Linking strategy

[Tom]

See the useful comments from 'Great Wilson' (http://www.wilsonweb.com/art/promote/linking-thoughts.htm). He argues that relevant links are valuable but that 'links for links sake' are not worth having. This is a significant point for James B's project.

[David]

from...

we're waiting ;)

[James]

I don't understand your post David!

Tom - I am targetting the following types of site for links:

. stock photography sites
. webmaster resources
. free stuff
. miscellaneous sites whose subject I have photos about (eg the Wikipedia Fort Picklecombe link I posted about)

I am staying away from spammy pop-up link exchange type sites.

Do you think this is appropriate?

That said, I cannot stop anyone linking to me if they find my site and decide to link to it.

[David]

Originally posted by James Barker@Feb 25 2005, 11:13 am
I don't understand your post David!

Tom has since edited his post. The link was missing in the original - at least I think it was :blink:

[Tom]

Its all rumour and counter-rumour but I guess you are OK if (1) you avoid blatant link-exchange sites (2) you are linking to the types of sites you have noted.

My guess remains that the best prospect for you is links connected to stock photography. They are your semantic field - and links within a definable field are what Google likes.

I met a man in India who said he had a large stock of high quality images which he sells to Indian publishers. Since he was running a pathetic postcard/bookshop in a hotel forecourt I do not think they can be paying him very well. But he pointed to examples of his work and it looked good. He did not have an email address but I gave him mine and he said he would get his son to email me - my intention being to tell him how to put his pics on iStockphoto. The average GNP/head in India is $480, so getting $.05/pic would be big money. Today I looked at a Bombay stock agency which wants to charge $40/pic - still cheap by international standards but expensive by Indian standards.

The reason for the above ramble is that I still think you should have an upload facility on your site.

[James]

The reason for the above ramble is that I still think you should have an upload facility on your site.

My site has this functionality but I have disabled it for now.

I want to resist the "anyone can upload" approach although I'm not entirely sure why, it just doesn't feel right.

If I'm going to open it up what I would prefer to do is develop a network of authorised contributors whose quality I can verify.

[Tom]

Good point about the quality control. You would need to put in a review stage before you allow uploads to appear.