do my competitor research, I see the same guy/girl/company over and over. Not at all only two sites, and they seem to be doing ok. So two sites should be no problem.

 

[Ermin]

I have no problem with this. As i see it what does it matter if you own 2 websites , if they both are "good" and relevant then linking them would actually be helpfull and good.

 

[PROFRBcom]

But Whois privacy is a negative SEO signal.

What makes you say this? Is there any proof somewhere? I've never heard this before.

 

[ARZ]

I´ve heard something like this (negative SEO for privacy domains) as well, but did not see actual proof. But it can be true, when google likes so much transparency as possible.

 

[Ermin]

I think its wiered to think this is bad? I mean a world where all sites just link out to others and there is never a site that links back to same sites? if i newspapper writes about a great dog site and links, and later the dog sites finds an intresting dog article on same newspapper and then links to this, isnt that the natural way of creating value on internet? When i say i have no problem with this first of like ARZ says im transparent i never hide anything i do or have 5000 diffrent ip adresses and so on. Then when i create sites i create good sites i hope brings value. So if 2 good sites link to eachother i se it as two good friends in same biz that both know what they do , are reliable and therefor they together get a better reputation. I think the point is seen from diffrent anagels becouse some se this as a seo tactic and others like creating value. i can not actually prove that this is making some of my sites ranking better since there is much more then just this to it but what i do know for sure is that it never hurt my sites.

 

[Guard Dog]

Well, unfortunately Google rules this roost now Originally the internet was designed for this exact purpose... to allow interlinking in the same way a brain works to allow people access to content and details of a topic quickly, easily. With Google - they keep trying to 'fix' their algorithm because people are trying to 'rule' their algorithm. So - it is a never ending battle and the original purpose for the internet has gone by the wayside.

 

[hcgroup]

What's the best way to link from one site say x.com to y.com if I own both sites?

They have different IPs and are hosted in separate accounts, however the whois is the same owner.

One is a 'non-trading individual' and the other a company but both have my name.

Just don't want to upset Google.

Any ideas?

Only different IPs would be enough though. No need to keep the sites on separate hosting companies

 

[hcgroup]

I also have a link on a Wikipedia page to one of my websites. To be honest I don't notice that much of it, but it certainly wouldn't hurt

How did you get a link from Wikipedia to your site? By being editor I think. Right?

 

[Casinoer Danmark]

How did you get a link from Wikipedia to your site? By being editor I think. Right?

Just google "how to edit wikipedia"

But what you have to keep in mind when editing for gambling is that the community will fuck you and your article up if you are adding a link to your (affiliate) website. They are super strict on this.

I edited a casino/sportsbook brand once and within 30 minutes the article had 400 editors before being published. Adding an article and/or a link is not anything you do over a night. You have to build up trust in the community and bit by bit slip in information. There are guides floating around out there of how to deceive/best practices the Wikipedia community.

Good luck!

 

[hcgroup]

Just google "how to edit wikipedia"

But what you have to keep in mind when editing for gambling is that the community will fuck you and your article up if you are adding a link to your (affiliate) website. They are super strict on this.

I edited a casino/sportsbook brand once and within 30 minutes the article had 400 editors before being published. Adding an article and/or a link is not anything you do over a night. You have to build up trust in the community and bit by bit slip in information. There are guides floating around out there of how to deceive/best practices the Wikipedia community.

Good luck!

I see. Thanks a lot for the detailed instructions. And have you seen the effect highly and rapidly after having the link?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Casinoer Danmark]

Unfortunately I cannot answer this. We were building so many links it was difficult to keep track of that...

There are many other purposes of why you are adding a Wikipedia page for a brand than the presumptive ranking factors for the linked website. We did it for taking back branded SERP positions from affiliates and increasing trust by having a large descriptive knowledge graph box.

 

[PROFRBcom]

How did you get a link from Wikipedia to your site? By being editor I think. Right?

Editing in links to gambling sites is incredibly difficult in Wikipedia. As the other person said, you need to build up trust in the editing community first. And even then, your links could easily be removed the next day, or months later by a more senior editor. Other editors can put your links in and if you write incredibly good content, you may end up getting a natural backlink without any work whatsoever... however, typically only a very informative news or data only article would be eligible for a Wikipedia backlink.

The more sales and popups and shit you have on your website, the less likely you will ever be to get a Wikipedia link or to make a Wikipedia link stick. I've got a small number of Wikipedia links, but they are certainly not to money pages. They are to high quality information pages. And we don't push sales on said pages so as to keep the links in place.

I see. Thanks a lot for the detailed instructions. And have you seen the effect highly and rapidly after having the link?

A Wikipedia link isn't going to instantly make your site super valuable and double your search traffic. Hell, in fact, the links I happen to have are to pages that don't get all that much organic traffic at all. They are however dense, information heavy pieces that when read, lead to long times on site (10min +). This is likely why they were put into and allowed to stay on Wikipedia.

I haven't noticed any crazy traffic before or after the links were put into place. I wouldn't want to lose them though either. I think of getting Wikipedia links as a long-term strategy for building trust and authority over time.

 

[hcgroup]

Editing in links to gambling sites is incredibly difficult in Wikipedia. As the other person said, you need to build up trust in the editing community first. And even then, your links could easily be removed the next day, or months later by a more senior editor. Other editors can put your links in and if you write incredibly good content, you may end up getting a natural backlink without any work whatsoever... however, typically only a very informative news or data only article would be eligible for a Wikipedia backlink.

The more sales and popups and shit you have on your website, the less likely you will ever be to get a Wikipedia link or to make a Wikipedia link stick. I've got a small number of Wikipedia links, but they are certainly not to money pages. They are to high quality information pages. And we don't push sales on said pages so as to keep the links in place.



A Wikipedia link isn't going to instantly make your site super valuable and double your search traffic. Hell, in fact, the links I happen to have are to pages that don't get all that much organic traffic at all. They are however dense, information heavy pieces that when read, lead to long times on site (10min +). This is likely why they were put into and allowed to stay on Wikipedia.

I haven't noticed any crazy traffic before or after the links were put into place. I wouldn't want to lose them though either. I think of getting Wikipedia links as a long-term strategy for building trust and authority over time.

I see. Thanks a lot for the comprehensive acknowledgement.

 

[edgarf76]

wikipedia is very tough to get but they are worth it IMO. I have gotten the best results focusing on readers and sharing socially. There are a lot of people out there that can take your money but your link will most likely get deleted within a few days if it does not offer actual value.

 

[Jo-Ed]

I think there will be no problem as long as you have valuable content that is related to the website you are linking to. just my opinion

 

[hcgroup]

Sure. Content is always the KING!

 

[Zamsino]

I think there will be no problem as long as you have valuable content that is related to the website you are linking to. just my opinion

Agreed, make sure all links just makes sense for users and are likely to be clicked from a logical perspective.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk