Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Since Jagger, it seems like people have become very wary of how they acquire new links. It seems that the general concensus is that reciprocal links are no longer as valuable and more and more people are becoming interested in buying links. That's how it seems to me anyway.
I've seen several posts that claim buying/renting links, regardless of relevance, is unethical. To me, this is just a lot of BS. I have dozens of clients for whom I manage link building, and buying links is a standard method. I've never been a big fan of reciprocal linking (although I can't deny that I've used it).
The bottom line to me for link building is that you need to have a plan. Stay relevant and focus on the appropriate audience, and you should have no problems. Buying/renting links is just a form of advertising. If you have a tractor company, you aren't going to want to advertise in a women's underwear magazine, so don't do it online. There's no real benefit to your site visitors or theirs, so what's the point?
Thanks for reading.
One possible issue with this theory is that while YOU may be very diligent in where you purchase rented links, your renting neighbors may not be quite so careful, and they may be much more prolific.
Here are some of my random thoughts on link renting:
Assume for this discussion that we understand subnet dangers, crosslinking, generally cheezy linking strategies, session id's, and the thousands of other things that will kill our rankings.
I won't get into whether it's "right" or "wrong" for G to minimize the impact of rented links - 'cause it doesn't matter. Also - I don't have any indication of rented links ever PENALIZING a site (though I am aware of "google bowling" and what-not) but I have known of situations where rented links became ineffective all of a sudden - which might look and feel like a penalty, when in fact it's just the result of an algo tweak, or of G's ability to create a "suppression list" of sites that should not be "Trusted" to pass CREDIBILITY. Now I'm not talking about supressing the ability to pass PageRank - that's SO last algo..I'm talking about the sites ability to be "Trusted®".
Here is my take on the potential risks:
We rent a link on site_a. Our link sits under a piece of text that says "Our Sponsors"
- strike one.
Now they may use a graphic or a flash element for this - which is a step in the right direction, but probably ultimately ineffective..read on..
Our link is tucked cozily in between 8 or so other links to sites that rent links. I have begun calling these groups of sites "wolf packs" because you often see them together elsewhere. This is HAS to be overwhelmingly obvious to G. Now, that alone might not be enough to indicate that our site rents, but if our link lives on other sites within other wolf packs
- Strike 2
Now - if we shuffle our link anchor and link deeply that will help, but use the same anchor text and link to the home page every time and we have:
- strike 3.
Bear in mind that if we have 2300 "regular" links and we rent 150 we might never feel the effects of a supression or "penalty" due to the fact that our rented links are "diluted" by the real ones. This seems to be more true of suppression than of benefit - I have seen some indications that 35 optimized links can have an impact on a site with many hundreds of unoptimized links.
The more competitive sites throw a monkey wrench into some of this tho..
Now - I know that many would say "How does G not know that my competitor...bla bla bla"..I guess it MAY happen, but I gotta think it would be astronomically rare - there are MUCH easier ways for a savvy competitor to ruin your rankings..
Now our thoughts may turn to something like article distribution..good idea..but I wouldn't be surprised if many of those whom "do" article distribution don't do it a lot thus creating patterns for G to detect. Perhaps down the road this too will produce diminishing returns..though there are still many great benefits to article distribution other than linkpop.
Now I know that there are exceptions to ALL of this, but when linking if we want to be "safe" AND effective, we must look at our methods and ask "Is this going to appear natural?".
I've read here many times that the best way to get natural links is by well - natural - means..
It's been my experience that the best way to do this is by creating links - you guessed it - naturally.
What the devil is a "natural" link?
A horribly unoptimized link surrounded by text relating to your industry pointing to some great resource such as an article, forum, blog, game, or tool where that resource isn't easily stolen and replicated on someone elses site. Boy, that definition rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? But really - natural links occur when we have stuff on our site worth linking to. Sometimes we need to make it more obvious that linking to our resources will be helpful, but I have several sites that have NEVER done a linking campaign and have great rankings. One thing interesting about these clients is that they came to me for ways to make their site more attractive to their visitors - this is the mindset that got them their rankings.
I know that it almost starts to look like foil-over-your-head conspiracy stuff, but really - when you look at the majority of rented links and the massive impact this has on the SERPS - you see that the necessary motivation is there to correct it, and in most cases, there is enough evidence to detect it.
I hope this helps - in fact I've forgotten the question..perhaps there wasn't even a question..dunno.
Bill
This is why I don't trust PageRank or the 'natural' search results, it's all so controlled and to know that at any time Google or other SE's can screw you bad. The way they shuffle the results pages for one thing, it's a very clever way to make people spend more money - even though it could be Google's downfall.
Even a good site can lose ranking or slip down 20 pages easily. If a site stays below a certain place, I just pull the advertising for the next year, and seek other avenues.
It's also why I never buy links for PR, I buy them for 'presence', knowing that someone can find my site.
Just ensure any links you buy are targeted.
It seems that the general concensus is that reciprocal links are no longer as valuable
And quite predictable. Google changed the landscape of the web when they began using links to rank sites. Ever since they have had to perfect ways to counter efforts to manipulate the linking used for rank.
Purchased/rented links will follow the same path.
I would agree with Event King's admonition ot buy links for presence rather than rank.
But, I would also advise to link naturally. Accept links freely given. Link freely to sites that you have a reason to. In the end there will be some links that are two way (reciprocal?) and others that are not. You will have a true authority site, assuming the content is there, and your traffic will be consistant through the ups and downs of the various SE's.
WBF
hehe, thats why we do on our site (i call it) "editorial embedded content links", meaning the advertiser gets a link that is relevant to his site within the content AND context of the webpage...
works perfect for me and the advertiser...
cheers
viggen
I have REAL issues - I'm at Pubcon posting to WW
Google would be a fool to penalize sites for selling advertising on a site or to penalize a site for purchasing advertising. Why? Because they would open themselves up to some very large lawsuits from what I have discussed with lawyers. They cannot position themselves as the only company that can sell advertising without being penalized. (I know of a very large law firm that is just waiting for this to happen and be provable without a doubt)
Face it, there isn't a commercial radio station, magazine, newspaper, or television program/station that could survive without its advertisers. Even Google could not exist without its advertising revenue.
This is not to say that Google cannot legally penalize sites that blatantly mention Google PR, ranking etc in their sales pitch to sell you "links" to manipulate Googles algorithm. This is completely different from sites that sell advertising space on their sites.
So be careful in buying "links" from sites that mention anything about ranking, Google, PR, etc.
Never buy "links" from sites that speak about these subjects. If you want to purchase advertising simply search for your niche keywords/terms and see who comes up for these terms and what they offer. It's no different than purchasing advertising in magazines and newspapers or on radio or television. You are trying to reach the demographics for your niche. Just like I wouldn't advertise a product aimed at 20-30 year olds in AARP magazine or on their website – you shouldn't advertise on sites that have nothing to do with demographics or the subject of your site.
Correct, Google would be remiss in "penalizing" sites for purchasing ads from other channels, but they would NOT be remiss in having an algo that corrects for non-natural linking patterns. This is not penalizing, it's maintaining the integrity of their results. Therefore, they would simply be showing diligence when suppressing the value of certain links that have established themselves as "unTrust®'able" REGARDLESS of whether they are purchased or traded for a load of turnips, or given freely without the target site's webmasters knowledge.
Using your offline advertising analogy, what if a radio station was running ads for your company, and it was discovered that your company had somehow become entangled in some controversy that had the potential for bringing down the radio station's reputation? They would of course yank those ads right away, and from a business perspective they would be right to do so. Or perhaps they might simply might offer to move your ads to a later timeslot, to take the analogy further :) Of course the analogy breaks down quickly, but alas, this is the tragedy of reality on academic discussion..
Bottom line - no smart advertiser will run ads that damage the advertisers credibility with their audience. Here the "ads" are organic placements, but the point is the same.
I guess what I'm saying is watch out for linking patterns that can be detected as an attempt to manipulate rankings. I don't object to link renting, I just see the darkness looming on the horizon for those whom take advantage of this technique without watching out for the patterns that can be detected.
One of the things stressed in yesterdays SEO forum was LOOK NATURAL. If your competitors have 320 links with 35% optimized and 65% ugly, then it's probably in your best interest to follow suit. I have agreed with this for years. It's harder to look natural, but I think it's worth the effort in the long run.
b
