Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Again, as much as I know says what you're doing works. But you should at least consider exactly what you're getting and appraise any risks.
is that risk too ?
You can also tell much about sites by links. Take site A. Site A buys links. They buy ALOT of links. Google knows it. One of the site that links to site A is blogger, site B.
You pay blogger at site B to link to you. Google knows that you bought that link because you're on a site that links to site A and site A buys its links.
There, Google detected it :).
It's not obvious to the casual eye in many cases, but who's linking to a site that links to you, or who links to another site which is also linked to by a site that links to you, can potentially taint things for you.
But again - I'm telling you how it could be done by Google. That's not the same as 'does it work'. Because yes, it works very well.
this is crazy
which one
question 2 : if i take links from a blog that buy a lot of links every time so what can it help to me ?
So, use them, but diversify so if/when they are devalued, you dont go down the toilet. And any 'penalty' you think you get in the future- bare in mind that it might just be the sudden devaluation of what you always knew was a risky prospect.
[as an aside: I am surprised these have value ATM. I mean, we get blog reviews, and they help, but we don't pay for them. Maybe they cant really distinguish with sufficient accuracy and have erred on the side of social media]
[edited by: Shaddows at 1:06 pm (utc) on Dec. 16, 2008]
So, use them, but diversify so if/when they are devalued, you dont go down the toilet.
I really do think Google can detect these things to some extent. I do not have a good grasp on why they still work. It makes me think there's reasons beyond just mechanical detection - which leads me to believe that these links are going to continue to work into the future.
Should have been a line break between the top line and the rest, which is my logical extension from the premise of "they work now..."
Assuming you are right (and I don't doubt that you are), then the three explanations I can come up with as to why paid backlinks from blogs work are:
1) Your paying for the review, not the backlink.
2) Google can't consistantly and accurately detect the difference from a paid/free reveiws and doesn't want to advesely affect blogging as a web influence
I would extend #2 to suggest the following:
- saying they can't consistenly and accurately detect the difference between paid and free reviews really means if they implement a test for this in the algo, that the resulting fallout is unacceptable. And that means the serps would change for the worse.
- that also means that they don't care specifically that you're using paid reviews to rank...as long as your content is OK. And that's because Google ultimately doesn't care HOW you ranked, as long as they're serving good content. So if the alternative is worse serps, and the current status is decent websites ranking even though they're using paid methods, then Google's OK with that.
What I'd be concerned about in the short term using this method is a hand review. If you're heavy on the paid backlinks and the site isn't worthy of ranking, then you might get whacked as a one-up.
And that fits my experience. I'm getting beaten by a site right now that uses paid methods almost exclusively. But the site itself is useful to their visitors and they're a brand name so why would Google care. Searchers are getting what they need.
If you pay for a backlink, Google can penalize you;
If you trade reciprocal links, it will not help you (with PR at least);
You can pay for a "review" -- which includes a backlink to your site -- and if it appears to Google as useful content, it may help you;
You can pay for a "review" but if it appears to Google as simply an attempt to get a backlink, it can hurt you;
If you get links "naturally", that can definitely help you, but it could take a long time -- perhaps even years -- to get the kind of "natural" links that will raise your PR;
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like there is a Google message in this confusion:
If you want more traffic immediately, pay for AdWords. It won't help your PR, but you'll likely have more visitors and you won't have any worries about a possible penalty.
......................
So there's a risk. The nature and extremity of the risk is up for discussion.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like there is a Google message in this confusion:If you want more traffic immediately, pay for AdWords.
Or you could pay other sites for rel="nofollow" or JavaScript links. Google doesn't mind if you pay for links, as long as the links don't influence PageRank.
However, if you find a highly relevant blog that doesn't normally do reviews (or reviews aren't the main purpose of their blog), and you can get them to do a review of your website, product or service (which will take some leg work, but GENERALLY doesn't require monetary compensation), this will be beneficial to rankings long term.
Compare blog posts to affiate websites which we all know about.
You have
1. Bad affiliates (No original content-Most cases pages do not rank)
2. Thin affiliates (Very little content-Took a big hit this past year)
3. Good affiliates (Rank well and there is added value)
If there is useful content well written out there that helps people in their research of a topic. Why not rank it?
Webmasters sometimes lose site with PR and backlinks and tend to forget that Google is there to serve results that people like, find interesting and help them. Does it matter if it is an eccomerce, affiliate, wiki, pay per review, pay per post or blog? Not really, just as long as it gives the average Google searcher the information they seek.
Sometimes when I research a topic, the best information I find is on a paid review blog, sometimes not.
