Web marketers have all sorts of theories about why people will link to their Websites. They also have theories about what they can get away with in terms of user tolerance. One well-known social media expert, for example, proudly boasts on his Website that he boosts email subscriptions by using a plugin that puts a form in your face as soon as you land on his Website.
I would link to the article except that I don’t link to Websites that use popup ads.
If earning links is important to you and you’re struggling to actually earn the links, here are some reasons why someone like me won’t link to your site. I may not speak for many other people, but maybe you can use this list to start looking critically at the “compelling”, “high quality” content you believe you are publishing.
Popup Ads Make Me Want to Ban You
Everyone has a right to earn some advertising revenue on their Website. You also have the right to tell visitors about special offers, subscriptions they can make, etc. And how you do this is up to you.
But if monetization and conversion are so important to you that you place the signup forms between me and the content that brought me to your Website in the first place, I will never link to your Website. I probably won’t even name it.
My links are not always recommendations. Sometimes I will link to sites that don’t particularly suit my needs (that link points to some random UK airport parking site). But when I do link to a site I want to recommend to my visitors, I make sure the site isn’t using popups and other invasive advertising to annoy the people I refer there.
I’m not making any money off your monetization so I feel no compulsion to share your great content if you’re just acting like a self-promotional schmuck. I don’t care how many A/B tests you run.
Automatically Starting Videos
There are certain “news sector” Websites (especially in financial news) that just cannot resist the urge to embed a video at the top of the page and have that video start playing as soon as I land on the page.
If I can disable the video or mute it I do so immediately and then read the article. Otherwise, I just leave the page without watching the video or trying to read the article.
If the video-enhanced experience is so unpleasant for me, I am not under any circumstances going to link to the article — unless I warn my visitors about the video spam and tell them how to get around it.
Oftentimes these articles are embedded on other Websites without the video, either because they are syndicated or scraped. I have on a few occasions linked to obvious scraper sites just to prevent the video spam from annoying my visitors.
I will continue to make that editorial choice based on how unpleasant a video hell you choose to make of your Website.
24-Listing Slideshow Articles
There is nothing I hate more than to land on an article promising me a list of “10 Greatest Places”, “15 People Who”, “20 Ways To”, etc. and all I see is a damn slideshow widget.
Most of the time I won’t even click on the widget. I’ll just click away.
I have rarely if ever linked to one of these articles. I have no desire to send my visitors to such crap that is obviously designed to increase page views for advertising.
If your slideshow offers a “View ALL” option I will click on that option and if I can really see all the items in your article then I may link to the article. Otherwise, your article doesn’t exist to me and it won’t exist to my visitors.
Your Compelling Content is Named “Fluffy”
I have written my share of fluff content through the decades so I know it when I see it. Fluff content doesn’t say much about anything. You can almost change out the keywords and reuse the article for many different topics.
Fluff content usually extols the virtues of someone or something, offers about 3 points of information at most without providing any real in-depth commentary, and is usually topped by an attention-grabbing headline that was constructed as soon as someone finished their free “How To Write Compelling Headlines” Webinar.
Your fluffy content does not make you an expert, an interesting person, or even someone with something to say. It makes you look like an amateur who has no clue about how to write.
If you care so little about the topic that you’re willing to say anything I will reward your apathy with a complete and total lack of links and reference to your site.
In the SEO blogosphere about half the articles I visit turn out to be fluff content written according to “marketing” formulas that are guaranteed to bring in visitors. Yes, I took a chance and visited your Website — but I will not link to it.
Most guest posts fall into the “fluff content” category but many SEO agencies put interns and new hires on their blogs and the lack of experience and insight in the articles produced by those new bloggers is so obvious it is painful. On the brighter side, it’s good to see so many SEO agencies giving new people an opportunity to develop experience at blogging — that is, in fact, a great thing.
Nonetheless, I will not link to amateurish, fluffy content.
Putting Ads in the Upper Center of the Page
I have experimented with this myself. I find the advertising to be so annoying and distracting it’s hard for me to read even my own articles when it’s there.
Yes, the advertising networks tell you where the “hotspots” are on the page, but if you plug an ad into every hotspot you can you deserve the dearth of links you’re moaning about.
No matter how well-researched and written an article or photo gallery, if the advertising is all you care about then leaving is all I care about and I won’t be linking to your advertising any time soon.
Using A Masthead Larger Than Mount Everest
Anyone who uses a Google Plus account knows that Google now forces you to create a huge masthead that fills up every pixel above-the-fold. So let me make this very clear: I do not link to Google Plus accounts (except for Authorship) and I do not use Google as a guide on how to design a Web page.
Google user interface competency has dropped consistently over the past few years. I guess when Marissa Mayer lost her influence with Google management they decided that stupid interface design would make them look cool. It should be no wonder, then, that I so seldom link to Google content (I still link to the Webmaster guidelines pages but the day may come when I cannot do that).
So if I won’t link to Google’s crappy mastheads-from-hell, what makes you think I would link to YOURS? Google is not the only culprit in this nightmare on Web design street. In fact, if you’re NOT Google you have to be careful about their “Ads Above the Fold” algorithm because, supposedly, it just may punish you for keeping the user from the content.
I don’t want to link to Websites where all the user sees when they land on the page is some ugly graphic that you threw together while you were enjoy a drunken weekend binder in Samoa (my apologies to Samoans). If your masthead is so big that I cannot get to the content, I’m not going to link to the content (and consider yourself lucky if I try to read it).
NOTE: Once in a while someone complains about the background image on SEO Theory. I realize I may be losing some links and readers because of the background, but it’s there for a reason. When I finally get around to changing the design of the site, I will probably get rid of that background. But other than being a distraction, it doesn’t obscure the content.
I Just Read This Article Last Month
There is a certain SEO blogger whose site I used to read quite often. And then one day I had the uncomfortable feeling that I had read an article before. Article Deja Vu has several causes. In this guy’s case I was able to find the same article on his site in Archive.Org from several months earlier. He had republished the article with a new date, “updating” it.
I call this refresh spam because it’s only real purpose is to get old content back into RSS feeds, back into feed readers, back into automated Twitter posting, and back into the public spotlight.
And Search Engine Land’s editors DO link to this crap because they don’t have time to figure out who is using Refresh Spam to game the blogosphere for links and readers. Refresh Spam does not (so far as I know) violate search engine guidelines but, frankly, I consider it to be a black hat technique. It IS sneaky and deceptive (and maybe in that case it DOES violate the spirit of search engine guidelines).
However, some news Websites have started using Refresh Spam as well. It’s one thing to add an occasional update to a story for a day or two. It’s another to keep freshening the same article day after day, week after week. I came across a case study where someone did this and they liked the metrics they saw (however, I found a flaw in their analysis because they were not following the money, as they should have been).
If you allow the numbers to mesmerize you, I probably will not link to your article. Refresh Spam just cries out, “I have nothing to say any more and don’t want to lose my readers! PLEASE STAY!”
You Hide the Dates On Your Article
Everfake content tries to look like it is “evergreen”. True evergreen content attracts new readers and new links year after year. Visitors don’t care when the information was published because it is still relevant and up-to-date.
In fact, it’s okay to update a Web document 2-3 times a year to keep the information fresh. You’re not republishing it with a new URL and hitting all the ping servers — you’re just keeping information current and relevant.
Everfake articles won’t tell you when they were written or updated. If you’re lucky the date is embedded somewhere down near the bottom of the page or in the source code, but people are becoming very adept at removing dates from their URLs, titles, and page copy.
I will not link to an article that has no publication date. I may link to an old-school FAQ or informational page, but it’s probably on a government Website or a reputable academic or science Website. It won’t be on your blog.
If you lack so much faith and confidence in your own content that you are afraid to put a date on the page so that people know when it was written, you don’t deserve any links. You won’t get any from me.
I Just Read This Article, Round Two
Almost as bad as Refresh Spam and Everfake Spam is Rehash Spam. You see that someone else wrote a great article on a topic and so you rewrite their article and tell your readers everything the original article had to say.
If I sense that you are just rehashing someone else’s hard work, I usually go the extra mile to find the original source of information and link to THAT instead of to your rehash. So even if you have more social media support and more subscribers and are the most popular and pretty blog on the block, if you rewrite someone else’s article I am NOT going to reward you with a link.
There are a few writers who will cover what they feel are the most important points in someone else’s work and offer insightful, interesting commentary. Terri Wells on SEOChat is one such writer. She does a great job of adding a new layer of thought and information to a topic. This is what blogging is all about.
Nonetheless, SEOChat now uses Everfake Spam techniques so I won’t link to their articles anymore. Like I said, no matter how compelling you make your content, your bad judgment can still discourage me from linking to your content.
You’re a Wiki Site
I hate wiki sites in general, not because they cannot be useful but because they don’t ever lock down content that should be locked down. If the editors of a specialty/niche wiki keep a close eye on the pages then I can live with their content and may occasionally link to it.
But many a Web spammer has paid for a “14,000 wiki links” package and the Web is filled with wikis that have been spammed out.
And if the wiki site has as many users as Wikipedia then you have no idea of what an article will look like in 24 hours, much less 2 years, because they are constantly changing. People come in and add really stupid content to major Wikipedia articles and because the additions comply with Wikipedia guidelines they are allowed to stand.
You cannot trust Wikipedia articles and I will not link to them.
In general I prefer to NOT link to wiki articles simply because the content can change. My links don’t change very often. I want whatever I link to to remain as steadfast.
You don’t deserve a link if you don’t care enough about your content to keep it high quality, useful, and relevant.
You Have An Obvious Agenda Based on Bullshit
There are two kinds of Websites I pretty much will never link to: Stoner sites (advocating the use of drugs, primarily marijuana) and politically-motivated Websites.
Certain news sites like Fox, Al Jazeera and The Guardian have such blatant and obvious political bias that you just cannot trust the content in their articles. The Guardian, for example, has done everything possible to expose western nations’ intelligence-gathering operations but they haven’t published any serious news about Al Qaeda since 2005. If you only read the Guardian you can only conclude that the War on Terror is much ado about nothing.
And yet, Al Qaeda kills hundreds of people every month and conducts military/terrorist operations in more than 20 nations. In 2011 the New York Times published a map showing the extent of Al Qaeda’s operations. They have since expanded their efforts into other countries including Syria and at least two more African countries.
Stoner Websites love to tell you how safe and beneficial marijuana is. What they won’t tell you is how addictive it is, how much brain damage heavy long-term use causes, that it also contributes to emphysema and other respiratory diseases, and the fact that marijuana use has been statistically connected to non-drug crime rates.
Stoners just want to get stoned and they don’t want to go to jail for doing that, but if we’re going to accept legalized marijuana then tax dollars need to be allocated for treatment programs and long-term care facilities that can handle people whose brains and personalities have been damaged by long-term pot use. I agree we don’t want to put pot-heads in prison, but I don’t want stoned people driving on the street with me any more than I want to share the road with drunks.
Political agendae serve their purpose. There will always be people who take up causes. But I don’t have to link to those kinds of Websites and I won’t.
In Short, If I Don’t Like Your Site, I Won’t Link To It
That is what it comes down to. You want people to LIKE your Website (not click on the Facebook LIKE button). People will hit social media widgets all day long. I do it myself. The social media widget makes it feel like you’re not linking to a Website (so I do remind myself about this).
It takes more effort to embed a link in an article than to create a social media share. Hence, despite all the nonsense correlation studies you can find that argue the search engines (Google) are using social media “signals” for rankings, even if that could be proven true (and it hasn’t and Google has flat out denied these signals are affecting rankings), the sheer volume of social media shares would flatten the value of any individual share.
You’ll get more value from one judicious link than from 1,000 LIKES, TWEETS, PINS, and STUMBLES. A Tumbl might be a good link to have but my opinion is not yet firm on the matter. That people like your site enough to share it doesn’t mean they like it enough to link to it.
And I won’t link to anything I’m not even willing to share.
Your mileage may vary.
Read More about Search Engine Optimization
How Long Does It Take SEO To Work?
Outbound Links: Why Use Forward Links for SEO?
On-Page Optimization SEO Checklist
White Hat Link Earning Techniques
Follow Reflective Dynamics |
Click here to follow Reflective Dynamics on Twitter: @refdynamics. Click here to follow SEO Theory on Twitter: @seo_theory. Reflective Dynamics' RSS Feed (summaries only) |
I concur 100% but would add another reason: blog articles with unmanaged comments. It is often interesting to read the comments except when it is filled by entries from spam-bots.
Great article, Michael. Thanks. You’ve raised lots of interesting points.
Pop-ups. I don’t like them but I can endure them. What really bugs me is the pop-up trying to get me to sign up for something before I’ve even had a chance to look at the content of the site. How can I form an opinion about whether or not I want to sign up when I’ve not yet seen the quality of the site or its relevance to me? (On a similar subject, I despise the tactic of asking me to “like” something on FB before they let me read it. I’ve even seen people using the request for a like as a kind of paywall.) Another thing about pop-ups is that even if you did like the site, and signed up to receive their mailing, you still have to suffer that darned pop-up every time you subsequently visit the site.
Automatically starting videos. They are a real pain too. If I want to watch a video, then let me watch it in my own time. Perhaps I’m already listening to something whilst scan reading another article before deciding whether or not to watch their video. It’s just so intrusive! It feels like someone has jumped out at me and I race to click away.
Getting back to what people will link to, I link to sites which are interesting and/or useful. If the site is neither of those, then what’s the point of linking to it? Aha, paid links perhaps? And this raises the issue of no-follow or do-follow and also of recommendation. Some people say to use no-follow if you’re linking for informational purposes, and others say to make paid links no-follow. They say that you should use do-follow when you’re recommending something. I prefer do-follow for all. But perhaps that’s a whole different debate.
I note you say that, “Everyone has a right to earn some advertising revenue on their Website.” I agree with that, but there are a lot of people who don’t agree. This is the “It’s the Internet so it must be free” brigade. Sadly, there are a lot of them around. I don’t understand why they object so much if people try to make an honest income from their labour.
We all have our own rules about what we will or won’t link to, but does anyone really care? In this frenzy of link building, much of it misguided and much of it just plain dirty, my guess is that the majority of people trying to build links care more about quantity than quality. It would be nice to be proved wrong on this.
Best regards,
Kay