Loads Of UNRELATED Links gets first place positions

Google COME ON!

[nervous_seo]

Its become quite apparent that loads of unrelated inbound links gets a site top positions in Google - provided the link text is keyword rich.

So nowadays its all one big linking competeition - who can fill their links pages with the MOST GARBAGE.

Come on google - sort of your spam filters already - I want to get back to building content and not have to worry about SPAM sites killing my business

ENOUGH is ENOUGH

[Jimmie]

I would even venture to say that lots of links from unrelated lower than PR 3 FFA links even work for PR...I have evidence of this with my top competitor. And not rich in keyword links either....JUST TONS of useless little links....can't find a single high PR link to them...BLOWS MY MIND! and keywords not even on their page or title or description....I think there's something they know about ranking well, that I haven't found here in Webmaster.

[heini]

So where's the news? Getting tons of links helps PR. If those links carry your keywords all the better. Must have been written a gazillion times here and elsewhere.

[Nick_W]

Who says unrelated links are spam? and more to the point, who cares?

If sites have unrelated links, who are we, other site builders to say whether this is right or wrong? - Microsoft have tons of them, think of all the little "this site best viewed with" links. Is this spam? Of course not.

Nick

[Jimmie]

I'm not saying it's spam....I'm just saying that a lot of even under PR3 links without anchor text can help...even on FFA links pages...even without keywords anywhere on site or title or description...that or something else we here at webmaster haven't figured out but others have to rank number one with none of what webmaster world suggests you need to be number one...NONE of it byt still number one

[Jimmie]

I just think these are sites worth studying closely...they know something we don't

[jomaxx]

What's the mystery? Links are good, that's Google 101. Small PR or large, related content or not, a link is a vote for your site.

Of course I agree that Google should filter out garbage links from guestbooks, FFA pages, and Zeus-style mass linking pages. It looks like they already do this to some degree, but I don't know how zealous they are about it.

[mfishy]

Yes all links are good. The whole conerstone of Google ranking is sites voting on who they like the best

[makemetop]

>The whole conerstone of Google ranking is sites voting on who they like the best...

So that includes you controlling many sites and voting for yourself?

Just asking :)

[roundabout]

this detail is the google algorithm's weak spot - all links are not good. That is, if by good you mean useful to the people searching the web. These link exchanges that are becoming more popular are created solely to boost PR, they don't really reflect the usefulness of a site.

[mfishy]

Yes, it includes you controlling many sites and voting for yourself. One would have to be blind not to see this.

Of course, this was not Google's original intent, but has been so since the beginning.

[rcjordan]

>this detail is the google algorithm's weak spot

Yes, I think so too. Ever since the blogs really exposed the easy vulnerability, I've been thinking that the algo would change to add significant weight for backlinks from hub and authority sites.

[makemetop]

>Yes, it includes you controlling many sites and voting for yourself. One would have to be blind not to see this...

I must be blind then. Most people I've seen doing this consistently seem to get penalties - but then maybe it was something else.

[rfgdxm1]

And, how can an algo know if a link is unrelated? Sure, things like FFA page links and guestbooks can easily be filtered by Google, and it looks like they do. However, in cases where the webmaster manually adds a link to a site, how can Googlebot read his mind and figure out why he added it?

[mfishy]

makemetop,

You have never seen huge networks of sites like CNET link to themselves?

[roundabout]

> And, how can an algo know if a link is unrelated?

I'm not really sure how. But I think it's becoming pretty clear that the notion that each link to a site is a vote for that site, is no longer accurate. If I were Google, I would start by trying to reduce the importance of link exchanges done purely for PR purposes. Perhaps give less weight to an outbound link if the target site has a link pointing back.

[rfgdxm1]

And, what if the link exchange is between 2 sites on a related topic? All kinds of common for info sites.

[roundabout]

> what if the link exchange is between 2 sites on a related topic?

You're right, that's a valid point. The solution to this problem is difficult, otherwise Google would have already implemented a fix. The idea would be to reduce the incentive for link exchanges done solely for PR, without completely gutting the algorithm.

[Zapatista]

nervous_seo wrote> "Come on google - sort of your spam filters already - I want to get back to building content and not have to worry about SPAM sites killing my business "

Are we talking garbage links or ANY unrelated inbound link?

How does a non-relevant inbound link constitute spam?!

A non-relevant link is NOT spam.

Sorry to sound harsh but I am getting real tired of people who cry "SPAM!" at every little thing a higher ranking competitor does.

I have non-relevant links on my links pages because I think my traffic would be interested in those sites and vice versa. Period.

I don't have respect for garbage links, but you can't call all unrelated inbound links "spam."

[EquityMind]

Hmmm...all of the linking from porn sites to disney.com on their 'exit' warnings didnt seem to hurt Disney from getting a PR9.....

[rfgdxm1]

I currently exchange links with a site in Russia in Russian. I found out about them because they linked to me unsolicited, and I found this in my log. I contacted the webmaster, and added a link back to his site using Cyrillic anchor text he supplied. From what I was told, there are enough people in Russia that can read English that the link to my site makes sense. I've even discussed this on that Russian site's message board with others there that can understand English. I recently found a Polish language site also linking to mine. Is such cross-lingual linking spam? None of this has anything to do with Google and search engines. These links came about just because the webmasters share a common interest. Should I have to delete that link to that Russian language site because 99+% of my users can't read Russian, and it is only useful to people in Russia who search on a common acronym my site is page 1 on Google for, while that Russian site is buried in the SERPs? I'd think it sad if I have to drop this link just because Google might think sites in different languages linking to each other is "spam". :(

[heini]

>Google might think sites in different languages linking to each other is "spam".
most definately not. The point is rather if Google would give such a link the same weight it might give to a link identified as being "related".
Relatedness across language barriers is one of the big challenges of the future.
For the time being it would probably be helpful to do bilingual linktexts.

[EquityMind]

rfgdxm1

I would say no. I have a client that has worldwide presence and has different languages hosted on the same domain but on different extensions i.e. .com, .co.jp, .dk, .no, .de etc. they all cross link through a country selector and in different languages and most of the sites have a PR7, some down to a 4 depending on the country.

This is a publicly held company and I cant foresee them getting banned for this strategy since a lot of major companies use this heirarchy as well.

[heini]

I would suggest the major engines, well Google and Fast, use the linking patterns across languages in concordance with lexical data in order to gain knowledge about the underlying topical structures.
At least I hope so.