homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

How many backlinks should i obtain per day?
(if i have too many per day it isn't good in Google's eyes)

 7:02 pm on Jan 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have a new site with 0 backlinks . For PR increasing , i must have baclinks from sites with the same topic(category). Supose i can obtain 30 backlink per day, but google want "natural backlinks" . You know by your experience haw many backlinks it is good to obtain per day/month? I am thinking to obtain 1 backlink/day in the firs month ,2 links per day in second manth etc Any advice will be aprecciate.



 8:51 pm on Jan 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

i can obtain 30 backlink per day, but google want "natural backlinks"

First lets discuss about what "natural" means. "Natural" links is thrown around alot but what does it really mean? I'll try to explain by example..

If you use a service that guarantees links and if that service links you to 50 sites every day for 30 days, at the end of that period, you will have exactly 1500 links, is that natural? NO. It would produce a synthetic graph.. a straight line clearly showing the search engines you are up to chicanery. Same thing goes for services that link you to hundreds or thousands of sites in the same day period (or other short term period).

Natural means this: you obtained 5 links today, none for the following 4 days, 2 the next day, none the next 4 days, 1 the following day, 8 the following day none the next week, then 1, then none for two weeks, then 7 the next day, and so on.. that would produce a jagged or "natural" low volume graph. Exactly what the search engines want to see.

So to answer your question, sure it would be great to obtain exactly 30 links per day but if you actually were able to control 30 webmasters decisions every single day, you would be the big man on campus and I would then suggest you go into the business of building links for everyone.. but thats not realistic is it?

It's not realistic to get exactly 30 links a day. More realistic (similar to what martinibuster said a few threads back).. is to ASK/REQUEST 30 links a day. Asking for links and obtaining links are two totally different things. Not all 30 link requests are going to link back. Some will and some won't. That's natural and will not produce a synthetic graph.

Why do I keep mentioning "synthetic graph"? Because its specifically noted in Google's 2003 patent:

"A sudden growth in the number of apparently independent peers, incoming and/or outgoing, with a large number of links to individual documents may indicate a potentially synthetic web graph, which is an indicator of an attempt to spam"

Obviously, you don't want to do anything to show up on a search engine's radar producing a penalization which is why it's important to obtain links naturally with editorial discretion on making links and in slow/natural volume.

So to get back to your question... I think you are overthinking this a bit.. Request links as often as you like knowing that many webmasters ignore link requests. It's tough work so unless you are subcontracting the work out to a cheap-labor 3rd party, it's technically impossible to obtain lots of links overnight and on a daily basis unless you found a cure for cancer (or similar newsmaking event).

Avoid services that make guarantees on links. If you use software to manage link exchange, make sure you use one that's editor based which makes it impossible to obtain exactly 30 (or insert any number there) links a day.

Heres a tip alot of people don't think about.. webmasters are going to make linking decisions based on what they think of your site. If they come to your site and see what looks like a cob-webbed relic, they aren't going to link to your site. If they see your site as a thriving brilliant resource with lots of original information that doesnt exist elsewhere on the web, they are more likely to link to it.

In short, don't overthink this too much. Request as many links as you want keeping in mind many will ignore your request (they dont have time for it, or they dont like your site, or they don't think your site is a good match for their users). It's perfectly normal to send out 100 link requests and have only a handful respond favorably.

Again, link building success or failure is going to to depend mostly on what other webmasters think of your site which is why link building and content updates go hand in hand.


 10:00 pm on Jan 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

The following message was cut out to new thread by martinibuster. New thread at: link_development/3208786.htm [webmasterworld.com]
5:24 pm on Jan. 4, 2007 (utc -8)


 10:02 pm on Jan 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Tks cnvi ,i try to detail a little(with examples we learn better) : i have a website who present laptops and mobil phones (and other things -not ecommerce,just presentation of products with pictures and technical datas). My competitor site (3 years old on the web) have 1200 backlinks from the producers(companies who produce that laptops and mobile phones)very good links,of course, because are on the same topic. In fact ,those links are reciprocal , because if a visitor want to buy a product , he has on that page a link to that producer(company).So the companies are very interested to sell her products and will put backlins with no problems . It is good for my site to obtain these 1200 baclinks in very short time(and is possible,believe me) but for Google it is ok? What kind of tactic should i apply?


 11:05 pm on Jan 4, 2007 (gmt 0)


Sure try to get links from those 1200 websites that your competitor gets links from. Nothing wrong with that. Keep in mind that your competitor probably got those links over a long period of time.. if you were to get links from those 1200 sites in a short period of time, the SEs would detect that and you would lose the affects of those links in most cases (depends on how fast you get them and the period of time in which it occurs).

However, lets be realistic. Due to the natural nature of linking properly, its practically technically impossible to obtain links from those 1200 websites in a short period of time. I would suggest a slow steady campaign.. maybe contact 200 per month (thats about seven a day) over a six month period - again, keeping in mind that those 1200 sites won't link to your site unless you give them a very good reason to want to link to your site. I have not seen your site.. but if it looks like yuck or has "cobwebs", your link exchange requests will be ignored. Content really is king.

Is this link building we're talking about tough work? You bet it is. Nothing about link building is easy in my humble opinion. My company owns a portal that promotes online gambling. The site has been online TEN years this June and it took us ten years to build up only 5000 inbound links (thats 500 per year or about 40-50 per month), many of those links which we reciprocate (out of kindness and to insure they keep linking to us). That kind of link building takes a long time. You are talking about 1200 links which could theoretically take years.

There is no magic answer to all of this - making this link building so interesting and fun to discuss. Methods are constantly evolving but one thing is certain: Your site's content and the way it makes other webmasters think and feel is ultimately going to affect whether or not you get the linkback. So make sure your website shines and makes webmasters want to naturally link to it. Sorry if that is off-topic but content affects link exchange rates so don't forget it.


 4:06 am on Jan 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

I understand what you mean when you talk about a "synthetic graph" of exactly "30" links a day, or whatever the number is. But Google doesn't crawl most sites frequently enough for a pattern like that to be discernable. While I'm not an expert on this topic at all, it seems to me that Google would "want" to look for trending.

Meaning that if you are accumulating links from quality related sites over a period of time, then suddenly you stop getting links, that would show a decline in popularity. If I had to write the forumula, I would give points for existing links and give more points for new links. If you stop getting new links, then your PR would degrade. If I were to recommend a page linking strategy to someone today, I would suggest you get on a regular link building campaign and don't stop. I just don't see how "how many links per day" is even detectable.

I welcome your thoughts and/or contradictions. I'm not speaking as an expert. I am just thinking "how would I do it if I were them".


 5:55 am on Jan 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

"if you were to get links from those 1200 sites in a short period of time, the SEs would detect that and you would lose the affects of those links"

What do you mean by "lose the affects of those links"? I ask because I recently released some free software that is related to one of my websites. The software is taking off and I'm getting a lot of links in a short period of time. Although they are completely natural links the number in a short period isn't the "natural" pattern my site has experienced in the past. Am I going to get the benefit of the new links? If there is some penalty will it ever be lifted? Will the new links ever count?


 6:36 am on Jan 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let me make it clear, Getting 1500 quality links in a short period of time dosent mean that they are all bad links. If the links are genuine and from the relevant sites with good content, would always have a good waitage.
Suppose there are many sites that release various news articles everyday, and if FT releases an articles which contains updates in the feild of finance and tons of sites link to that articles dosent mean that the article is suddenly bad.
But it would always depend on the quality and theme but not quantity, also 1500 in a period of a month or so is something I would'nt even think, Had the number been 150,000 in a month I would have seriously thought about that.


 9:16 pm on Jan 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

What do you mean by "lose the affects of those links"?

Getting 1500 quality links in a short period of time dosent mean that they are all bad links..

I meant that if you buy 1500 links from a service that forces you to link to another site or guarantees links, the search engines might not give you credit for obtaining those links. It all depends on how the links were obtained. A large spike in the number of links obtained might not indicate an attempt to spam. The Google patent says it "*may* indicate .. spam".

My point is that you don't want to do anything that will give the search engines a reason to penalize you. If you are obtaining a high volume of links through proper and ethical methods, you are probably not going to receive a penalization. However, it can happen. It happened to us last year on a site that has a legitimate reason to link up with sites in a multitude of genres and we got slapped.. the site lost all PR and was removed from the index. We had to beg and plead our case to get back in. They put the site back in the index but the PR is still zero.

Back on topic .. the original question was "How many backlinks should i obtain per day?" and answer is "As many as possible!" ;)

Just use ethical methods.. avoid services that make guarantees that seem too good to be true. If you launch a great new product and you get alot of links quickly, the search engines are smart enough to discern good practices from bad practices.

Robert Charlton

 7:55 am on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's probably unnatural if you get more links per day than you get visitors. ;)


 11:06 am on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

obtaining the number of links per day would be dependant upon which industry/niche you are in but if you are in it for a long-haul and do not intend to stop getting links, I don't think you should've a problem - as long as you are consistent.


 5:35 pm on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

If there is some penalty will it ever be lifted? Will the new links ever count?

What penalty? This word penalty is thrown around way too much. There's a difference between not ranking and being penalized.

What I see, and what was mentioned in one of the conferences (I think New Orleans), is that if you get a burst of links it could be interpreted as a newsworthy but temporary event and you'll get a temporary boost. Temporary.

I'm certain there are other considerations to keep in mind re quality and neighborhoods, as well as if you are participating in triangular linking schemes, exchanging or receiving links from a closed network etc.


 5:44 pm on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

59. The method of claim 58, wherein the adjusting the ranking includes penalizing the ranking if the longevity indicates a short life for the linkage data and boosting the ranking if the longevity indicates a long life for the linkage data.

There are some interesting bits of information out there in regards to this type of link strategy. You'll most likely do more harm than good and my personal opinion is that it is an "absolute waste of time".

New site, "unnatural" number of inbound links compared to other sites in the same space. That number of links grew "unnaturally" over a "short" period of time. You won't get too far utilizing that type of linking strategy. You might get some short term juice but in the long run, it will work against you.


 7:48 pm on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Remember that it's natural for a business to promote itself!

Don't be afraid to cultivate links at whatever pace you can. That's what you'd do if search engines didn't exist, right?

BUT, don't just hunt for any old link you can get. Focus on relevance, relevance, relevance. Approach your link development with the mindset that your goal is to reach targeted users directly from those links. That also is what you'd do if search engines didn't exist.

I can't prove this, but I often think the main timing problem to worry about is that being in too much of a hurry leads to sloppy work. When sites report problems from gaining too many links too fast, I often suspect that the real problem is scattershot theming. If you have lots of links but not enough are coming from places where the relevance is clear, that will send a confused message to the search engines regardless of timing.

When people link to a site without being asked, they do it because something matches their own interests. If a site gains links naturally, the timing could be anything but the links will reflect some sort of common interest. A natural "link footprint" will develop discernible themes in the overall topics of the pages that link to you. The more closely those themes match your own targets, the better, although it won't hurt to have a few odd fish in the mix.

"Natural" links are based on common interests, so that's where to aim in the links you cultivate. It takes time to focus on relevance and quality, so if you work at building links that would make good sense to users, timing issues will likely take care of themselves.


 10:19 pm on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

If a huge quantity of inbound links ,obtained in short time,can be bad for your site , then the competitors can harm you! If i put now 1.000 links to your site , SEs will deprecate your site? I think the answer is no. Probably is good to get a lot,a lot of inbound links.
Maybe if these 1.000 links are reciprocal,then both sites could be deprecate by SEs?!Probably is bad to get a lot,a lot of reciprocal links.


 11:07 pm on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

If a huge quantity of inbound links ,obtained in short time,can be bad for your site , then the competitors can harm you!

I don't think those links are bad for your site, they're just not effective. That seems to be the way Google has been moving for the last couple years re how it treats links, i.e. adjusting the authority of a link and it's ability to help a site rank.

If you think about it, that's a good approach that will also minimize the effects of thousands of scrapers linking to your site. It keeps things in balance. If Google penalized sites based on quality or quantity of the links, then a steady stream of scraper inbounds would play havoc with Google's ability to rank good sites, i.e. collateral damage.

I did a backlink analysis of a good site and discovered that around ten percent of it's backlinks were from the nastiest scrapers. Just do a backlink search of your own site in Yahoo and restrict it to the dot info domain for an idea of what's linking to you. It's like seeing all the bacteria that are living between your teeth, lol.

linkdomain:example.com site:.info

Just my opinion, I've never tried it, but I think only the ability of those links to rank you better would be affected. The target site itself probably won't suffer a penalty. Whatever inherent ranking ability a site has will remain with it.

That's why I say you won't suffer a penalty, it's just that your ranking ability won't be helped. You might say that's semantics, okay.


 12:26 am on Jan 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

you won't suffer a penalty, it's just that your ranking ability won't be helped. You might say that's semantics, okay.

My point exactly. If I get several hundred new valid natural links and they don't count because they were acquired too quickly is the same as a penalty.

On the same subject, do you think Google uses referrals from links to validate them? For example: I get about 10% of my traffic from the new burst of links that I got from releasing the free software. Will the referrals themselves help my rankings? Or at least help Google determine that the links are "natural"?


 12:33 am on Jan 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

If I get several hundred new valid natural links and they don't count because they were acquired too quickly is the same as a penalty.

Well, that's not exactly what I meant to say, hehe. :)

There are more considerations at play than the rate of acquisition. So I think the premise of this discussion is flawed because it's only examining one part of a greater whole.


 2:32 am on Jan 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

If I get several hundred new valid natural links and they don't count because they were acquired too quickly is the same as a penalty.

Stop worrying so much. CNVI is right that some folks are overthinking this.

Remember that timing is only one aspect among many that the algos will look at. Even if the timing of your links is unusual, that won't be a make-or-break factor on its own.


 3:10 pm on Jan 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am thinking: if a few fresh reciprocal links from sites with the same topic help me, a lot of links from sites with the same topic in a short period is possible to push my site in a Google sandbox(and those links will be validate by Googlebot after a period).
I will do backlinks increasing the number month by month (first month 50 , second 70 ...) to be natural :)


 4:54 pm on Jan 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Suppose I can obtain 30 backlinks per day, but Google wants "natural backlinks".

When I first read that question, the thought that came to my mind was the grind of sending automated link exchange requests. I also pictured this links directory attached to the OP's site where these exchanges can be made via a form.

Obtaining 30 backlinks per day for one, is quite the task. Two, it is going to raise a flag. If the links meet a certain criteria, and if there was an exchange involved, it could have a negative impact.

Obtaining 30 one way inbound links per day, is even more daunting. They are going to be difficult to find and, when you do find them, I'd be willing to bet that the quality may not be sufficient enough and your time will have been wasted.


 7:27 am on Jan 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm with buckworks on it being natural to promote yourself.

I also think "too many" links can mean different things in different industries. 30 links a day in some industries isn't squat. 5 links a day for a site on crocheting doileys may be a bit odd.

If you follow the general rule of thumb of obtaining links for traffic purposes, imho, you're not likely to trigger any "too many, too fast" side effects...

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
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