homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.21.7
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 107 message thread spans 4 pages: 107 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Why does google still value "bought links"
Website is up on place 2 after buying lots of links
baron13




msg:93241
 3:47 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have found a new website in the serps in my business. This site was nowhere 1 month ago and now this site is on rank 2 in google. And if I take a look at the backlinks I can see more than 9000 backlinks from only 4 different domains. Why does google still count bought links?

 

Brett_Tabke




msg:93242
 4:22 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Who says they do? And who says they were boughten links?

> 4 different domains

So they own domains...so...build 4 domains yourself.

keywordguru




msg:93243
 7:53 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

The difference between purchased backlinks, and natural backlinks is obvious to the eye, yet isn't always as easy for the bot. There could be a legit person who has a link on a site that is site wide, yet 4 is pushing it unless the site is extremely relevant and FULL of content.

There are a few site networks out there that will turn a PR7 or PR8 with little to no effort. I guess money still talk......
KG

iblaine




msg:93244
 8:01 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

How can google or any search engine be expected to penalize paid links? How could a search engine recognize a natural link vs a paid link? It's impossible. If your competitor is buying links and you are being beat in the serps then you should look into buying links.

bumpski




msg:93245
 8:26 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

http://www.google.com/technology/
PageRank Explained

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B.

I hope the US democracy does not end up working this way!
I wonder what one could sell a vote in the US elections for?
I know it's just "business".

bobothecat




msg:93246
 8:50 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

What's wrong with Google counting paid links? If a site can afford to buy relevant links - so what... it's called advertising.

A business model that expects to make it on the Internet through getting everything for free usually fails.

ILLstyle




msg:93247
 8:57 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

iblaine

I don't think they would want to penalize for this but like the post said just not give any value. I also think it is possible for Google to find what links are paid for, especially with human interaction.

bobothecat
>>What's wrong with Google counting paid links? If a site can afford to buy relevant links - so what... it's advertising.

It is advertising but most of the time they are trying to buy PR or Backlinks, the whole point of the natural serps is you can't buy your way in.
Even though people get away with it, this is not in Google best interest to allow. I would think Goolge would want to keep the Nat Serps a clean as they can.

The Contractor




msg:93248
 8:59 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

I hope the US democracy does not end up working this way!
I wonder what one could sell a vote in the US elections for?
I know it's just "business".

hmm.. so do you endorse link exchanges that is basically saying I won't vote for you if you don't vote for me?

I don't understand why people get so excited about people that buy links or advertise on other sites (think it's envy if nothing else). Do people complain when companies spend money to advertise their products/services via radio, print, television or other medium?

Look, if you are trying to make a living off of your business whether it be online or offline and you set your your advertising budget at $0 - you will have a long wait, waiting for word of mouth to support your business. That's the way it's been in business - that's the way it will be IMHO.

People have to quit whining and get off their wallets if they have a business, product, or service they are trying to market/promote and expect to compete with those that are willing to spend-money-to-make-money.

nuevojefe




msg:93249
 9:16 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Another thing to consider is that IF they weren't spending money on buying links they could spend it on permanent link development, more content, other media advertising, blog promotion, forum promotion, sponsoring WW's search conference (j/k), buying other competitor's sites to create a monopoly (then interlinking, etc)... the list goes on.

If people have more money (and/or aren't afraid to spend it)they can do lots of things to get traffic, build their presence or just out do you.

It's not something I'm always happy about, we have been on both ends, but it's a fact.

So please, don't just assume that if it wasn't for those pesky paid links you'd have the whole pie.

cabbie




msg:93250
 9:38 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>So they own domains...so...build 4 domains yourself.<<<
It reminds me of the story about a man passing away during the Second World War and meeting St John at the Pearly Gates.
The man couldn't contain himself with indignation.
"Why do you let Hitler get away with all his killing?Why don't you stop him?"

St John replied "Why didn't you stop him?"

"What me!?I am only one man!"

"So is Hitler"

The Contractor




msg:93251
 9:39 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

So please, don't just assume that if it wasn't for those pesky paid links you'd have the whole pie.

Exactly!

Some are so tied to concentrating on a few keywords/positions they don't realize that their competition is using advertising and/or PPC "wisely" at a fraction of the effort to draw traffic for hundreds/thousands of related terms at a very reasonable cost.

crobb305




msg:93252
 10:00 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Whats the difference between "bought" links and "exchanged" links? People have been exchanging links for years. And in either case, both parties are getting something out of the deal. For anyone who has "exchanged" links, it seems hypocritical to criticize someone for "buying" links. Having links to your site from other sites, regardless of the methodology used, is a very effective form of advertising. I get 10% of my traffic from such links.

C

EliteWeb




msg:93253
 10:03 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

SEO was easy a few years ago, as more and more people pick up the book SEO for Dummies you have to keep working on your step. Just as if a SEO book becomes outdated within months so can your techniques with your sites so always re-evaluate what you've done thus far and see what you can do to keep up with the competition.

beren




msg:93254
 10:11 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Two things that are tough to believe:

1) That Google and other search engines don't devalue obviously paid links. They corrupt the search rankings in many cases. And it can't be difficult for the engines to identify a large portion of the paid links.

2) That people at Webmasterworld defend paid links and compare them to advertising. There's a reason newspapers force advertisements to be printed in different typeface than their news stories. It's so readers can tell them apart. Paid links distort the search engine results.

EliteWeb




msg:93255
 10:25 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Its the search engines jobs to figure out what to do :P Our job to figure out what they did.

bobothecat




msg:93256
 10:27 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Two things that are tough to believe:
1) That Google and other search engines don't devalue obviously paid links. They corrupt the search rankings in many cases. And it can't be difficult for the engines to identify a large portion of the paid links."

Corrupt the search engines in what way? If it's spam - they'll get caught - and usually dealt with accordingly.

"2) That people at Webmasterworld defend paid links and compare them to advertising. There's a reason newspapers force advertisements to be printed in different typeface than their news stories. It's so readers can tell them apart. Paid links distort the search engine results."

Paid links equal: Yahoo Directory, and god know's how many other paid-for-inclusion sites. I think you answered your own question ... don't know if you've realized, but print media is much different than the Web.

If you're being beat because someone else is buying links - boo hoo - figure out what they're doing and do it better, or be prepared for possible lower rankings.

Just like life ... the Web isn't fair.

added: Sorry for the cut-and-dry response, but the "whoa is me syndrome" is not a good excuse when it comes to running a business on the 'Net.

[edited by: bobothecat at 10:51 pm (utc) on Oct. 19, 2004]

ILLstyle




msg:93257
 10:47 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

You should learn from your competitions link buying and exchanging. It is one of the easiest ways you can out rank them. Analyze your competition, write down what you like and dislike about their link campaign and strategies. Match them on what's working and do more of the same. I personally think a lot of obvious mass link buying is amateur, it probably will not work long term, and is easily matched by competition. If you are in it for the long term I would buy banner or flash ads on internet and buy print ads also.

I don't know why but I still see sites doing well on Google just buying text links. You would think Google would be smarter by now and not get gamed by this, but in my opinion it still does.

nuevojefe




msg:93258
 10:49 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Cabbie,

Me likes. :-)

The Contractor




msg:93259
 11:25 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

1) That Google and other search engines don't devalue obviously paid links. They corrupt the search rankings in many cases. And it can't be difficult for the engines to identify a large portion of the paid links.

2) That people at Webmasterworld defend paid links and compare them to advertising. There's a reason newspapers force advertisements to be printed in different typeface than their news stories. It's so readers can tell them apart. Paid links distort the search engine results.

And how do the above comments not pertain to link exchanging schemes?

Why would they (SE's) devalue links/advertising that are paid for and not links that are exchanged? To me purchasing advertising/links are a whole lot more natural than exchanging them... when was the last time you saw advertising in any other medium that competitors advertised back and forth with each other? I can see it now.. Ford Motor CO. having GM logo's in all their brochures and visa-versa.
People that believe that exchanging links is fine, but buying them are wrong, must just be cheap or something...

bobothecat




msg:93260
 11:31 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

"People that believe that exchanging links is fine, but buying them are wrong, must just be cheap or something..."

... or amateur Webmasters that expect 'pie-in-the-sky' for nothing ;)

Patrick Taylor




msg:93261
 11:57 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Bought links aren't advertising - they're bribery. Whether you're for or against is another matter.

The Contractor




msg:93262
 12:02 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Bought links aren't advertising - they're bribery.

Again...and how is this different from link exchanges? Seems everyone makes these comments, yet doesn't explain why purchased links/advertising should be frowned upon, but not link exchange schemes. I stand by my thoughts that purchasing is a lot more natural than link exchanges...

I guess AdWords,other PPC, and all media advertising is bribery by that standard. If someone works and gets a high traffic site - why is it so wrong for them to sell advertising on it?

edited for clarity

graywolf




msg:93263
 12:43 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Old Story

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.

Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.

The moral:

It doesn't matter if you are a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you better be running.

Build your own one way links or buy them from someone else. Time spent complaining about how fiar it is or isn't certainly isn't part of the ranking algo.

Patrick Taylor




msg:93264
 12:59 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm not complaining. I'm simply pointing out that there is, or should be, a basic difference - especially as far as user perception is concerned - between a natural link, a paid-for link, and an advert. If you don't see it, you don't see it, and blurring the difference undermines the fundamental quality of the web. I would imagine Google are aware of this, even though they maybe don't take the action they could (for whatever reason).

In the same way, there is a difference between a TV advert and "product placement" within the actual feature, the second of which in some cases goes against codes of practice - for good reason.

ps: I often find the term "amateur webmaster" intensely patronising.

graywolf




msg:93265
 1:14 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Product placement IS advertising, it's just a semantics debate.

androidtech




msg:93266
 1:58 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Exchanging links is identical to buying links except the currency is page rank for page rank boost instead of cash for page rank boost. An exchanged link has no more bearing on the worthiness or quality of a web site than a bought link does.

Page rank is Google's substitute for a human review. It succeeds because although it has many faults, it's the only metric there is for dealing with billions of web pages, since it can be done in an automated fashion (as opposed to semantic analysis which would not be feasible with today's computing resources).

Thanks.

1milehgh80210




msg:93267
 2:46 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

How many of those that complain about paid links use links between sites they control to increase rankings.
How -natural- are those links?

You can put up the best site in the world, it still needs some starter links for people to see it in the serps and realize how 'wonderful' it is in order to link to it 'naturally'.

That comes down to money
$paid adv./links or
$ppc

matt21811




msg:93268
 3:15 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. "

This statement by google has always bugged me. Its wrong in several ways.

First, unlike a democracy, votes are not equal. Page rank makes some votes worth much more than others. Hardly democratic.

Second, unlike a real democratic election, voting is not secret. You must tell everyone how you vote.

I like to think of linking as an endorsement. Getting a link for a high PR page is a celebrity endorsment. Some celebrities give their endosrments away free and others get paid for it. I dont have a problem with either situation.

Patrick Taylor




msg:93269
 3:28 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

... it's just a semantics debate

No, it's about understanding the difference between different things. Once again, I'm not complaining about anything other than people not seeing the difference between one thing and another thing. An advert should be seen for what it is - an advert. A bought link that doesn't look like an advert isn't an advert... it's just a device.

As it happens, I don't believe in link exchanges just to increase PR, nor buying links just to increase PR. Neither is "natural" and therefore is against Google's philosophy (I believe). I've made my choice, as you've made yours.

bobothecat




msg:93270
 4:07 am on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Bought links aren't advertising - they're bribery. Whether you're for or against is another matter

And when you file your taxes at the end of the year - how do you claim this expense? Other than advertising - I'm not sure how you could justify calling it anything else. :)

This 107 message thread spans 4 pages: 107 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
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