Why Does Google Still Respect Link Farm Article Sites?

[potentialgeek]

I don't get it. This has to be one of the most ridiculous link farm schemes still running. Go to articles_.com site, write a short article, get three links to your site. Write as many articles as you like. Each one can get three links. Write ten articles, thirty links.

Google is reading these articles and acts like it's thinking, "Wow, a great scholar has written an incredible article; it can't be by the person who owns the site to whom the article links; let's boost his ranking immediately!"

How does this blatant link farm escape the notice of Google's PhDs? This is 2007, not 1999. Google is well known to go after link farms, and has been doing this for a long time, so why do article sites still not trigger a penalty?

The articles consistently get rated by users as virtually useless. So why does Google treat them as extremely valuable?

p/g

[Quadrille]

How do you know it does?

Chances are those three free links give zero benefit - like almost every other link farm.

I have sites with six incoming links that thrash sites claiming 5000 - it's all about Quality of links these days, not Quantity.

Three useless links is not a lot better than one useless link, in my book. Any article you write will almost always be better published on your own site - and ONLY your own site.

[MThiessen]

Chances are those three free links give zero benefit - like almost every other link farm.

It is more of a ploy to get you to write their content. They likely use no-follow, or an exclusion in robots.txt.

They get you to write an article. You are happy to do it for the links. You are proud of your work so you link back to them. Your link is follow, their's is not. You see now why they do it?

With no-follow or robots.txt exclusions google does not see a link farm, they see a site with lots of good articles.

You write their content and they benefit. Simple.