homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.179.48
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 32 ( 1 [2]     
The Secret of Penalty-Proof Paid Links
Shaddows

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4271529 posted 9:35 am on Feb 17, 2011 (gmt 0)

I have the secret as to how to utilise paid links without attracting a big Google Slap

The fact is, in competitive SERPs (proper ones, not the ones people SAY are competitive) paid links are a necessity. Overstock [webmasterworld.com], and JCP [webmasterworld.com] provide two examples that we can talk about here.

Many, many others abound. How do they avoid the Google Slap where mere mortals are relegated to the lower realms of the dungeon dimensions (also known as PAGE 5!)? Most established webmasters or SEOs know two things about paid links
1) (Almost) everyone does it
2) It can be a risk

It's a lot like bluffing in Poker. It's dangerous unless you know the hows, whys and whens of what you are doing. Its very hard to win without it. It hurts if you get caught. Any you're never quite sure exactly how much your opponents are doing.

So, when is it OK to buy links? Or rather, what factors shift the probability curve for getting the Google Slap (which is independant on whether taking that risk offers ROI- which could make for an interesting thread in itself). I have heard, sometimes from my own keypad, the nebulous concept of "brand" mooted as one posibility. Other, equally ill-defined, concepts include size [...OF WHAT?], link profile, or niche.

I'd love to hear what definitions and, if you're feeling particularly adventurous, values move sites toward immunity.

Ok, ok, I lied in about having the answer, but made you read, didn't I? Maybe if you contribute, we can come up with the answer together.

 

brinked

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4271529 posted 2:57 pm on May 4, 2011 (gmt 0)

Shaddows is 100% right. Google attacking all paid links is unfair. Sure, a lot of backlink schemes should be discredited (not penalized).

Most people are resource hogs. Most people will go to your site use its free resources and never give any kind of credit (ala a backlink on there blog recommending it or something similar). There are a lot of websites that cater to people who really do not fit the audience of even having a website to place a backlink for.

A large percentage of back links are paid for in one shape or another. My problem with google is not them being against paid links, but them actually punishing sites for suspecting them of buying links. They should just not count these links.

enigma1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4271529 posted 3:33 pm on May 4, 2011 (gmt 0)

My problem with google is not them being against paid links, but them actually punishing sites for suspecting them of buying links. They should just not count these links.

Given google is a private entity I believe that what they do or what they don't is subject to one's interpretation.

And so we can talk all day about who they should punish or who they should credit, but in the end it's their decision. Much like is up to you, to go black, gray or white hat with your SEO or whatever. There aren't any "rules" about it.

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 32 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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