Comments on: 20 Poker SEO Questions – 20 Poker SEO Answers

By: 25 Ways to Get Poker Article Ideas

25 Ways to Get Poker Article Ideas — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:11:10 +0000

[...] Poker discussion forum threads. If people are discussing something on a poker forum thread, then people are interested in that subject. So you can write an article on the subject that goes into far more detail answering the question than you’d ever post in a forum thread. I created one of the first posts for this blog by looking at discussion forum threads at a couple of poker affiliate forums. (20 Poker SEO Questions & 20 Poker SEO Answers) [...]

By: admin

admin — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:42:26 +0000

I think the benefit of linking to an “authority site” is probably pretty minimal to begin with anymore, but it’s a great opportunity to use some targeted anchor text in your outbound links. In other words, if you have anchor text of “click here” pointing to PokerStars, then that’s not going to be helpful. But if you want your page to rank for the phrase “PokerStars bonus”, then linking to your affiliate link using that anchor text is going to be helpful in a couple of ways.

I don’t know if using rel=”nofollow” is going to negate that or not, but I’d think it would not.

By: Prenut

Prenut — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:45:56 +0000

I do have a question about rel=”nofollow” as I’ve never used it. When you have an affiliate link pointing to PokerStars or Party Poker, is the value of linking to an authority site negated by your affiliate tag also being attached to it? I may gain some benefit by linking directly to http://www.pokerstars.com but not http://www.pokerstars.com/myaffiliatecode ?

By: admin

admin — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:35:57 +0000

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I think your explanation oversimplifies the entire situation of both buying links and of Googlebowling.

By: Prenut

Prenut — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:13:28 +0000

Randy, my answer is no to all of those. I don’t necessarily believe that Google bowling will work. My point was that if Google bowling doesn’t work, then your example of getting a -50 penalty by purchasing excessive blog links isn’t feasible either. Both are examples of excessive linking, and if you can’t buy excessive links to penalize someone else then you can’t get a penalty yourself for buying excessive links.

If you can get a penalty from buying excessive links, then Google bowling does exist.

By: Jordan Graves

Jordan Graves — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:33:22 +0000

Awesome post Randy!

It’s great to see you’ll be updating this blog hopefully 5 times a week, a great asset to the industry!

Regards

Jordan

By: admin

admin — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:24:36 +0000

Mark-

Thanks VERY much for the kind words. I appreciate the feedback.

Randy

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:17:22 +0000

Amazing post Randy – a perfect example of excellent content deserving a link… well as soon as I update my personal blog anyway.

Cheers, Mark

By: admin

admin — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:16:28 +0000

Prenut, I’ll answer your question with another question. Have you ever bought a bunch of blog links in an attempt to get someone penalized? Do you know someone who has? Do you know someone who has a site that’s been a victim of such a thing?

By: Prenut

Prenut — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:50:17 +0000

Randy:

At first you debunk Google bowling as an urban legend, but then later you post this “If you’ve done something wrong, and you know it (like buying a bunch of blog links and getting a -50 penalty), then fix what you did wrong and file a reinclusion request.”

If Google bowling is an urban legend, then how could someone get a -50 for excessive blog links?