|Please somebody explain natural vs unnatural links|
| 5:02 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I have recently launched a website (about a month ago) and I am putting all my efforts in content building, link building etc. I am doing it manually, but aggressively. Within 50 days I have nearly 220 backlinks indexed in webmastertools.
Now,can building backlinks aggressively trigger google to consider the links are unnatural? I hope not. If so, can somebody explain difference between natural and unnatural links. I am asking this because if I am doing something wrong by building links aggressively (though manually) I can correct myself at these early stages?
Please somebody help. Thanks in advance.
| 6:39 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Long and short - yes, building an unnatural link profile can set off red flags with Google.
Google is able to measure inbound link development on a variety of websites in your genre. Additionally, Google can likely segment those links to know what 'types' of websites are proponents of flash links - a large series of inbound links from news sources and blogs.
It is the link profile - the number of links over a time frame, type of links, diversity of links, topic of website (and sub themes) and pages linked to, along with many other metrics, that Google can use to assess whether linking is unnatural or natural.
I would suggest you try to build quality editorial links, as well as a diverse cross section of links to the website over time. Be patient, don't overdo it.
Editorial links - links given to you freely to support your content - are almost always of the most value, and are often the least scrutinized. The worst the quality of link, and the greater numbers, the greater the risk.
| 6:46 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hi, Thanks for the reply.
If this is the case, can you suggest me a good number of links per month that can be built safely.
| 10:27 pm on Nov 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That number is different for every website. But I can tell you that is VERY difficult to build 220 editorially sound high quality links unless you are already a major authority.
Focus less on the number of links, and focus more on getting high quality links from aged websites that are related to what you do.
| 5:32 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Regarding quality of links, I am trying my best to identify high PR sites.
I am writing many articles to top article directories. Now, are links from article directories are of good quality? I am asking this because, the article directories are not directly related to our site's purpose.
| 3:36 am on Nov 28, 2009 (gmt 0)|
My answer would be yes, and no. At one point, the value from article directories was considerable, but shortly thereafter was reduced significantly because of the relentless pummeling of these directories with crap content.
The value lies in finding niche directories, and websites which host niche directory / content sections where, if you content them, there is a chance they might consider posting content of yours.
Since the topic is related to your niche, 90% of the other webmasters do not get content published there, and often it takes some charm and persistence (and great content) to get your content posted.