homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.22.29.137
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 89 ( 1 2 [3]     
Paying for backlinks
If you know someone with a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages..
chrisholgate




msg:170421
 10:43 pm on Sep 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you know of a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages shooting off it, all on the same domain and all rating around PR6 then would it be wrong (in either your eyes or Googles) to pay said site in order to put a link to your site on each of their pages?

Surely paying one person to gain a pretty much instant PR6 site (from the 1000+ PR6+ backlinks that would be generated) is a bit of a shortfall in the Google PR system?

Cheers guys

Chris

 

grifter




msg:170481
 5:38 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think you overestimate the knowledge of site owners world-wide.

Amen. I'd put the number at 10% or less.

agerhart




msg:170482
 5:41 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I guess you're not advocating Black Hat, just excusing it.

Why should the blackhats care that their spam is beating the search engines? The blackhats are outsmarting the search engines......winning. It's business.

So under that logic, we should just dump our trash out our car windows, cause there's no such thing as pollution, just bad garbage collection? Why not, that's the government's problem!

That's quite a stretch.

synergy




msg:170483
 3:25 am on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Getting back to the original question of this thread:

If you know of a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages shooting off it, all on the same domain and all rating around PR6 then would it be wrong (in either your eyes or Googles) to pay said site in order to put a link to your site on each of their pages?

Lets face it, some people that have an idea of SEO will buy links strictly for the PR. Heck, I'm considering trying it myself. Its an advertising expense and risk that could either be the single factor to take my young site to the next level or simply make my wallet thinner. Either way I walk away with a valuable piece to the SEO puzzle.

On the side of the person selling the PR, all I can say is that I wish I owned or had close contact with a PR8 site! :)

Most of these sites have sold to a reseller or personally marked off advertising real estate on their pages to capitalize on the popularity of their site. I noticed just today that at least one of the major news sites is selling text link advertising through a reseller for up to $3000 per link package!

Who wouldn't do this if they had the chance? It's the next generation of banner ads, only now the stakes are higher (or so we suspect).

The bottom line is, these sites have the right to sell advertising space and Google has the right to make these types of advertising relevant or irrelevant in it's equation.

With that, if someone were to buy links, and say Google currently accepts these links as relevant.. which would be better:

Hard links from every page on a 300 page PR8 site and two 150 page PR7 sites...

or

Links from every page from two 300 page PR8 sites?

nakulgoyal




msg:170484
 8:30 am on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, after so many mesages, the majority here seems to say that it's just a matter of words. .....don't say am selling PR even if you are....:-)

Just say I am selling advertising and if this is what is the reason behin PR Ad Network, then it was because he was selling Google's PageRank Technology that is patented by them I think.

And if you just sell ADS, is fine. :-)

I too sell ads but never SHOULD say that I am selling for PR but what do I say when clients say I will pay XX amount for X PR link. What am I selling and what are they buying?

How to evaluate if the link is XX $ worth or not? Incidentally, we all come back to Google PageRank. Thanks Google for the excellent technology. I think that votes on the Toolbar is also going to do something someday. :-)

dirkz




msg:170485
 9:59 am on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hard links from every page on a 300 page PR8 site and two 150 page PR7 sites...

Very hard to tell because non one knows for sure what TPR really means (it's probably logarithmic but to which base?). You don't know the real number behind it so you can't calculate. Also this is highly dependent on where the link is put (top of the page, how many other links, you know that).

But I would opt for getting links from several sites, just for diversifying the risk (if one gets penalized for selling or something different).

Even if some people call me a liar, I wouldn't buy links just for PR. Because it could fail. Visitors generate sales, not PR.

claus




msg:170486
 10:42 am on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> would it be wrong (...) to pay said site in order to put a link to your site on each of their pages?

That's known as a site sponsorship. Regardless of PR, it's traditional advertising and happens all the time.

/claus

Small Website Guy




msg:170487
 3:24 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

The site that got in trouble for selling PR put a big public statement on their website about exactly what they were doing.

The internet is full of advertising. In fact, no one links to you for free, they all want something in return.

So there's no way Google can determine if a link was bought for the value of the link (people click on it and visit your site), or for the PR value it buys.

As long as you don't post a big ad on your webiste that says "PR for sale!" Google can't do anything about it.

synergy




msg:170488
 4:03 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

I received an interesting email today from a prominent SEO company whom I exchange links with:


Mode Note:We cannot post private emails on the board. The jist of what the email said is that they have discontinued their linking program because they no longer feel it helps improve SE rankings.

WG

This email was sent to all of their links partners. Diversionary tactic or inside track information that we don't know about?

[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 8:12 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2003]
[edit reason] removed email quote [/edit]

greenfrog




msg:170489
 5:36 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

I received the exact same message as we obviously have exchanged links with the same site. I have not figured this one out yet, becuase the site is pr8 ( via googlebar ).

I have reasoned that he may be trying to cut down his outgoing/incoming link ratio ..... because the site has over 3000 incoming links?

If anyone has any insight into why a PR8 site with over 3000 incoming links would drop their link exchange partners?

I am more than curious.

roundabout




msg:170490
 5:50 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Here's the bottom line: Google does not like sites buying links for PR; however, the algorithm cannot detect whether or not a link was purchased. In certain cases where it believes this to have happened (e.g., SK, WU) Google may put some type of manual penalty on the site or the link.

WebFusion




msg:170491
 6:18 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have reasoned that he may be trying to cut down his outgoing/incoming link ratio ..... because the site has over 3000 incoming links?

If anyone has any insight into why a PR8 site with over 3000 incoming links would drop their link exchange partners?

Seems pretty simple really...the SEO site/company you are referring to has develped their own "network" of high-PR interlinked sites to the point that they no longer need sites outside their growing network of sites to help build either their backlinks or PR.

To verify this, simply persue their growing list of "projects" listined on the (PR8) front page. Many of them include simple mini-sites developed by the owner(s) themselves, all cleverly interlinked with various other sites in their network.

shurlee




msg:170492
 6:22 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

>If anyone has any insight into why a PR8 site with over 3000 incoming links would drop their link exchange partners?<

I may have a clue. The pr network charges $800 a month for an 8,(I know. I just bought two more the other day). If that site lost 2/3 of the inbounds, that would still be $800,000 a month. That kind of money even impresses me. I doubt that would ever really happen but I wouldn't be surprised at 100. Even at that, 8 grand a month for one site very likely beats the snot out of 3000 reciprocal links. Keep the good incomings and drop the freeloaders and guestbooks. That's what I do, I'm thinking maybe he does too.

It's simple. Selling pays better than reciprocating.

1milehgh80210




msg:170493
 7:38 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

we no longer feel that trading links is worth the benefits.
---Not just for us, but for anyone seeking to increase their rankining through trading links.<<<

I think thats the statement people are curious about.
Don't think thats true,...yet anyway :)

synergy




msg:170494
 8:01 pm on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think thats the statement people are curious about.

No doubt.. this email was icing on the cake for a day of my site dropping off the front page and sales halting to 1 per day from the 5-6 I was getting.

ADD:
I noticed that today on the pages of the SEO firm I received that email from, their link specialist guy is no longer listed as an employee. I wonder if he was released because his services are no longer needed.

jdancing




msg:170495
 2:24 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

They are just getting rid of the junk links to make room for a pay-per-link program. I bet the page where you had their link was less then a PR-4.

I'd fire my links manager also if he was giving away links instead of earning is salary by selling link ads at $800 a pop per month.

synergy




msg:170496
 2:47 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

The link pages I had my links on were PR5 and mine was the only link on there :(

I think that the outside linking was a strategy they used, but no longer need to now since they have a sheer number of sites they have developed that have high PR that they can interlink with each other.

claus




msg:170497
 3:26 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just re-read this long thread. It's really good. Although it touches a lot of relevant sub-topics, there's still one nagging me. Said advertising seems to work nicely at the moment doesn't it?

I'm not sure it does in all cases, but if it should do so i'm not even sure i think it's good news, as a SEO (claiming my own "promotion" here i guess ; )

/claus


Btw. the "swimming fish" is really a stone. Ludvig Holberg, the Danish playwright, first popularized that kind of pseudo-argumentation (syllogism, i believe) in his great 1731 play "Erasmus Montanus" like this: "A stone cannot fly. Mother cannot fly. Ergo, Mother is a stone!"
Net_Wizard




msg:170498
 4:09 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Btw. the "swimming fish" is really a stone. Ludvig Holberg, the Danish playwright, first popularized that kind of pseudo-argumentation (syllogism, i believe) in his great 1731 play "Erasmus Montanus" like this: "A stone cannot fly. Mother cannot fly. Ergo, Mother is a stone!"

:D

rise2it




msg:170499
 6:12 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

hmmmm....what drug was that dude on in 1732?

BigDave




msg:170500
 7:11 am on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google does not have to know the intent of a site's links before applying a filter.

They have no need at all to try and figure out your intention. It would be a waste of their time. There is a much more effective way to do this that does not have to be concerned with intention.

What they do is apply the filter in those cases where the links off the page seem to excessively skew the results of the majority of the sites that they link to.

They don't care why those links are skewing the results, they just want it to stop. So they stop it. It is that simple. End of story.

Of course if you are stupid enough to advertise that you are selling PR, then you make your intentions obvious. You might as well paint a target on your back.

claus




msg:170501
 2:37 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> in those cases where the links off the page seem to excessively skew the results

In this case it seems that one PR8 and two PR7 is better than two PR8.

/claus

dvldvl25




msg:170502
 4:10 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

very long post i did not manage to read it all
but simply put

i cant see any problem arising from this.

any succesfull site sells ad space. these are comprised of links (banners)

example about.com if they sell ad space (a link) will they be penalised no.

will you? i dont know, google might have taken all the large sites like about, cnn, msn etc and discount the pr.

legit advertisers dont care about the pr lost , they are paying for the traffic and increased sales.

the main point then is, does google remove the pr gained from the huge sites linking to other sites.

yankee




msg:170503
 4:24 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

"What they do is apply the filter in those cases where the links off the page seem to excessively skew the results of the majority of the sites that they link to."

That's a pretty bold statement. Can you tell us how you came to this conclusion?

dirkz




msg:170504
 5:53 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

excessively skew the results of the majority of the sites that they link to

What is skew and what is ordinary linking?

As said previously, paid links can work, sometimes they don't (for gaining PR). There are no guidelines whatsoever.

I would bite my a** if I bought a link for much money that doesn't work out as giving PR. So the old statement still holds true:

Never buy links just because of PR.

JoeHouse




msg:170505
 7:51 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hello all

I know I am kinda going off the beaten path a little but I was wondering if someone can answer a few questions for me.

Regarding inbound links and link poularity for pr. Do search engines (particularly google) count the actually links coming into your website to rank your popularity regardless where they have come from?

Also I have heard about a paid link service where they put your link into their database and your link shows up into 1000's of individual directories.

Now if your link is supposedly in 1000's of directories but only in one data base, do search engines count that as one (1)link or 1000's of links towards popularity?

Your utmost response to this question would be appreciated. I am very interested to hear anyone's response that can answer this question for me.

Thanks!

synergy




msg:170506
 8:10 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Watch out for link-farms and free-for-alls when it comes to linking. Otherwise, just about anything else goes.

BigDave




msg:170507
 9:02 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

That's a pretty bold statement. Can you tell us how you came to this conclusion?

Not bold at all. Just applying programming experience and simple logic to the observed fact that they are many high PR sites that do not pass PR even though they have clean HTML links.

Google does not care about your "intent" they care about the searcher getting what they are interested in.

What is skew and what is ordinary linking?

That is for Google to decide.

There are no guidelines whatsoever.

I'm sure there are internal guidelines. Why anyone else should concern themselves is beyond me.

I would bite my a** if I bought a link for much money that doesn't work out as giving PR.

Google is the only one that can sell you PR and guarantee that it will be passed to you. They can, but they won't. If you assume you are getting PR from a link, that is just a bad assumption on your part.If the person you are buying that link from is stupid enough to put a guarantee into writing, you have a case against them, and so does Google.

claus




msg:170508
 10:45 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> I have heard about a paid link service where they

...ask you to put a small bit of code on your pages? Or a link perhaps?

>> Now if your link is supposedly in 1000's of directories but only in one data base,
>> do search engines count that as one (1)link or 1000's of links towards popularity?

I think most search engines will count 1000's as they see pages, not databases - that is not the same as saying that this is a good idea though, or that you will benefit from it in the SE rankings. Regarding Google, this is the text in their webmaster guidelines (under "specific recommendations"):

Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content
[google.com...]

You might want to read the second last paragraph on that page closely, and then consider that the Gbot actually retrieves the content of all these 1000 directories, as well as your own pages. The raw source code, that is.

/claus

dirkz




msg:170509
 9:43 am on Oct 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

BigDave, I agree with most of what you said (in fact, my previous post was no objection).

As I hinted at the end of my post, it's better to buy traffic generating Links and see PR as added value. I think we both can agree to this.

As for "skewing results excessively" this is very general, maybe too general for an algorithm. Every link changes the results, where is the border line to draw? If I have a widgets page (PR1) and get a link from a famous widgets directory (PR9 and passing it) then this will "skew" the results a lot, because my page will suddenly outrank many other widgets pages.

I believe there is manual intervention on part of Google here and guessing "intent". I can't imagine an algo can decide this.

And if I look at SERPs, it seems to me that there are no real guidelines at Google, they are fine-tuning their algorithms (and thereby rewriting their "guidelines") regularly.

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 89 ( 1 2 [3]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved