timon - The formula is that 3.2 links per 27 pages will raise a flag. ;)

Seriously... think about it. Why would Google tend to discount multiple links from the same domain? Do most sites that give unsolicited links tend to give multiple links... or is it generally sites from which you buy or trade links that give multiple links?

What then is out of the ordinary for free links... say from sites that don't have "special relationships"?

And what about the multiple links that dmoz gives? How are these different?

When you've thought about this enough, you'll begin to be able to answer your own question.

3.2 links per 27 pages may raise the flag in my case.

What would happen if the site also has around the same number of unique links as that of the site wide links.

I think the site wide link would still be equivalent to 1 link atleast. What do you think?

I think the site wide link would still be equivalent to 1 link atleast.

If you're saying that all the site wide links from one domain would still be equivalent to at least one link from that domain, well, maybe, or maybe not.

In the old days... a year or two ago... I'd have said yes, one link at least. Maybe now they'd still be equivalent to that one link, but they'd also still raise a flag... and maybe Google is also keeping flag score.

Or, maybe site wide links are now such a likely indication that the links are paid that Google is discounting them all.

And if you have a pattern of a lot of site wide links from a lot of different domains, maybe Google puts up some extra hurdles as well. I don't know... just conjecture, like the 3.2 per 27 figure. Could be 2.9... you never know... but it could be that it doesn't matter if the intent is clear.

Thank you all...

I already have a site wide link to my website... which is not paid link.

i have decided to stay away from site wide links in future....

So much confusion in the air about links; such an exploited little thing these greenie pods. How to best link like this ... How to best link like that .. Look what does the search engine says here ... Look what the search engine says there ...

Such rewards going to the most undeserving.

Canadafred:

You hit it on the nose. Haha.

Who do these search engines think they are? All this work to appear high in the results. If you do one small thing wrong...you drop from 10 to 100 in the search results.

What is the point? Isn't there something better than search engines? Who are they to say what is relevant and what is not?

Why is it that when I type "leather jacket new york" into a SE I get 4,370,000 results? Are there really that many places to find a leather jacket in NY?

This SEO stuff is very interesting, however over the past few years it has become quite rediculous.

Why is it that when I type "leather jacket new york" into a SE I get 4,370,000 results? Are there really that many places to find a leather jacket in NY?

Oh yea. Sorry about that. I had too much caffeine one day and put up some sites. I was watching a show about places to buy leather jackets and they were in NY. :D

So .. are you saying that having site-wide links to say .. the major catgories or subjects of your site is a bad thing?

So .. are you saying that having site-wide links to say .. the major catgories or subjects of your site is a bad thing?

I'm saying that having links from every page of another site might suggest to Google that there is a special relationship between sites, and that Google therefore may treat that as an artificial linking situation.

PS: I should add that there are legitimate reasons to have sitewide links, specifically for traffic. So they're not "bad." But because these links are not natural, they're probably not useful for SEO.

2. Is it valid for large sites only... like a site having around 5000-10000 pages... or links from each page of an 10 page website can also be categorised as site wide links?

3. Lets say, if a site A has 14 pages out of which 9 have a link with same anchor text to a site B... can this raise the flag?

And a PPS... These last two, in my opinion, both fit into the "unnatural" category.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 2:18 am (utc) on Aug. 21, 2006]

So far, IMO, the fears about site wide links are a bit overblown. They are a risk, certainly. And I absolutely believe that the risk grows over time.

But I have sitewide links coming into a bunch of my sites from other sites, usually by virtue of ad buys, and I have little evidence that they are producing any negative effect. Of course, it depends a lot, IMHO at least, upon how they are executed. To be clear, the sitewide links I'm referring to are plain, followable links. :o

"The formula is that 3.2 links per 27 pages will raise a flag."
If that is so ,then anybody can raise a flag to his competitor by puting side wide links on a 10000 junk page ;)