|Can some IBL's hurt my website?|
| 6:49 am on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Can google penalize my site for some inbound links? For example from sites with low TrustRank? By the way can anyone explain me what it is and how it can be calculated?
| 7:59 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
google has said time and again that nothing another webmaster does can hurt your rankings. so if you believe the official google line, then no, IBLs cannot hurt your ranking.
anctedotally however, i've seen countless examples of site where large number of low quality and unrelated purchased links have seemed to at least raise a red flag about a site. and google bowling is considered to be a functioning way to knock a competitor's site out of the serps.
so my advice is that if you're positive there's nothing else shady going on with the site, then no you'll probably be ok with a few sketchy links, especially if they are outweighed by quality IBLs.
on the other hand if the site commits flagrant violations of seo guidelines you may want to be more careful as far as the pacing and volume of questionable IBLs.
| 10:21 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No longer that simple.
Matt Cutts has stated that incoming links can hurt - if, for example, they are part of a spammy link network.
But the problem as described here - a single link from a site - then no worries; so long as you don't share a network with any site in that neighborhood.
| 10:31 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Matt Cutts has stated that incoming links can hurt - if, for example, they are part of a spammy link network. |
So I should create a "spammy link network" with links to my competition?
| 10:53 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sure, but don't forget to ask them to participate.
Otherwise the network will include your sites, and Google won't ;)
Meanwhile, pop over to Matt Cutts for the full story ...
| 11:07 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, if Google suspects you have purchased in bound links, you will be dropped.
From Matt Cutts blog "The sites that fit 'no pages in Bigdaddy' criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site. Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling."
As there is no way Google could know for sure if you have paid for in bound links without seeing your financials, they would have to simply take a guess if you have paid for a link or not. If they decide you have paid for the link, you will be dropped. Even if you haven't paid for any links to your site it won't matter, Google have no real way of know if you have paid or not. They just take a guess. If it looks like you may have paid for a link, well, that'll be good enough for them.
Let's say I setup a site that advertises the selling of paid links. Google scans the site and decides to black flag any site my site links to because they are paid links.
Now I can use my fake 'Paid Link' site to link to my competitors, taking them out of Google. I could slowly push my real money making site further towards the number 1 spot by eliminating everyone in front of me using my 'Paid Link' site.
Or, a simpler method of removing your competition from Google, pay for their in bound links yourself from an already banned link selling site.
I don't think it matters who actually pays for the link, if you have paid links to your site, you will get dropped. Use one of the '50,000 links for $9.95' sites and for a $10 investment, you can have a site banned. Pretty good value if you ask me.
Short answer, yes, a one way, non reciprical link from another site that Google thinks you may have paid for will get you dropped from the index, according to Matt Cutts.
I wonder how may people that have had big chunks of their stites getting dropped is because Google thinks one of the inbound links to the site was a paid link?
| 11:26 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
might be worth adding that Google almost invariably does not look at individual sites and penalize them; their algo looks at patterns.
There is no way to analyze an individual link to see if it is paid for or not ... but a pattern of industrial-strength interlinking will ring alarm bells, particularly when those links are not related to site content.
| 1:58 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Quadrille - Can you elaborate :
|so long as you don't share a network with any site in that neighborhood. |
We have multi lingual sites which interlink on the same C Block. ie Site A/Page 234 points a link to a translation on SiteB/Page 234.
Will this hurt?
| 7:57 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interesting case. I don't know for sure.
My 'gut feeling' says you'll be fine - but 'non offending' sites do get caught in the crossfire, and I'd monitor your position in the serps on a regular basis - keep a spreadsheet of serp positions for a range of phrases, including at least one for each language.
If you do encounter problems, the solution is to put all the stuff on one site - a better solution anyway, but if you are established, I'd not change unless you need to.
Having said that, there are SEO gains to having all your content on one site, 301-ing the other sites to mainsite.com
You might consider a program of change, bringing the different language sites 'home' over a period of time, rather than all at once. Tough work on the navigation, but worth it in the long term.
Just to be clear, duplicating in another language is not a problem; the multiple links just might be. Stay alert.
| 11:51 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Short answer, yes, a one way, non reciprical link from another site that Google thinks you may have paid for will get you dropped from the index, according to Matt Cutts. |
This is not the way I understood.
What he said (I think) is that if Google thinks you paid for a link, the link will be devalued.
So, if your site rankings are based entirely (or mostly) on paid links, the links may be suddenly devalued and you lose the rankings.
Now, if a site (your competitor) has enough legitimate back links to deserve good rankings, throwing paid links at it shouldn't make any harm (actually, it could benefit it instead).