There is a tactic called content locking which requires a user to share a post or homepage URL in order to unlock content (either a video, a full post or downloadable ebook). Do you think this is manipulating signals to increase search rankings? Argument Against Using Content Locking Social signals and links from Google Plus shares clearly correlate to increased search engine visibility. Requiring a user to pay for content with social sharing is only used to improve search rankings. According to the webmaster guidelines: "Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee. Another useful test is to ask, 'Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?'" Argument For Using Content Locker Users tend to value their social profiles and won't share something unless they believe it is valuable. Requiring a share is just a push to motivate them to share something they value. Additionally, it is similar to an email opt-in in that the publisher now has a social media lead they can follow up on. It's not just about SEO, it's about tapping into social network traffic and engagement on social networks.

We already know that over optimsied anchor text for external will cause a penalty. But what about internal links? All of our blog posts include an advertisement linking sales pages. These links all use the exact same anchor text. Is linking to an internal page from so many other pages (blog posts) likely to trigger a penalty? Here is an example: http://www.designquotes.com.au/business-blog/four-ways-to-enhance-your-e-commerce-site-for-busy-shoppers/ This links to http://www.designquotes.com.au/web-design-quotes Many of the posts link to the same page using the anchor text "Compare Web Design Quotes from Local Designers."