Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Matt stressed that obvious paid links offered no boost in rankings, although they do not detract. In short, he stressed that paid links are a waste of money, and that G rewards links occuring naturally. He stressed that G is getting better by the day in detecting paid links.
I know there are ways of crafting paid links so that they will appear to be naturally generated, but the effort may not be as cost effective as developing unique, compelling content which will stimulate good inbound links. At least, this was my take away from that session as well as others in which matt participated.
Take this for what its worth.
If I am paying 100k to get 200k uniques in one year...on topic + text links with my ad placements assuming things are all natural...
How in the how in the world is this wrong AND how would you possibly WANT to stop this or even attempt to stop this?
Would love to get this answer from the man himself...but I suppose it's possible.
AndAgain
How in the how in the world is this wrong AND how would you possibly WANT to stop this or even attempt to stop this?
Sorry, I am not the man you wanted to answer this question. But if I were that man, I would have answered something along these lines -
"We just want to stop people from abusing the PageRank in their efforts to skew search engine rank positions. There is nothing wrong if people buy text links for the purpose of getting direct traffic. On our part though we will try and make sure, such links won't have any effect on ranks."
how in the world is this wrong...
Short of making your site spiderable and that your keywords appear on your pages, anything else done to gain an advanatage in the serps is wrong in Google's point of view. They don't want manipulation. That's an easy concept to understand.
...how would you possibly WANT to stop this or even attempt to stop this?
Find a common footprint, program the algo to not pass PR on any link that matches that footprint.
That's that one way of doing it. If you seriously think about it you can understand there are other ways of doing it.
And if little old us can think of this, what can the big heads at Google think of once they put their thinking caps on?
If purchased links like that were allowed to affect the SERPs imagine the battles that would go on.
On the other hand, there are certain classes of paid links that will count, and which will be very difficult to detect by the search engines. So, while 99% of purchased links don't count. If you really want to buy links to help your rankings, you can still do so. Just be on notice that those that still work right now may not work next week, and you are not likely to receive notice of any changes other than having your rankings tank.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with advertising your site, and the fact that those link ads you've placed to get more traffic are not helping with your ranking is okay. They don't hurt your site, they don't brand you as a bad person, buying links is not an evil act. Just don't expect to buy a million links and have your site go from #50 to #1.
Also, preventing such links from affecting rankings is not a new tactic for G. It's merely a continuation of a tack they've been on for years.
I think all links count and very very very very very few are actually devalued in any way.
"If purchased links like that were allowed to affect the SERPs imagine the battles that would go on."
Maybe they don't affect the serps because most webmasters can't afford to buy tens of thousands of run of site links on things like online newspapers. But for those that can afford to do so, the ranking benefit does materialize.
But for those that can afford to do so, the ranking benefit does materialize.
It's scary how many top10 sites in various industries I monitor actually have links from pr8+ newspaper sites . Seems to be working for them.
Or at least did.
Common sense tells me that Google would devalue links from sites blatantly selling with no editorial process
Google DOES devalue some of these links, I was reading about a very well known site that was selling text links, and it could of been Matt who said that they were aware of this site and had taken action, I think its a cat and mouse game with the big G.
"Or at least did."
For the couple of sites I have in mind, it's still working quite nicely for them. Which is a shame. It just means you can buy your way to the top.
The whole notion of links in to a page from external domains implying that page has more relevancy for a topic strikes me as bizarre any way. Surely the content of the page (should, I realise it doesn't) indicate the relevancy or not of the page to a particular search query?
Matt (Probert)
Yeah, but how do you determine whether or not an editorial process is in place?
Directories: I've never seen a directory that ever once refused a submission, but how does a SE prove this is the case? Does it manually inspect every single directory? That's difficult since they pop up every five minutes. And again, how do you prove it?(other than submitting a horrible site to a non-relevant category in a directory just to see if it gets in anyway). Does google really want to devote manpower to this sort of thing? It would be a never-ending task.
Articles sites: Does anyone really believe that an editorial process is in place with these types of sites? I've seen some articles appearing on 20 different articles sites and the written english was so bad that a 7th grader would have been embarassed to have his name associated with it. But how do you devalue links that are gained via article submission since these links are generated mainly via republication of these articles on different sites. And, again, how do you really prove that an editorial process is in place or not?
I really don't think google or any other SE has the time or desire to run around trying to figure who has or does not have an editorial standard for link inclusion or article inclusion. Pick any topic out of ten million, plug it into google and see the gazillions of results. A search engine is somehow supposed to be able to determine whether or not the sites at the top of each serp got their links through some "thoughtful and considered" process? I really don't think so.
There may be cases where google devalues, but I think it's, most likely, extraordinarily rare. They don't have the ability, algo-wise or manpower-wise, to accomplish this feat. Check the backlinks of a site at the top of any serps. Once you get through the first 30-50 pages, you'll see that 1. most of the backlinks are crap backlinks from dmoz clones, pay for inclusion directories, and adsense scrapers and 2. the sites at the top simply have, in most cases (not all) the most links.
Good point, relying on an algo, even if it evolving is not enough, maybe Google have a manually compiled database of diectories, articles sites etc that aren't too fussy over who they list as long as they are paid?
A lot of paid links will work, you get 1 or 2 or a half dozen or so from a site, they'll likely all count, but if you get 100,000 ROS links, I think they'd give full credit to the first one, half to the second, a quarter to the third, or some similar adjustment on down the line to where all the links from 10 to 100,000 add up to less than the first 2 or 3. This is something the search engines have been dealing with for years, link farms and FFA sites.
Articles sites: Does anyone really believe that an editorial process is in place with these types of sites?
I do, but only the good ones. There are many top directories that will reject a poorly written article. I have clients who ended up coming to me after being frustrated by rejections. Most had English as a second language, were dyslexic, or just couldn't write with more than a grade school level of grammar and punctuation.
But I will agree that a large majority of the sites taking articles for distribution are indiscriminate warehouses. I stick with the better ones. They get actual content-seeking site owners perusing for good articles. I've had sites move to page 1 at some big search engines based entirely on backlinks produced through those good directories. No paid links, no free or paid web site directory links, no recip links.
--That's exactly the BRUTAL contradiction, Swebbie! You're right--there ARE sites getting to the top with extensive directory work--even to the point of creating a directory just for the sake of those few "powerful" inbound links. And there they are, right at the top of the SERP. How can Matt/Google wantonly bash link buying while at the same time still ranking these sites that are obviously doing it? This is the inconsistency that I struggle over when putting together a meaningful LB strategy.
Until the algo is clean and precise and without inconsistency, then I can't see how people are supposed to follow these "rules".
This is really why someone like MartiniBuster gets my respect--outside the box thinking like that is definitely sweet. I was there for the link building strategy session MB was on with Stuntduble, PatGavin & that guy from AdBrite... that ingenuity helped alot as a possible solution to the gray area between link buying, ethical link "earning" & fierce competition...
Since one-way links seem to be what the engines prefer, it makes no sense for a new site NOT to go out and actively seek them. That means lots of directory submissions and swapping good content for the backlinks. It's not really any more complicated than that.
I say nonsense to Matt Cutts statement that "Paid Links are Worthless".. I agree, some links are, by not all.
There are three ways to get to the top of the serps.
1. Pay enough so that your ad appears at the top right or top center (Adwords or Overture).
2. Optimize and build links, etc untill your site shows at the top naturally.
3. BUY A ADVERTISMENT/LINK ON A PAGE WHICH SHOWS AT THE TOP OF THE SEARCH RESULTS!
Contact me Matt! I have plenty of examples..
I say nonsense to Matt Cutts statement that "Paid Links are Worthless".. I agree, some links are, by not all.
Amen, brother. I may be new to the Googleverse, but I've got 25+ years in business, and I find the entire conversation (and mysticism) about G and paid inbound links mind-boggling. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes...of course Google "devalues" paid inbound links (from link sellers), because it's not THEIR inbound paid links program, AKA "Adwords."
Purportedly, non-Google inbound paid links are "devalued" by Google for PR purposes because the links are not "authoritative," simply because they are "paid." You can call Adwords whatever you want - a "targeted advertising program," or somesuch - but it's a PAID INBOUND LINKS program, nothing more and nothing less. The only difference between AW and "other" paid inbound links is that in AW, Google's contextual AI determines where (on what website) the link goes; with "other" paid links, YOU decide where the link goes.
Discussions about how the other paid-submission directories, etc., are somehow not "authoritative" because they're not hand-edited, etc. etc. etc., is, IMHO, just smoke, mirrors and prestidigitation. Nothing against the big G, but it's ridiculous to buy into the mythology ONLY instead of viewing the actual business tactics behind the purported devaluation.
Hitch
