| 11:22 pm on Mar 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I notice there has also been a lot of talk about the Panda update, dismissing low quality links.
| 11:27 pm on Mar 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
IMO..unless your site has loads of "trust" ..? you are liable to tank ( like possibly a -50 or worse ) it if they all link at once..2k links unless they are naturally occurring ..is going to get you "noticed" at the plex..could the linking and your site stand a human inspection by the plex or its quality control ?
| 12:36 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
The site is 4 years old with a PR5 at present.
| 12:37 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I would NOT do it. Google will show you no mercy
| 12:42 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Maverick, I have tried it every way you can think of, and slow and steady is what I have came back too.
Google does have various filters they could apply along with penalty's, it does not happen in every case but I have found out the hard way several times.
Slow and steady has always worked, fast and hard has cost me lots of time and money. I will never push to many too fast again.
Also within the last year it seems Google has stepped up there game on giving penalty's, and added some new filters.
I have done something similar to what your talking about and it got the site stuck on second page and has not moved in a year.
| 12:51 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Gah, I received an email to let me know the links were live. I'd not agreed to them going live. I've asked him to remove them, before Google picks them up.
My gut feeling is that nothing good, long term can come from it. But the curious side of me, wants to go ahead. I think I'll listen to my gut.
| 2:12 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Not being a smart butt or anything but Mav if you don't want them I'll take em! If it was as easy as 2k links to get a site knocked down by google then everyone one would be pointing bad links to their competition.
| 2:28 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|If it was as easy as 2k links to get a site knocked down by google then everyone one would be pointing bad links to their competition. |
Depends on the individual site and how fast the links accumulate ..2k simultaneous ( or all within a very few days ) extra links to a site that doesn't have "trust" with G ..can be very bad for it.
And many people are doing just this kind of work to downgrade competitors or bring sites to G's notice that would not have raised flags otherwise..
One can pay to have xrumer "create" links for your site ..and also to have it "create" links aimed at your rivals..A few BH SEOs buy and use it only for the latter.
| 2:38 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
It would take more than 2k links though, to harm a 4 year old, PR5 website.
Though that said, I just don't think the links will help either.
Google should only ever discredit a link, NEVER penailise. It just opens up a whole lot of abuse. They say they don't, but I bet in instances they do. Though likely less so, with established websites.
| 3:08 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|It would take more than 2k links though, to harm a 4 year old, PR5 website. |
Depends how many it already had..what type and quality they were , how varied the type ( all from footers etc ) or some in content and some in footers or sides or "comments"..would the anchor text vary ? ..are they all targeting the same page or small group of pages..? do any other sites with "trust" suddenly link at the same time to the site using the same words or targeting the same content or pages .
The subject is more complex than some may think ..and they're the ones who are likely to hurt themselves doing this sort of thing ( especially if it was all in the control of someone else that "went live" before given the go ahead )..these sound like "paid links" or farmed recips/ exchange farmed.
G isn't run by dummies ..why would they or their algos think that the site somehow got them naturally ..
btw..PR isn't all it is cracked up to be ..if PR 8 and 9 don't give "immunity" what makes you think PR5 ( a "manipulated number on a "toolbar" designed to spread FUD ) would, likewise 4 years is not old to be giving "immunity" either.
| 3:49 am on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Can targeted links in volume, have an impact? |
2000 blogs on the same network doesn't exactly suggest high quality, does it?
| 12:33 pm on Mar 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I'd be very careful with leaving any traceable footprint. Blog networks sound good, but they leave a very traceable footprint. Once the web spam team get alerted to a pattern, the network is useless and in some cases, harmful to be a part of.
| 5:27 am on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I would say that this is not like this.Only quality links matters and not the quantity.
| 11:12 am on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I would like to ask a question around a similar topic that is about deleting low quality links as opposed to adding them.
Our site has a widget which is bringing in 1000's of links that has been downloaded by 1000's of low quality sites. Obviously these links have been acquired through a legitimate link building method but I'm wondering what the effect of this high volume of low quality links is having on our site.
It's getting to the stage now where the volume of traffic using the service that said widget offers is now impacting on our systems and it has been suggested that we block the service to these low quality sites (mainly relating to Viagra etc) to improve the service we offer to better quality sites.
Obviously this means deleting links, which would go against the grain as most people are in the business of gaining not deleting links.
So what I need some opinions on is whether blocking these low quality links will have a positive or negative effect on rankings overall?
| 11:27 am on Mar 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Of course do it.
Just not on you main site.
Then you'll know, with no risk.