lnk exchange thread discussion

[universal4]

The following is a post I wrote in response to a public member who suggested we had a spam problem within the public forums. Any and all responses in this thread MUST be on topic, and any and all other posts will be strictly edited.

It's interesting that you would mention that the public forums have a serious spam problem.

The biggest spam problem in the public forums is the link exchange spam, and the fact that NO ONE can post a request looking for link exchanges that the thread isn't suddenly over-run by dozens of others posting their requests for exchanges below it and thus burying the original thread creators request.

I have posted about this before and we call it "thread hi-jacking".

This is frowned upon and a group of us (mostly private members) have discussed this and we hope to have a solution to this in the future.

This normally never happens in the private forums, and the few times that we have seen it, it is dealt with swiftly.

The mods will edit posts and rarely will remove posts if needed, and explain why, but like I said this is a rare occurence and usually only happens when there are new members involved and they quickly learn what is acceptable.

As an example what is acceptable.
We have Affiliate A, B and C

Affiliate A posts a request for exchanges for http://site1.com

Affiliate B posts below that, A, ll you do in-content exchanges, if so I can exchange with you on http://site2.com Contact me at anonymous@any.com

This is totally acceptable.

Affiliate C posts, I am a link broker and I am looking for links for a dozen websites so please contact me at linkbroker@imaspammer.com

On the surface you may think that Affiliate C was ok in his post, but what happens is this.

Affiliate D, E, F, G, H, I and J all post their requests looking for link exchanges to THEIR sites, and somewhere in the middle there Affiliate K had a question about http://site1.com and the kind of exchanges he would do. The problem is that now Affiliate A has to weed through all the other exchange posts looking for those who may be serious about his exchange, and follow-up on questions etc...

Granted, the other affiliates may be serious about the opriginal exchange, but the way they went about looking for exchanges was in poor taste as they have devalued the original post in essence hijacking it.

It is this very reason that I have reduced the amount of exchanges I conduct in the public forums, and it is (one of) the reasons that some private members refuse to exchange with non-private members.

==========

Now to be honest, a few private members have actually suggested that link exchanges be curtailed comepletly within the public forums, or highly restricted, and that we researve this as a benefit of private membership only.

I for one have lobbied against this, but I am all for coming up with a specific set of rules to be followed in order for link exchanges to continue within the public forums.

In fact if acceptable by the private members and management, we may use a portion of my above examples in the final rule set that is created.

Rick
Universal4

[casinojack]

The following is a post I wrote in response to a public member who suggested we had a spam problem within the public forums. Any and all responses in this thread MUST be on topic, and any and all other posts will be strictly edited.

It's interesting that you would mention that the pubic forums have a serious spam problem.

Rick

I agree the pubic forums is a problem, This coming form the typo king .

On a serious note, I bet a lot of traffic comes from link exchange searches so I would keep them public..Too bad no one does banner exchanges anymore, or the old DP network back in the day was also good.

[universal4]

Damn yagotme on that one CJ.....gonna go fix it now but will leave your message in tact so other can see my public mistake.....lol

Yea the old days of banner exchanges....where did they go?

I'm not sure if I would do banner exchanges any more....standard link exchanges are tough enough to keep up with....and often I would think it was too tempting for some exchange partners not to remove banners since they value the page real estate so much.

Another thing you rarely see is exit page exchanges.

Rick
Universal4

[thepokerkeep]

I am one of those who would like to see the public forums closed to link exchange threads. There is just too much spamming going on to suit me.

However, if we are stuck with the public link exchange threads, let's set some tough rules and enforce them to the letter.

Those who break the rules should get one warning and then be banned, especially those who are only here to trade/buy/sell links and don't contribute in any other way.

If the public members can't conduct themselves with the same restraint as the private members, they should be dealt with quickly and severely.

[stevenkeseg]

Very good idea! although I am not a private member yet, but waiting for it. Hopefully it will keep the forums a lot cleaner(and it would be easier to us to read through the forums - and not only the link exchanges threads)

The last few weeks I was a little bit sick, so as I had the chance, I stood away from the PC.

Sorry for off-topic... but how can someone apply for private membership? I've read somewhere that there are 3 months requirement, but no other info I've found (maybe I didn't search enough)

Cheers,
Steven

[thepokerkeep]

Sorry for off-topic... but how can someone apply for private membership? I've read somewhere that there are 3 months requirement, but no other info I've found (maybe I didn't search enough)

Cheers,
Steven

The info you need is located here:
https://www.gpwa.org/private_registration.asp

[diana]

The following is a post I wrote in response to a public member who suggested we had a spam problem within the public forums. Any and all responses in this thread MUST be on topic, and any and all other posts will be strictly edited.

It's interesting that you would mention that the public forums have a serious spam problem.

The biggest spam problem in the public forums is the link exchange spam, and the fact that NO ONE can post a request looking for link exchanges that the thread isn't suddenly over-run by dozens of others posting their requests for exchanges below it and thus burying the original thread creators request.

I have posted about this before and we call it "thread hi-jacking".

This is frowned upon and a group of us (mostly private members) have discussed this and we hope to have a solution to this in the future.

This normally never happens in the private forums, and the few times that we have seen it, it is dealt with swiftly.

The mods will edit posts and rarely will remove posts if needed, and explain why, but like I said this is a rare occurence and usually only happens when there are new members involved and they quickly learn what is acceptable.

As an example what is acceptable.
We have Affiliate A, B and C

Affiliate A posts a request for exchanges for http://site1.com

Affiliate B posts below that, A, ll you do in-content exchanges, if so I can exchange with you on http://site2.com Contact me at anonymous@any.com

This is totally acceptable.

Affiliate C posts, I am a link broker and I am looking for links for a dozen websites so please contact me at linkbroker@imaspammer.com

On the surface you may think that Affiliate C was ok in his post, but what happens is this.

Affiliate D, E, F, G, H, I and J all post their requests looking for link exchanges to THEIR sites, and somewhere in the middle there Affiliate K had a question about http://site1.com and the kind of exchanges he would do. The problem is that now Affiliate A has to weed through all the other exchange posts looking for those who may be serious about his exchange, and follow-up on questions etc...

Granted, the other affiliates may be serious about the opriginal exchange, but the way they went about looking for exchanges was in poor taste as they have devalued the original post in essence hijacking it.

It is this very reason that I have reduced the amount of exchanges I conduct in the public forums, and it is (one of) the reasons that some private members refuse to exchange with non-private members.

==========

Now to be honest, a few private members have actually suggested that link exchanges be curtailed comepletly within the public forums, or highly restricted, and that we researve this as a benefit of private membership only.

I for one have lobbied against this, but I am all for coming up with a specific set of rules to be followed in order for link exchanges to continue within the public forums.

In fact if acceptable by the private members and management, we may use a portion of my above examples in the final rule set that is created.

Rick
Universal4

Hi Rick
First I would like to say again that I understand this problem completly (I have discussed it with you in the first thread you mentioned). second, I think that maybe the solution for this spamming is to write down in bold letters at the beginning of the "terms and conditions" all the do and not do. sometimes, new members does not know they hijack threads. I am telling you this because as for myself, before I started working as seo I never entered any forums, so I didnt know anything about forum's rule.I am aware That this is why there is t&c, but not everybody reads them. Shortly, what I'm trying to say that because this subject is so important to understand, and because not everybody read t&c, maybe the best way is to write it down as a first rule or as a term for registrating to GPWA. And I mean to make it simple so people can understand. Do you think that it is something that can be done?

[diana]

I am one of those who would like to see the public forums closed to link exchange threads. There is just too much spamming going on to suit me.

However, if we are stuck with the public link exchange threads, let's set some tough rules and enforce them to the letter.

Those who break the rules should get one warning and then be banned, especially those who are only here to trade/buy/sell links and don't contribute in any other way.

If the public members can't conduct themselves with the same restraint as the private members, they should be dealt with quickly and severely.

ho my- were you a soldier in your country army? please remember some of us noty public members are here to contribute as well....

[thepokerkeep]

ho my- were you a soldier in your country army? please remember some of us noty public members are here to contribute as well....

Not a soldier. Just a member who is tired of sifting through all the spam to find the real meat.

My suggestion would not affect anyone who is here to actually contribute, such as yourself. It would keep the link spammers at bay and make the forums more enjoyable and productive for all.

[universal4]

Although I have not always agreed with Terry 100% on how quick to banish some public members, he has some very good points and this has lead to discussions of stronger policies governing the moderation of some of the public threads.

The most important point he made was the fact that members such as yourself who are here to honestly try and contribute and learn from the valuable resources we have here would not be hurt by stronger moderation.

Sometimes the members just need to be spanked a little more in the earlier stages to get the idea....

Rick
Universal4

[diana]

yes I understand what you mean... and I guess you right, I was mearly making a joke
it's just that Terry's answer led me back in time to highschool...which Iv'e graduated more than 15 years ago.... so I had to say something- lol. but really I guess you guys know better than me on how to treat public members who just come here and spam.

[universal4]

I am really getting fed up with the following trend I am seeing more and more of all the time.

Unlike some of my fellow affiliates, I actually still actively seek out and perform link exchanges...

But....more and more I am seeing webmasters that place such demands on their link partners that they themselves can not begin to live up to.

I recommend ALL Webmasters start demanding that their prospective link partners live up to a minimum of what their partners are requesting of them.

Let me give an example.

Today I was looking for bingo links, so I found some sites that were exchanging links and started to read their terms....in numerous cases I found sites that demanded I place their link on a PR1 or better page, and yet they were offering links back from pages that weren't even indexed.

I found sites that demanded the domain I linked out from were PR2 or better and tyet theirs was only a PR1.

I found sites that demanded the pages I linked to them from were indexed, yet their own link pages were not indexed....

Most people that have exchanged weith me in the past know that I do not look solely at PR and in fact it is usually one of the LAST things I even look at (if I look at all) and I will certainly take links from PR0 pages from quality sites if I feel it is a good match....

....BUT....

How dare you guys continue to demand PR2 or PR3 links when your sites aren't returning the same PR....

Stop this PR BS and start looking at the quality of the site or page, what kind of keywords and content are on the page (or at least the site) and perform exchanges that are good for your visitors....

And for those that continue to demand more pr than what you are willing to provide, I may start telling more webmasters NBOT to link to you....

I understand YOU want a fair link in trade....but your partner deserves a fair link also....

/end venting....for now.....lol

Rick
Universal4

[HammerC]

I know exactly what you're talking about Rick. All I ever seem to find are Webmasters who want to exchange based on PR and nothing else, which is exactly why link exchange spammers like the one displayed in this thread. Are able to do exchanges.

Their sites are crap, but "OMG! THEY HAVE PR!!" So they're able to suck many Webmasters in.

A lot of people need to be educated into what makes a good link, I've often wished that Google would just remove the PR Toolbar, and not make PR public. That would solve our problem

[universal4]

Removing the toolbar pr would not completly solve the problem, but it certainly would make it a bit more enjoyable experience and no longer would we have to put up with those folks who just don't understand the difference....

Rick
Universal4

[catchingsmoke]

maybe a seperare folder for link exchange threads? then if you're not interested you dont have to see them?