Top 100 Librarian Friendfeeds to Follow at Cheapie Online Degrees.COM

Heh – made you look!

But really, check out Jessamyn’s spot on post about this irksome practice:

http://www.librarian.net/stax/2970/why-i-dont-accept-guest-posts-from-spammers-or-link-to-them/

I get an email maybe once a week from someone with a human-sounding name saying they read my blog and think they have something my readers might be interested in. Or they offer to do a guest post on my blog. The link is usually some sort of vaguely useful list of something library-related but the URL of the website is not library-related. In fact the URL of the website is usually something like onlinenursepractitionerschools.com, searchenginecollege.com or collegedegree.com (which if you’ll notice is the top hit on google for a search for college degree). I sometimes see other libloggers linking to sites like these and I have a word of advice: don’t. When we link to low-content sites from our high-content sites, we are telling Google and everyone that we think that the site we are linking to is in some way authoritative, even if we’re saying they’re dirty scammers. We’re helping their page rank and we’re slowly, infinitesimally almost, decreasing the value of Google and polluting the Internet pool in which we frequently swim. Don’t link to spammers.

This is a linkless post, for obvious reasons.


Related posts:

4 thoughts on “Top 100 Librarian Friendfeeds to Follow at Cheapie Online Degrees.COM”

  1. Thank you for this. I have received a few of these “notifications” lately regarding my blog. One of them urged me to ‘contact them either way’ if I provided a link to their site or not. I think it was onlinedegrees.com or something like that.

    Anyway, I did nothing. But I was surprised and a little disheartened that American Libraries Direct (the weekly email from the Official Publication of the ALA), has featured these lists and linked to them…

    –Amy

  2. Maybe I *want* to decrease Google’s value. Or at least help them decrease their own value in the eyes of serious researchers, since their practice of ranking results by frickin’ popularity already does a pretty good job of making Google manky.

  3. PunkRock: Just to be clear, it’s not “popularity” in any sort of way that it’s typically understood. Google has said time and time again that they don’t take overall clicks into account, just links/linkbacks. When i think “popular” I think hits/uniques, not links.

    And: Amen to what Jessamyn said. Hate those things.

Comments are closed.