Using Creative Commons to Build Links

Just saw this great thread over at WMW, Using Creative Commons to build link popularity. Creative Commons is a system that allows you to offer content for free syndication while retaining copyright.

Why it’s great for link building

People who syndicate your content often link back to you. Really this is not too much different from offering articles for syndication, except I would guess that sites syndicating Creative Commons content might tend to be higher quality than a generic article bank.

From the thread:

We have a database of "Widgets" which has been cited in a large number of publications – all good linkages.

Now we have released that database under a Creative Commons license, under the condition that the authorship (our web site) is retained.

Now, anyone can duplicate the content for free – but they must link to us.

So, now – for no effort on our part – we are starting to build up a body of
sites linking to us, as a condition of their using the content.

And even better, the page and sites that link to us are all relevent to us,
and hence that also boosts thematic linking as well.

Don’t Hate on Reciprocal Links (No, seriously!)

The fact that link building is now the critical success factor in search engine optimization has caused most of us to hone in one aspect of link building–link popularity–and forget the other great benefits of incoming links, namely, branding and targeted direct traffic.

A reader commented on one of my earlier posts where I blasted Arelis. I should have been more clear: I think building on-topic reciprocal links is a great marketing method.

A marketing method that is not so great is building thousands of off-topic reciprocal links using automated software. This method does still give decent results in Google sometimes, although its days are probably numbered. And of course, it’s this type of spammy link building that has given reciprocal links a bad name.

That said, on-topic reciprocal links often give targeted traffic than converts well, as well as positive branding (a ‘perceived endorsement’ from the linking site). And yes, gentle reader, they do have an effect on your SEO. I think Randfish over at SEOmoz said it well:

Why is this issue still around nearly 10 years after it first became and Internet marketing tactic?
The answer is that some reciprocal links can and do help. The
reasons are very simple – search engines are seeking authoritative,
on-topic links and just because they recognize that CNN links to NASA
and NASA links to CNN doesn’t mean that the link should be devalued… but having all your links from other sites’ off-topic, reciprocal link collections pages may not help nearly as much.

How do the whitehats put it? Do what’s best for the user, and let the search engines figure it out. Apply that maxim to reciprocal linking and it’s not nearly so confusing.

Brute Force Link Building

I’m a strong believer in working to get a site permanent, relevant backlinks the old fashioned way (directories, article syndication, etc.). It’s a great way to build a steady stream of targeted traffic and work your way up the SERPs on a dime (albeit slowly).

But that’s not to say you can’t get top rankings in other ways (you can of course). Specifically what seems to have always worked well in Google is brute force link building (i.e., building as many links as possible, and to heck with the quality).

The idea being that quantity matters. So does quality of course, so all things being equal, anyone would want 1 high quality link over 1 low quality link. Someone who employs brute force link building does not want to wait years for their site to attract 10,000 high quality links though (assuming the current #1 site has 9,000 high quality links). Instead, they might get 5 high quality links, and then 100,000 more from… anywhere.

That’s what I mean by the term ‘brute force link building’, and the truth is, it works. The Sandbox has prevented this on a flagrant basis, but I’ve seen many sites do well in Google with tons of spammy links (even in the last six months).

Google & Links (supporters only) at WMW touches on this:

What
surprised me was that for a mix of different searches (all returning
number of results in the millions), all the top ranking results had one
common denominator… sheer weight of links VOLUME. eg… small to
medium size sites with 20,000 links, 26,000 links, 32,000 links and so
on. Dig a little deeper with the linkdomain: search on Yahoo and the
other common denominator becomes evident.

Nearly
all the links are artifically created, either by filling page footers
linking all pages to each other, or creating multi-page, limited
content, feeder sites stuffed with links back to the money site… and
other creative variations all intended to create links. Sure there are
inbounds from other sites… but they are a drop in the ocean.

My personal .02: Enjoy it while you can, boys. Yes there will always be ways to game SE’s but it’s getting harder and harder… I’ll be surprised if this method works really well in 24 months.

Granted, there’s a lot of money to be made in the next 24 months

Heading to Narleans…

I’m going down to Narleans tomorrow for the WebmasterWorlds Search and Marketing Conference 2005. I have a lot to look forward to:

• John Battelle’s keynote speech
• Manning the TLA booth (handing out our free link building guide!)
• Finally meeting SEO friends in person — AWall, Todd Malicoat, et al (too many to count!)
• gumbo, mmmm…..
• Patrick Gavin’s presentation on determining the value of links
• PubConference on Friday
• Hopefully getting a picture taken with Matt Cutts, Brett Tabke
• Bourbon Street

And I’m not sure what exactly my schedule will be like when I get there, so I may be blogging sporadically or not at all. But in any case I plan to start posting more regularly next week.

Hope to see everyone in New Orleans!

Can Links from Scrapers Hurt You?

AWall posts about "good links" and "bad links":

Have you ever had a strong ranking site filtered out of the results
because automated links gave you an unnatural linkage profile?

I have never seen an instance of this. (Have you?) To be honest it sounds tin-foil hattish to me.

That being said, I do try to get one high-powered link to every new Web site I put up; that way, if someone quickly jacks my content and Google puts us head to head for canonization, my site comes out on top.