Talk:Link building/Archives/2013

The Title Is Wildly Inaccurate, For Starters

There is only one "method" of website linking, and that is with the anchor tag <a href>. What this entire article and every section in it are discussing are methods of getting people to link to you, which can collectively be referred to as "Link building". The article does not pertain to "methods of hyperlinking to/of different websites", it pertains, for the most part, to ways of convincing others to link to a particular website. "Link building" currently redirects to "Search engine optimization", but by all rights should actually be this article. This is all as a complete aside to the very poor quality of the article and need for cleanup there. Mvandemar (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a better title would be Uses of website linking, as this is more about the purposes than the encoding or topological patterns of links. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Expert: Please Help With Cleanup.

Mvandemar, please help with cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R33c3 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted. There is so much misinformation provided in it that the task of correcting everything is rather daunting. And I certainly wouldn't single out any one individual for help.

Who in the world came up with this idea? What is the point of this article?Michael Martinez (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Link bait as viral. Yes?? Why so?

Article says: "Link bait can be an extremely powerful form of marketing as it is viral in nature."
It's not obvious to me that link bait is viral in nature (or for that matter that it isn't).
Could somebody please add a brief explanation here of why, or cite a source that explains this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking? Underlinking? What?

How do you know when an article is overlinked? For example look at this: [1] How do you know? Either rules about overlinking are not clear enough or they should be removed as useless. Uikku (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just noticed that there is more relevant article where my question has been discussed. Uikku (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Collection of neologism?

This article looks like a collection of neologism of disputable value to me. I suggest that those terms that are in well established use be kept with references to support their right to inclusion added; while the rest is thrown out. 94.220.252.73 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no value in this article. It's filled with nonsense. It should be deleted. Michael Martinez (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Web popularity and the problems of link popularity Section

I introduce a new section on web popularity Simone Borsci (talk)13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone.borsci (talk • contribs)

Drop Back And Punt

It's obvious that Link Baiting and the Methods of website linking are two different topics. When you search this site for link bait it should bring you to what link bait is and how it works. Jdzarlino (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)John ZarlinoJohn Zarlino Internet Visionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Phishing

As I mentioned above, this article seems to be more about Uses than Methods. One well-documented use of linking is Phishing, which should be mentioned here someplace. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Link Bait Move

Link bait is seperate from Methods of Website linking. However, It has enough coverage that it should be moved to it's own article/stub. I will be completing this today. Bsanders246 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking redirect

I noticed that overlinking redirects here. This page never mentions overlinking and the concepts are not the same. I think it would make more sense for overlinking to redirect to Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking --Deutschgirl (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Islamist Govts. and all other Islamist organisations in the world failed to notice that Christians are not arrogant and amongst them are priest and monks according to the Quranic verse 5: 82.In the absence of the same ,there is no peace between the 2 largest population of the world.Once the Holy Quran recognized Christianity , then no Christian can criticize that Islamic community is false or Satan community. All the Islamists in the world are the followers of Our Jesus , Moses and Muhammad ( peace be upon them). We have no other intention except to spread the messages to all the communities in the world posted in our website www.goldenduas.com to promote harmony, peace and security of mankind in the world. The question of converting Christians and all other communities in the world into Islam does not arise on the reason that the Holy Quran banned compulsory conversion as per Quranic verse 2:256. The Christians in the world are service minded people,who work towards peace, research, etc. to serve public in the world and as such no one can act against Christianity in the world . Please check our homepage www.goldenduas.com.Please cooperate and advertise to all persons,to allow all the communities in the world to visit and download from our website www.goldenduas.com. in the interest of public peace,humanity,jobs,business,security,health and wealth of mankind in the world and oblige. With Kind Regards, Ibrahim Ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.84.92 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

MSG:OHNOITSJAMIE

You're editing an encyclopedia get your facts straight before sending me messages. First fact was I wasnt affiliated with the website I recommended. Second fact, the third reversion wasn't me. The ony with only the I.P. Address I'm not sure who that was.

This article is garbage just junk it. Methods of Website linking? Anchor Text and Images. That's all methods of building backlinks like blog comments and forums should be removed. It's off topic and one of the many spam subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDeardon1 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your final spam warning still stands, regardless of whether you've removed it from your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is being used in some sort of scam

My boss just got an email recommeding to add some links about a car insurer to his website and forward the email to me asking if we should do it, after all "had a convincing Wikipedia article giving it credibility" reading the article I think it's obvious that does not meet Wikipedia standards, it is hardly objective and makes you think that adding random, unrelated links to your website is actually good, which will clearly reduce overall value of the information you provide and add confusion. Even though adding links to coca-cola, Wal-mart and Disney at the footer of the Wikipedia articles may increase traffic to Wikipedia from unaware people, it is clearly not something to encourage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E621 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic library underlinking

“Underlinking” redirects here. The term “underlinking” is also used when referring to dynamic library linking, see https://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Underlinking_issues_in_packaging or https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/11/26/it-s-not-all-gold-that-shines-why-underlinking-is-a-bad-thing. –134.60.241.155 (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)