Do Sig Files On Message Boards Help?

[Waterpup]

Do sig files attached to your message that are linked to your site help when posted on a message board such as this one? I have a couple other message boards (both are EZBoards) that I often post on.

I would think if it did help I'd have seen it already. But alas I haven't or maybe I haven't looked in the right place?????? Other than my weblogs or site stats.

[eCommando]

It depends on the board. The board needs to be search engine friendly.
Also, some boards use a robot.txt to block the spiders (I know of at least one board that does that). If the search engine can index the pages then it would help.

Also, you get exposure if the board has a lot of visitors.

[Waterpup]

Ok I looked around for the answer to my question first but of course I *may* have found it after I asked.

Sorry

[Waterpup]

Yes the board(s) do get a lot and I know that many times when I do a search for a users name or even mine threads that we have posted on will come up. But otherwise I seem to have zilch as for backlinks or link popularity.

What is the expression to use when searching for sites that link to yours? is it "link to:xxxxxx" or something like that?

[owlcroft]

Yes, they count, they show, and they help.

All of that, of course, varies with the board. But I have certainly seen sig-block links of mine show up in links: searches through Google (sometimes as from PR6 pages).

[Arizona Web]

If it isn't spamming, and it is a link, then it helps. By rule of thumb, I always add my link to my forum signatures and in my profiles. Even if a search engine doesn't pick up on it, somebody who is interested may cick it.

That's the great thing about link building. It helps for the SEs, but it also helps drive traffic, and can even help branding if done carefully. Nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned.

[clasione]

I don't think it does.......

I think all forums that have the ________________ right above the sig is disqualified from weight.....

I suspect that forums and topic descriptions work - but anything underneath the common default signature marking doesn't assign weight.....

[dilligaf]

Here's a recent illustration, forums.seochat.com/t11474/s.html

[SEO_AM]

I haven't seen any SEO Guy BL's yet from the sig here. How long does it take for his links to show?

[disgust]

"I think all forums that have the ________________ right above the sig is disqualified from weight....."

do you have ANY evidence that this is the case?

I think you're flat out wrong there. google wouldn't use a filter like that, since it's so easily avoided

[Arizona Web]

Disgust,

I have heard this too many times in other reputable SEO forums to say that the idea is flat out wrong. Not all forums have the same separator before signature files, but I haven't seen a backlink from a single page that does have that separator.

[disgust]

well, it's pretty rare for a forum page to be PR4 or above in the first place, so it won't show in a standard backlinks query anyway..

[Arizona Web]

that's true, but only loosely related to the topic. Google counts backlinks lower than 4, and I think most of us can agree that the link: command is bunk.

try www.yoursite.com -site:www.yoursite.com for a better method or use allinanchor: to check your signatures.

And there are threads with higher than PR4 out there on some forums, I would post a link or two but I'm not sure if it is a violation to post links to competing forums. Regardless, signature files aren't weighted or are highly devalued in googles it seems.

[disgust]

just went and found this. on a vb, just like here, with the same thing above sigs:

http://www.moon-hosting.com/ | http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emoon%2Dhosting%2Ecom%2F

http://www.vdsp.net/ | http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Evdsp%2Enet%2F

I could find more if you'd like me to

[Arizona Web]

Hi disgust,

sorry I'm not exactly sure what you were poitning out there since I am lazy right now and didn't want to fish around in those URLs. Check out this thread: http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5229&hl=

Interesting stuff.

[sunny]

since we are on this topic, I would like point out 1 thing from Webby's Summary of the recent WMW Pub Conf regarding Links from forums:

"Especially no-nos such as link farms, guestbook entries (where it was confirmed are increasingly counting for nothing) and forum links." By Matt Cutts (Google)

Read more at http://forums.seochat.com/t11609/s.html

[Arizona Web]

awesome read, thank you sunny.

[Will Spencer]

This page shows a PR of 0. Unless that changes, signature links here are not going to count for much.

[disgust]

it's a new thread, of couse it's still a PR0.

[QUOTE=disgust]just went and found this. on a vb, just like here, with the same thing above sigs:

http://www.moon-hosting.com/ | http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emoon%2Dhosting%2Ecom%2F

http://www.vdsp.net/ | http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Evdsp%2Enet%2F

I could find more if you'd like me to[/QUOTE]


flatout proof that there is no "forum penality" or that "forum links (or sigs) don't count."

take half a second to look at it. :)

moonhosting.com - PR4
4 backlinks
three from forums, one from a blog

vdsp.net - PR5
20 backlinks
out of the first 10 results, 8 are from forums

I'm sorry, but sigs do count. please don't spread around misinformation unless you have some sort of evidence to back it up, and if you don't, then clearly label that it's just a guess. :)

the bit on highrankings has nothing to do with GOOGLE taking action- that's something THEY are programming, ie the highrankings crew. they're PR hoarding. they have a script that basically says "are you googlebot? if you are, we deliver the pages without sigs. if you're not, you can see them just fine"

[SEO_AM]

Forum links do count. I have a significant number of PR4 links under my toolbar from another SEO forum. None from SEO Guy forum as of yet, but they should be appearing on the next update.

[Arizona Web]

[QUOTE=disgust] flatout proof that there is no "forum penality" or that "forum links (or sigs) don't count."

take half a second to look at it. :) [/QUOTE]
I did, but I didn't want to waste the entire second so I am glad you posted a synopsis :)[QUOTE=disgust]
I'm sorry, but sigs do count. please don't spread around misinformation unless you have some sort of evidence to back it up, and if you don't, then clearly label that it's just a guess. :)[/QUOTE]Sorry bro, I stand corrected, but don't come at me like I am running around like a dummy. The information I passed on was from research, and turned out to be incorrect. I usually know what's up... in this case, I was mistaken. Again, my apologies to those who were misinformed. Forum links DO count in most instances.[QUOTE=disgust]the bit on highrankings has nothing to do with GOOGLE taking action- that's something THEY are programming, ie the highrankings crew. they're PR hoarding. they have a script that basically says "are you googlebot? if you are, we deliver the pages without sigs. if you're not, you can see them just fine" [/QUOTE]I actually like what they are doing over there, I wouldn't call it PR "hoarding". I would probably call it running a tight ship and making their forum work for them as much as possible. I would do the same if I had a large community forum and I was an SEO.

Again, sorry for the mistake. All's well that ends well. I certainly have learned an important lesson from this post. :D

[SEO_AM]

Arizona Web... no harm done. This is how we all learn. We profer theories and observations, discuss and resolve. Thanks for your input to the forum.

[disgust]

ja, glad to have you contributing here too- it just irks me a bit when misinformation spreads so very quickly.

the annoying "don't have "links" in the file name!" is probably the worst of them right now ;D

[fathom]

unfortuately - when people speak it is heard "verbatim" and in fact it is not.

There is nothing wrong with guestbooks, link farms, forum (sigs) etc. - it is the pattern that give a company like Google a target to say "it is manipulation" of our technology and we will wipe it out.

But change the pattern - it is "undetectable" and that's why I just love these "verbatim discussions" - it allows to less cablity to be consumed by rumor "it doesn't work" when in fact that isn't what he (Matt Cutts) said.

[wyrickj]

I have seen places before saying it's true Google does not count forum links well it's not true as I have 1 forum link pointing to me.

[fathom]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]I have seen places before saying it's true Google does not count forum links well it's not true as I have 1 forum link pointing to me.[/QUOTE]

Yes - why?

Why is there a division line here?

Would it be "sometimes" the "pattern" is extremely clear other times it not...

I've played with this quite a bit... and while Matt Cutts is quite correct - it is increasing becoming worth nothing, there is more that he didn't say... and why his public statement "isn't quite accurate".