Forum Moderators: martinibuster
However, when I do a competitive analysis of our competition many are getting thousands of link backs. Are they using an automated method to get all these links or is it pure graft?
Thanks in advance for advice,
Jenny
Keep the good work. Actually it all depends on the age of the website too and when the backlinks are updated by the google.
Your competitors also doing the link exchanges from the start up so they are well promoted too.
Might be they can use Arelis.
Its better for you to get link from Autority sites.
Bye
Nitin
If the sites with thousands of inbound links are medium sized sites, say 100-150 pages or less, then it is highly likely that the links are artificially created between pages on the same site and/or links from feeder sites to the main money site. This is certainly the case in my niche areas...
If links have become the new currency of the 21st century, then there is a flood of counterfeit notes in circulation. What puzzles me is why Google seems to accept them as being legitimate tender, having the same worth as a truly organic inbound. It just sends a message that spamming with artificial links is an acceptable way to achieve top places in the SERP's.
I'm sure that Google has the capability to recognise the artificial links... but this scenario has been around for quite some time and so far there are no obvious signs of action to devalue the artificial links.
...so far there are no obvious signs of action to devalue the artificial links.
I feel that a good part of what's been observed as the "sandbox" is about artificial link devaluing (or the collateral damage from those efforts). Google is trying very hard to fight artificial links.
I also see my client sites with 100 to 200 good inbounds beating competitors with literally thousands of inbounds.
Keep going for the good ones, Jenny. I think you will continue to be rewarded.
I also see my client sites with 100 to 200 good inbounds beating competitors with literally thousands of inbounds.
I couldn't agree more about the artificial links, I think Google have it badly wrong. It kinda makes me feel sick that I've spend thousands on Google adwords, but they can't even give my quality site a ranking about 300. I have rankings in the top eschelon with all of the other UK relevant search engines.
It is also seriously p'ing me off that there are so many waste of time directory sites around, also spawned from google policy. Lists of lists of lists. Try and fine something you want and you end up having to trawl through these idiot sites first. They are only doing what the search engines a supposed to be doing in the first place.
As a result, Google's policy is hindering them indexing and ranking good sites as it also has to trawl through this crud first. But who is to blame other than Google itself?
I run two businesses, one a dating site, the other is SEO. It's costing SEO customers a lot of money to get ranking because of the extra time spent on extra links.
Nowwww, why could google be doing this? Answer, the only way to ensure you get seen on the google search is by placing ads on Adwords, and that's where they win.
I remember the days when Google began. No adverts, a search engine for the internet purist. But now it's as money grabbing and greedy as the rest of them.
My two penneth, Jenny
(hmm, think i just wrote an artical for my site! lol)
100 highly relevant, targeted links can outweigh the impact of thousands of less relevant, less targeted links. Because sites with thousands of mediocre links typically also have at least 100 relevant, targeted links buried somewhere in the mix, the owners of those sites get lots of traffic, and therefore conclude that quantity is all that matters. The new sites are the exception -- the "sandbox" phenomena seems to be evidence that a large quantity of links doesn't necessarily pay off -- either because too many of these rapidly acquired links are irrelevant, or because the links haven't "aged" sufficiently, and thus appear "unnatural" or they aren't given full weight until they have been around for awhile.
I think it is interested to note the acceptance of a degree of "unnatural" link building, provided the links are sufficiently relevant, according to this advice provided by Yahoo. Perhaps the same advice applies to Google, although Google is certainly less explicit regarding targeted link building:
"Correspond with webmasters and other content providers and build rich linkages between related pages. ...links between unrelated pages for no reason except to increase page link counts... will not improve your page ranking."
I also see my client sites with 100 to 200 good inbounds beating competitors with literally thousands of inbounds
I wish I could say the same... would those sites have .edu and .gov links in the mix?
econman
sites with thousands of mediocre links typically also have at least 100 relevant, targeted links buried somewhere in the mix, the owners of those sites get lots of traffic
There may well be some truth in what you say. That possibility may be obscured by all the artificial stuff.
Jenny...
It's costing SEO customers a lot of money to get ranking because of the extra time spent on extra links.
Long ago I posted how expensive it was for a website in a commercial field to have any realistic chance of reaching its target audience in a Google search. For private websites, you may have the luxury of not costing your own time to acquire links.
But when site owners have to pay for the manhours involved, then the cost usually pushes the project into the realms of the ridiculous... especially for the small business operator.
In my niche area I am seeing a lot of sites that are now used purely as online brochures. Businesses hold no illusions of ever getting reasonable orders off their sites. Instead of joining the link frenzy, or putting money into Adsense, they are again putting money into trade shows, inflight magazine advertising, hard copy advertising, classifieds, renewing wholesaler contracts.. etc.
The owners now believe that their sites will never be competitive unless they are prepared to pay for what it takes to get links... and when they see sites with 20,000 or so links, their eyes just glaze over. They shrug in frustration at what they see as a very tilted playing field that effectivly excludes them from their target audience.
Not so hard or expensive to do. Most likely they bought site wide links. Basically they pay to have their link placed on everypage of a site. If the site has 10,000 pages than they will get 10,000 links.
However, it is quite obivious that 99.99% of those 10,000 links are worthless. so dont be intimidated by link counts...
So what do you need...
- You need individual links from multiple sites (IP).
- Links on pages that are prominent (high PR)
- Links on pages that dont have too many links
Its nice to have links on relevant sites but I see no evidence to support that modern search engines devalue links based on relevancy. It would be way to complicated to figure. Implying relevancy would have disastorous effects on good high quality sites namely dmoz, google, and yahoo all of which link to unrelated sites.
Why should a search engine "google" link to an "great red widget" site. They have their reasons. I have my reasons for linking to semi related sites. Google has their reasons for using my content (selling adds). I have my reasons for using Google to sell my services.
SE have made links the glue behind the internet. For those who dont have links my only suggestion is to promote your site... offsite as much as you do onsite. Those are the rules. I tend to agree with the philosophy... sites that spend tremendous resources offsite naturally spend tremendous resources onsite. Hence, higher quality sites at the top of the serps = a more enjoyable surfing experience.
Just to say you are spot on with all you say. The final result being everyone net-wise loses.
Its nice to have links on relevant sites but I see no evidence to support that modern search engines devalue links based on relevancy. It would be way to complicated to figure. Implying relevancy would have disastorous effects on good high quality sites namely dmoz, google, and yahoo all of which link to unrelated sites.
I don't know if this would be too hard to figure in. Just check the keyword density of the page you are linked to vs. the keyword density of the page the link is going to. If they are similar in both term and percentage, factor in the number of links present, plus page rank, minus (filter) interlinks and you can at least somewhat denote relevancy. Of course I don't know how much power it would take for the engines to implement this so you may indeed be correct that it is impossible. Just my thoughts...
Its nice to have links on relevant sites but I see no evidence to support that modern search engines devalue links based on relevancy.
Talk to the Google, Yahoo and MSN engineers for awhile, it will be an eye opening experience. It pays to go to the WebmasterWorld Conference.
The MSN people were in the New Orleans Conference sitting in a booth. Many people thought they were just pretty faces hired to sit there until you got a look at their name tags... opportunity-arama.
The Google Engineers were at their party, but also in the hotel bar afterward, and at the PubCon on Friday, where I also had the opportunity to speak with a couple.
And finally, I had a great conversation with the Yahoo people over at the Maple Leaf Bar.
Without actually saying so, you seem to be implying that the SE reps at the conference indicated their algos can distinguish legitimate links from artificial.
Am I interpreting your comments correctly.... and if so did they indicate whether the days of artificial links are numbered?
Marissa Mayer of Google, in an SES session a year and a half ago was talking about deprecating the value of links from irrelevant websites. (Deprecated and not counting are two different things)
And here's something to think about: One Google engineer was questioning the value of a reciprocal links directory with hundreds of websites in it, wondering if users ever visit those.
