Social Bookmarking - Not in Unnatural Linkining

[sunnyujjawal]

After reading this post [searchengineland.com ] , I think only social bookmarking is the only off page activity that G is not counting in unnatural linking.

Factors covered in linked post are:

7. 82.5 % of your backlinks originate from prweb.com, prnewswire.com
10. Blog networks. No more to say here.
11. Article networks. Ditto.
12. Mass directory submissions outside your vertical.

[driller41]

Actually social bookmarks are a big spam link problem because of the number of automated tools endlessy creating these links - google always seemed to ignore these links, perhaps they are now actively devalued - I am not sure which.

But lets not get too obsessed with the idea that ALL links are bad which is the way people are thinking after Penguin.

[sunnyujjawal]

Actually social bookmarks are a big spam link problem because of the number of automated tools endlessy creating these links

Such automated submission tools are for articles and directories also. Just only because of automated tools G can't take it negative. many of us are doing these activities manually also.

How G can differentiate between manual and auto submission?

[jemois]

It seems that Google is not only counting the social bookmarks but also the social activity on your website in order to detect unnatural bookmarks and bookmarks artificially generated with automated tools. Google can also detect the date of the social bookmark (as it is normally shown on almost all bookmarking sites) so maybe it works by building a small number of bookmarks each day but you can't really generate activity from these bookmarks.

[driller41]

You need to understand what looks natural and possible, if you are in a niche with say 1000 uniques per day - a smallish area then is is possible for dozens of 'social networkers' to create links to your site all with the same anchor text - nope.

These tools which you are using - which I also used to use do more harm than good today.

[netmeg]

My sites are mostly seasonal, and tend to get a ton of links in a very short window. I make no attempt to influence anchor text (and in fact a bunch of them are just "click here" type links) Google seems to be pretty good at figuring this out (so far - we'll see what happens this year) the links tend to be from tourism blogs, municipal government sites and local TV station and newspaper websites. Some of them disappear after a month, and some of them stick around forever, long after the freshness of the page (and the relevance) has expired.

As I said, so far, Google seems to consider that "natural linking" at least I've not been dinged for it so far. My republishing policy does say that anyone can use my content as long as they source it back to me and that a link is preferred, but not required. Obviously that sort of thing isn't going to work for everybody.

[canuckseo]

I think people are over-thinking this thing - worried if a link will appear "natural" enough. I think what gets a lot of people caught up has to do more with HOW they build links not what type of links.

I'd bet that there were a lot of sites that bought up links in blocks - IE a couple hundred in a month and then stopped. This is a sure sign of unnatural link building.

But if you do it right - buy links from reputable link builders using Google criteria (unique IPs, unique domains, IPs spread around (not all in the same block), on different pages (not all on a links or resources page), and so on) they will tend to look more natural and therefore harder for Google to disqualify. Add on top of this doing it gradually over time and consistently and not a big bunches and this is one of the keys to effective link building.