Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Anyways, I have come to the realization that I just need to build more links but I cannot run other aspects of the business and do serious link building as well. So my question is, should I buy high PR links just as my competitors are doing? Or should I hire someone to build links for me? I have been under the impression that buying links for PR purposes is a no-no. Am I incorrect?
Thanks.
The second thing to keep in mind
is that each search engine treats links differently. MSN and Yahoo like authoritative links- which can be different from what we consider authoritative. Once Yahoo decides a site is good, it's pages and everything it links to is good, even if those pages have disappeared (the bot will still come looking for them). A link from a site or two that Yahoo approves of can many times be enough to rank well there, provided your on page copy is appropriate.
The third thing to consider is that
G may be looking at the natural growth patterns of backlinks. There may be statistical analyses graphing the rate of backlink growth within industries that are being taken into account.
It's worthwhile to note that the Google engineer who came to my Link Development Panel at the WebmasterWorld Publishers Conference last week told me he worked with statistics. Food for thought.
The fourth thing to consider (imho) is
who is in the backlinks of those linking to you. If the search engines are mapping connections in order to use neighborhoods as a signal of quality, then you should take that into account. On a related note, you might also wish to consider who else is being linked to.
In conclusion...
The above are all considerations you should be taking if you are developing a website that you consider a long term project. Short term projects work under different rules (like, none of them).
ideally, it sometimes helps to think about links as the rate of acquisition of a site that will rise to the top 100 alexa ranking (or google's version of the top 100 most visited sites, don't think they don't have one) in the next six months to a year.
what would such a site's rate of acquisition and semantic distribution expectations be? since the internet seems to growing at a rate of 10% a month with an offset of degrading sites which reduces it marginally, the internet seems to be doubling every year, somewhat outpacing moore's law of computer output per cost (doubling every 1.5 years). to me that means that nearly half of the most important sites 1 to 1.5 years from now are those that have launched in the last six months to the next six months. I suspect such sites would get a lot of links and their rate of acquisition would be steady-to-increasing for the entire climb to the top. I also suspect that there is going to be a lot of linking going on in the future, more than ever. and if want your site to rank you should get as many of the good ones that you can along the way.
people that have a service or product on the internet that provides good or new value can usually make money selling their goods and services and that means they can afford to advertise, because people pay for their goods and services, because the business has what people are looking for. and if it's something people are looking for then the search engines want people to be able to find it. so, advertising your site on the internet is not a bad thing, it's a good thing, but the search engines want to take their users to what they are explicitly looking for, not for what you might want to sell them because you don't really have what they are looking for.
some of the links such site would get would be temporary links, via advertising, and some of them would be permanent links. for an advertising link to become established and indicate any term of permanancy it must pass convertable traffic (ROI). for a site that is providing what people are looking for, you would probably find a lot of temporary links popping up all over the internet, some more resilient than others. you'd also get a lot of permanent links, links on pages which whenever crawled always link to your site.
when I get links, the most important question is "who is linking to the site I want to get a link from?" the next question is "what other sites is this site linking to?" if you can give a passing mark to both questions about the site, then get a link from it anyway you can. if you can get the link without sending the request to your account receivables department, via link exchange, or simply by asking for the link, then do it. links from other good quality websites which are linked to by other good quality websites and which link to other good quality websites are never going to hurt you.
as to the distributiion of temporary paid links to those of the more permanent ones acquired via linking campaigns, in the end, all that is left are the permanent ones. if you are looking for longevity in the organic SERPs, nothing beats having more/better permanent links than your competitors.
to get the most out of paid links, leverage them by coordinating the temporary increase in PR and link popularity of a paid link rental campaign with a link campaign seeking more permanent links such as link exchange and affiliate linking. some temporary link purchases/advertisements can boost your PR significantly. it is a lot easier to get links when you are sporting a PR7 or PR8 home page with a PR5 or PR6 link directory than it is with PR3 or PR2 site with a PR0 or PR1 link directory page.
As for someone coming out of the background with a sudden 60K backlinks, you might want to check how many IPs/domains those links are coming from. It is likely that they are coming from less than 100 distinguishable Class C's, and that they'll become discounted as the algorithm fully processes them. 60K backlinks from 60K distinct Class C IPs is going to make a hell of a long-term difference than 60K backlinks coming from just a handful of distinct Class C IPs.
Do you run a <widget> website?
Trey
[edited by: martinibuster at 12:28 am (utc) on June 28, 2005]
[edit reason] Please let us NOT speak specifics. Thanks. [/edit]
