|How clean should links be?|
After looking at Google Webmaster Tool "links to your site" option I have noticed there are quite a few backlinks that look spammy and basically not in the same theme to the site i´m developing. Maybe there are a 1000 links coming from one site due to the link being at the footer sitewide, as well, links coming from free ad sites etc. Some links are links that I have obtained and some look like they have been obtained by someone else to damage my rankings. All the mentioned links are one ways.
Is it best to delete all these links or keep them as who knows they might have some worth?
How can you delete them when they're hosted on some external spammy site?
I´ve actually been able to delete a few suspect links, some of the external spammy sites are a little harder as they seem to have been obtained by an automated "link here first, then upload your link" system. I´ll have to persist in removing these ones.
Could these external spammy site really effect the sites SERPS? Many people say incoming links from bad neighbours can effect your ranking, but at the same time people say you can not control who links to you, so... Does anyone have any experience with this? Was there a great change when bad neighbour links were removed?
|Was there a great change when bad neighbour links were removed? |
Can't reply directly on this, but
Focusing on the following four points:
1. obtaining new good quality links, and
2. Add fresh content.
3. Deep linking to fresh content.
4. Add fresh content again.
- would make a big difference!
You mention deep linking fresh content, would these be links from external sites or more internal links? For example if the fresh content are from articles, should it be part of the link building strategy to build one links to these new articles? I´ve always relied on natural linking for such content.
Bad quality links can not negatively affect you. So my opinion is to let the links be, they can't hurt your rankings.
|Bad quality links can not negatively affect you |
Certainly that was Google's position, but the Google forum has been rife with speculation that this is no longer true.
Yes, there may be room for manipulation, but I would no longer take that as read.
I agree with you if you are talking about the lowest of the low quality links. I employed a link builder back in March for one of my sites. Within their link build came 4 links from bad neighbours. I got them to remove the links asap, however, i´m sure as a consequence my rankings took a hammering (came shortly after). For some reason it was as if my trust had been lost, since then I haven´t been able to get it back. Let´s hope after this never ending goog update the trust will be back.
My original post was talking more about "Spammy" links (eg free ads, spammy forum posts, basically links in which you can duplicate easily), I suppose not as extreme and obvious as bad neighbours. Do you think it is worth weeding out all the questionable links if possible, or is it not worth the effort?
Oh, no. I'm pretty sure they're just ignored- as long as they do not make up a substantial proportion of your links, as per yahoo or in WMT (which I'm sure you know is just representative, not complete, but a good guide nonetheless).
I suspect you would do more harm than good removing those. Proving that you control the links just underlines spammyness
The fact is, ALOT of people reference thier own blog, or even their favourite site, in formum links. Well meaning "civilians" with their own crappy site or blog will link to you, or run an advert for you. It would not be sensible to penalise for these.
But, it really does depend on your backlink profile. A site that has attracted a large amount of forum and/or free advert links would be expected to be of some quality itself, and have therefore atracted valuable links. If you have the spam, but not the quality, you are going to lose Trust. So, primarily, I would make sure you have built a good link profile independant of the spam.
|deep linking fresh content. |
would these be links from external sites or more internal links?
No major difference, although external is better than internal.
Whatever. The point was: ignore the good links bad links subject, and focus on content, fresh content, new deep links to content, and content again...
The question was who is dominating:
Content is King, or (good) Links build the Web.
I did try both strategies. Succeeded with links (before the arrival of "sandbox"), but now focus on Content which is indeed King.
As someone posted once here: With no content, there's nothing to link to.