Hosting Provider Hi-Jacking Links

RedMaxP

I am responsible for an e-commerce site and have just received notification from our hosting vendor that their T&C are changing, one of the big changes is that they intend to append content to every page served and that this content would be an acknowledgement of their platform and also a link to their site.

My own opinion is that this is SEO hi-jacking as we will be providing a serious amount of links to this site (we currently have 17k pages in the google index).

Can I ask for your views on this, will this dilute our own link juice, is it fair, we spend a lot of time trying to build our own inbound links and do not feel it appropriate to be passing on our juice by default.

PaulPinnacle

RedMaxP wrote: »

will this dilute our own link juice

Yes. This one isn't a view, it's a fact.

RedMaxP wrote: »

is it fair

It's certainly a change and a technique that I wouldn't be willing to accept from any paid hosting service.

With such a significant change to their terms and conditions, have they given any option for users not willing to accept the new T's&C's to terminate their contract? If so, and they have made all users aware of the change (even if not the full implications of it which only the more technical users will grasp), then it's probably 'legal' and after that, fair is nothing but a matter of opinion.

RedMaxP wrote: »

we spend a lot of time trying to build our own inbound links and do not feel it appropriate to be passing on our juice by default.

I think it's quite a short sited move. The negative publicity and loss of customers they will suffer 'should' seriously outweigh any benefits they achieve in PR boost/increased traffic.

RedMaxP

Thanks Paul that confirms what I thought.

Do you know if this is a common practice or total out of step with other providers?

testicle

RedMaxP wrote: »

Thanks Paul that confirms what I thought.

Do you know if this is a common practice or total out of step with other providers?

Do you pay for this service? It's totally out of order for paid hosting. Who's the Hosting provider as a matter of interest?

mneylon

I've never heard of a paid hosting provider doing anything like this.
It's the kind of thing you'd expect on a free host of some kind

RedMaxP

This is a paid host that provides integration with a CRM package, this is their niche but I still do not think that it entitles them to embedd a link

RedMaxP

testicle wrote: »

Do you pay for this service? It's totally out of order for paid hosting. Who's the Hosting provider as a matter of interest?

Hi I think that to mention their name now would not be the wisest thing to do until I reply formally to their T&C. I do appreciate your opinions though!

mneylon

RedMaxP wrote: »

This is a paid host that provides integration with a CRM package, this is their niche but I still do not think that it entitles them to embedd a link

Then they're not really a hosting provider

They're an ASP

So what they're probably doing is putting a link back to them in the footer?

Is that it?

RedMaxP

They are more than an ASP.
The site is hosted on their servers, managed via their CMS and integrated with their CRM

mneylon

RedMaxP wrote: »

They are more than an ASP.
The site is hosted on their servers, managed via their CMS and integrated with their CRM

They're providing a hosted application .. so they are an ASP...

You haven't answered my question about the link though - is it just a link in the footer?

RedMaxP

They mention that this link and recognition would be included at the bottom of the page, have not said specifically that it would be in the footer but I would assume this to be the case.

RedMaxP

Just wondering if we could insist on a no follow tag around this link, would this be sufficient to prevent dilution of link juice?

mneylon

RedMaxP wrote: »

They mention that this link and recognition would be included at the bottom of the page, have not said specifically that it would be in the footer but I would assume this to be the case.

Ok - that's not such a big deal.

If you were using a lot of open source (or even licensed) software you'd be expected to retain a link back to their site..

In some cases you can pay to get the link removed ..

So I suspect the link would be something like "powered by X" which is a statement of fact

And it's not "hosting" - you're using a hosted service

PaulPinnacle

Blacknight wrote: »

And it's not "hosting" - you're using a hosted service

+1. This changes things considerably.

If it was 'hosting', this would be extremely unusual and totally out of keeping with similar services. A step I certainly wouldn't accept.

When it relates to a hosted service, it's pretty much standard and to be expected.

RedMaxP wrote: »

Just wondering if we could insist on a no follow tag around this link, would this be sufficient to prevent dilution of link juice?

No. This used to be the case, or at least it was what people believed to be the case, but due to SE's having issues with the over prevalence of PR sculpting, this isn't the case anymore (or at least, that's what they tell us).

All links on the page (at least the ones SE's crawl, potentially links can be hidden using frames/ajax/etc., but that's getting messy) are used in calculating the spread of link juice from that page. Placing a rel nofollow on a link means that no page rank boost is passed to that link, but it still dilutes the effectiveness of the other links on the page (both internal and external). It means that nofollow can't be used as a means of having total control of where your link juice goes (e.g. PR sculpting), but serves as a means of dis-encouraging spammy backlinks.

RedMaxP

Thanks guys for all the advice & info.

Much appreciated!

link8r

PaulPinnacle wrote: »

Yes. This one isn't a view, it's a fact

Hi Paul - I disagree strongly that have an outbound link dilutes your "link juice". AFAIK from Google's very strong communications on this, this has never been the case for the last decade.

PaulPinnacle

link8r wrote: »

AFAIK from Google's very strong communications on this, this has never been the case for the last decade.

Ehh? Perhaps we've got crossed wires here. Every communication I've ever seen from Google (including their patent applications related to this) have all confirmed it to be the case.

I don't have time to dig out a clear link (there are many), but from a video I happened to be using to illustrate another point you can see Matt confirming it (although it's made specifically in relation to dofollow blogs, the general point stands) around the 2 minute mark.

It makes perfect sense that the more links are on a given page, the less juice that flows to each (if not, I can only imagine the spam would result). There is only a certain amount of page rank to flow, so it would be foolish to believe that the same juice flows from a page with 100 links as from a page with 2 links (assuming the page rank of both is equal).

Having a forced link on the page means that a certain portion of the page rank is given to that page (or simply lost if it's a nofollow), so I can't see any question about 'link juice being diluted'.

link8r

PaulPinnacle wrote: »

Ehh? Perhaps we've got crossed wires here

Yes - I was referring to @OP's PageRank/Reputation not being diluted as a result of OBL's, not about the authority pass-through.

PaulPinnacle

link8r wrote: »

Yes - I was referring to @OP's PageRank/Reputation not being diluted as a result of OBL's, not about the authority pass-through.

Ahh, valid point.

My own reading of the OP gave the impression that they understood they don't 'lose PR' as a result of OBL's, just that they lose control of where the benefits of that PR then flow when it's a 'forced link'. But a point well worth raising to ensure no misunderstanding of it (for the OP or others).