What kind of backlinks are "Bad" links

[amilylorry]

Hi everyone, can you tell me how you identify the "Bad" links? What's SEO metrics will you take into account?

[louieramos]

Here are some of the backlinks you should avoid:

1. blog comments (site can easily get abused by spam)
2. low quality free directories (free directories can easily be abused by spam)
3. article directories (not that bad, but some can easily be abused too and dont use duplicate contents on bulk article submissions)
4. bad neighborhood links (any links associated to spam)

those are the obvious ones

[salvatorecapolupo]

Any link on which there is not (enough) editorial review, I suppose: automated directories, blogs /forums with no moderation and so on.

[Sr_Seo]

I think irrelevant link are bad effect for ranking & low quality free directories

[edited by: aakk9999 at 12:15 pm (utc) on Aug 30, 2014]
[edit reason] Spelling [/edit]

[Robert Charlton]

amilylorry, are you asking this with regard to disavowing links, or are you asking this with regard to getting them in the first place?

The links are the same in both cases, but the visibly obvious patterns you'd use to identify them might be different.

PS: I noticed in your first post [webmasterworld.com...] on WebmasterWorld, you asked a similar question, which suggested you're asking about building links... but also you might be asking about removing the old ones...

...I have worked for building links for 3 years. But now, I am confused, I don't want to post spam post to forum, article, press release, comment, blog, etc. Because all of these things are danger, meaningless, finally the site will get penalty. But I don't know what should I do except for these. I am so painful about my work, could anyone give me some advises?

[aristotle]

In my opinion a "good" backlink sends you traffic, and everything else is likely to be worthless. So don't waste your time "building" backlinks that probably won't send any traffic.

In Google's view, "bad' evidently means "unnatural", that is, something you created yourself. But since their algorithm usually can't know for sure who created a backlink, a competitor could conceivably hurt your rankings by secretly creating unnatural links to your site. But probably the most important consideration is the overall pattern, or backlink profile, of a site. So in the present situation you need to be prudent about "building" your own backlinks, and you also need to be on the lookout for attempts by competitors to sabotage your rankings.

[LizzieThomson]

Bad or harmful backlinks can be anything from -

- links that have low flow metrics
- links that have no relevance to your site
- irrelevant CCTLD links (Links from county level domains, low online presence, links with no target audience)
- spam links
- links that are generally free links - low quality links, that can easily be created and are not moderated (these links attract a lot of spam, you don't want to associate your site with these types of links)

I agree with aristotle,
"In my opinion a "good" backlink sends you traffic, and everything else is likely to be worthless. So don't waste your time "building" backlinks that probably won't send any traffic".

This is great advice and should be your focus.

[Shepherd]

"good" backlink sends you traffic, and everything else is likely to be worthless.

That's the beginning, middle, and end.

If a link does not send traffic, why is it a link? If a link does not send traffic it is just wasted html.

[denisl]

But then you could have links that send lots of bad traffic

[fathom]

That's the beginning, middle, and end.

If a link does not send traffic, why is it a link? If a link does not send traffic it is just wasted html.

You have to qualify that a bit more. "JUST TRAFFIC" does not guarantee a link is worth anything and "NO TRAFFIC" does not guarantee a link is worthless.

On the latter: I have a client that has 143 reference links from Wikipedia... no one ever clicked on those links... until one day we checked out the client's log file and clicked from Wikipedia ourselves.

To reverse your own conclusions... all anyone needs to do for "all bad links," is to go and click on them and now "there is traffic" making them good links - right?

Your conclusions also assume Google uses behavioral analysis as the only matrix for quality control.

_____________

A bad link cannot be determined as "bad" individually... there MUST BE a pattern of bad faith tied to how you acquired the link. That pattern commonly resembles "the same keyword anchor text"... but that might not be the only way.

The larger that pattern is, the more likely all links of the same pattern are classed as bad links.

[Shepherd]

I have a client that has 143 reference links from Wikipedia... no one ever clicked on those links

And those 143 links are "good"? No, they are not, if they were, people would click on them. Since no one has ever clicked on them they are wasted html. Now, if they were un-linked citations that would be a different story.

[fathom]

And those 143 links are "good"? No, they are not, if they were, people would click on them. Since no one has ever clicked on them they are wasted html. Now, if they were un-linked citations that would be a different story.

So you're saying (in reverse) that if I went and clicked on all the links pointing to your website... they would be all good links no matter why I clicked on them or how unnatural they are?

Sadly, or maybe gladly, it does not work that way.

[EditorialGuy]

If a link does not send traffic, why is it a link?

Because it's a citation. (Citations don't always send traffic, but citations--in the form of hyperlinks--are a fundamental principle of the World Wide Web.)

[Shepherd]

So you're saying

No, I am not.

Because it's a citation.

A citation is a citation
A link is a link
A link does not equal a citation
A citation does not equal a link

Links are for navigation, a way for a visitor to get from one web page to another. A link for anything other than navigation is a bad link.

[fathom]

Links are for navigation, a way for a visitor to get from one web page to another. A link for anything other than navigation is a bad link.

So all links are good links.

They must be because they all reside on the resident page and link to a destination, therefore all links are for navigation and must be good links according to your philosophy.

That doesn't imply any traffic was needed nor required either.

A way for a visitor to get from one web page to another.

...but there are no navigation police to ensure they become traffic via that link... it may be the path not taken.

[aristotle]

It's really not worth spending so much time discussing worthless backlinks. They're worthless in the sense that they don't send any traffic to anybody, they weren't intended to be citations and have no credible value as such, and are just nothing but computer-generated spam and other garbage. They're not even worthy of being called "bad".

When people talk about "bad" backlinks, they're usually talking about "bad" as defined by Google. I already discussed what that means earlier in this thread.

[GreyBeard123]

For me…
A link is good if it supplies link juice and/or potential customers.

For me…
A link is bad if it doesn’t meet the above criteria.

[Zivush]

Summing it up: The question "bad" link for whom? for Google?
I think Google sees a link as a "good" link if it provides traffic to its destination, otherwise the link doesn't serve its purpose (This link is worthless and wouldn't bring any ranking value what's or ever). Webmasters should follow this logic.
BTW - Most links aren't provide traffic. That's it.

[piatkow]

I'm with Zivush on this. A "bad" link is one that isn't used by people who want to visit your site.

[fathom]

I'm with Zivush on this. A "bad" link is one that isn't used by people who want to visit your site.

That is a philosophical point of view that could have nothing to do with the link... (to make a link good or bad)... a "bad page" implies no one WANTS to visit the page the link resides on, making the link completely irrelevant to the process.

Looking at this from a webspam vantagepoint ... if I added a completely irrelevant link that reads "FREE iPAD!" I could get tons of traffic and using your definition of what makes a good link "lots of people visiting via that link" means that webspam is good... so long as you get lots of people to be fooled by it. But ONLY IF there is lots of patrons to that web page that then might decide to be fooled by my link.

A strong call-to-action makes patrons of a website want to click but defining a good link base purely on the click volume is why webspam (bad links) work so well. HYPE!

Until a link is added you have no clue if anyone will click on it... so how long do you wait to determine if the link is bad?

A year? A month? A week? A day? An hour?

If you didn't have anything to do with the link being added itself (a natural link) commonly considered by Google to be a good link why would you consider it bad... and if this philosophical matrix does not really matter that much to you for you to measure the return of each link, independently?

have worked for building links for 3 years. But now, I am confused, I don't want to post spam post to forum, article, press release, comment, blog, etc. Because all of these things are danger, meaningless, finally the site will get penalty. But I don't know what should I do except for these. I am so painful about my work, could anyone give me some advises?

The OP get's precisely what you are saying but you are avoiding the underlying question.

You can't (SHOULDN'T) build links yourself. All that you noted are as you have concluded webspam.

You must upgrade your website... add a blog, ad text content to that blog, add imagery to the text, add video to the imagery, add infographics to the videos, slowly build "USER EXPERIENCE" then what all these people that claim traffic provides... will!

But no one gets traffic-base good links if their website does not deserve them.

You shouldn't put the cart ahead of the horse.

[CaptainSalad2]

a bad link = one you paid for or placed there yourself! Everything else is organic as they "organically happened" IMO

[jmccormac]

Googler algorithm twiddlers and the intelligence to determine what is a good link?

Use your common sense. If you rely on linkspam and meatbots, then even the Google twiddlers can even identify those patterns.

Regards...jmcc

[blend27]

hmmm...

You can't (SHOULDN'T) build links yourself. All that you noted are as you have concluded webspam.

Goog Propoganda, not @ u fantom.

My train was late yesterday, stopped by a pub near train station, had a talk with another person who was stranded due to train schedule, we started talking... Our interests on technology(Java Programming) were alike. Next morning got a link from his small biz site.

Truth: I asked him for a link back. He wasn't a naive about it. He got a link back as well.

Why is this wrong? He has clients, I have clients. We do slightly different things. We are local SMBs in a Sea of outsourcing. Why do I need to funnel my traffic, or he has to funnel his traffic, thru Goog Ads?

Think about it... The more You Give to G, the more is taken.

[EditorialGuy]

blend27, do you really, honestly think Google is going to penalize you because you and someone you met in a pub exchanged links?

[fathom]

hmmm...

You can't (SHOULDN'T) build links yourself. All that you noted are as you have concluded webspam.

Goog Propoganda, not @ u fantom.

My train was late yesterday, stopped by a pub near train station, had a talk with another person who was stranded due to train schedule, we started talking... Our interests on technology(Java Programming) were alike. Next morning got a link from his small biz site.

Truth: I asked him for a link back. He wasn't a naive about it. He got a link back as well.

Why is this wrong? He has clients, I have clients. We do slightly different things. We are local SMBs in a Sea of outsourcing. Why do I need to funnel my traffic, or he has to funnel his traffic, thru Goog Ads?

Think about it... The more You Give to G, the more is taken.

Owner's trading links doesn't make good business sense.

The issue was never about "1" link... and certainly isn't about funneling revenue into Google Ads... but you'll never be happy with the returns from a single link nor will your link partner... and when PENGUIN takes its cut because you both are manipulating search results to acquire searchers (at the expense of current patrons).

There needs to be a pattern (a pattern of one isn't ever going to be a problem).

I know if you continue to built the "he has clients, I have clients pattern," you'll all be singing the: "I got a family to feed, a mortgage to pay, etc..." or your own Propaganda song.

You won't stay ahead by being further behind Google's TOS!

BTW it is FATHOM!

[blend27]

BTW it is FATHOM!

my bad

and when PENGUIN takes its cut because you both are manipulating search results to acquire searchers

Not my fault that they cant figure out their own algo properly.

You won't stay ahead by being further behind Google's TOS!

to that I would agree with @aristotle

In my opinion a "good" backlink sends you traffic, and everything else is likely to be worthless.

[fathom]

to that I would agree with @aristotle

In my opinion a "good" backlink sends you traffic, and everything else is likely to be worthless.

Paid links also can send you traffic and Google stance on those along with your link exchange isn't a problem either so long as you display them with rel="nofollow".

Those displayed that way are indeed "GOOD LINKS" (100% agree) but that wouldn't provide any ranking benefit which we can both agree was your interest in the link exchange... providing 2 rel="nofollow" links that provide "TRAFFIC ONLY" wasn't all you wanted from the exchange!

[edited by: fathom at 12:15 pm (utc) on Sep 3, 2014]

[wheel]

"In my opinion a "good" backlink sends you traffic, and everything else is likely to be worthless. "

Here in the real world, by far the largest source of traffic is google, not any other link. The rest is just bullcrap hypothesizing.

If the OP is asking what's a good link from Google's perspective, then the correct answer is as jcc already indicated - you need to ignore the algo and 'SEO signals' and focus on intent. It's Google's intent, always has been, and always will be, to measure your rankings based on the apparent intention of the links pointing to your site. If the links are strong and clean, they're likely to continue to help you rank. If the links are somehow measurably artificial, then Google is now or will be discounting them in some fashion. Getting more specific than that increases the chance of short term pain.

Sending traffic is nonsense. This year so far I've been interviewed on TV once, referenced in a book once, had articles published in 3 industry magazines and been quoted in national newspapers 3 times. That's just since Jan 2014. And you know how much traffic all of those links have provided? Almost 0. And certainly no measurable sales.

All that national media exposure is worthless on it's own, it's only useful to me for a link, to get me a link where I do get traffic - Google.

[EditorialGuy]

Sending traffic is nonsense.

As with most things, it depends. We get a steady stream of traffic from third-party sites that aren't search engines, although Google, Bing, and Yahoo (especially Google) are the big kahunas.

For us, the best sources of non-search traffic are megasites in our sector that cite us as a resource for specific topics or questions.

[fom2001uk]

I have to disagree with the idea that wikipedia links are no good. And its very common that many Wikipedia links aren't clicked on. Think about it, it's a vast resource with around 33 million pages/articles. That doesn't make them bad links.