Forum Moderators: martinibuster
"Hello.... I'm Neville Nobody from NobodyTravel.com. I'd like to pay you $250 to place a text link on your site."
Scenario 2
"Hello.... I'm Neville Nobody from NobodyTravel.com. I'd like to pay you $250 to advertise my business on your site."
We continue to see comments/posts about the evils of paying for links as per scenario 1, yet scenario 2 is accepted as normal business practice. I can't see how Google can make an accurate distinction between these two scenarios.
Is there a difference from an SEO perspective? In both cases the end result is a link from one site to another. If I get 100 links by paying for 100 text links, how is that different from getting 100 links by paying for 100 adverts? 100 links is 100 links and the impact on the SE rankings would be the same in both cases.
If I want to pay for advertising to reach the visitors on 100 sites, that's a business decision I make in hopes of gaining more traffic.
If I think banners are a waste of time and opt for text links to reach the visitors on 100 sites, then that also is a business decision made in hopes of gaining more traffic.
It cannot be automatically assumed that text links are purchased for the express intention of gaming SE rankings... yet that is the theme that keeps surfacing in these forums.
I can't see how Google can make an accurate distinction between these two scenarios.
Patterns. There is a reason why at least some of the link spam hunters are statisticians. Nice guys, too. They show up at the conferences sometimes.
Sorry... but I remain unconvinced. While I have no doubt that Google can and does interrogate data sets to establish recognisable pattens, it is another thing entirely to say they can accurately match every permutation of link type to one of those patterns.
Compare two text links:
a) <a href="my_page.htm">anchor text</a>
b) <a href="my_page.htm">anchor text</a>
They are obviously the same, except b) overlays a banner graphic in the cell background.
If I buy a) I'm deliberately buying a text link. If I buy b) I'm paying for advertising.
Same linking pattern, but different intent.
I can understand Google wanting to eliminate the selling of text links on a scale that would skew their search results. If they didn't then those with deep pockets would simply buy domination of the lucrative niches.
But for the average small business site to buy a few text links here and there, and be tarred with the same brush as the professional text link merchants.... well, that seems a little over the top. Would Google even be interested?
1) The place where the links are put on your site.
2) What have you written in the vicinity of the links (Dont write stuff like sponsored links)
3) Are the links related to your site (dont put unrelated links as google will come to know that the reason to put unrelated links is that you have been payed for it)
Or if you are sure that the person who is buying the links is just interested in the visitors it will bring to their site just put a rel=nofollow in the link and play safe ;).
MB-
What do you figure they use as a baseline for a "normal" linking pattern? Maybe a snapshot of what the web looked like (linkwise) back in 1999-2000?
a) <a href="my_page.htm">anchor text</a>
b) <a href="my_page.htm">anchor text</a>
You forgot scenario c:
Page Title = News, Radio, University, Generic Widgets
Bottom of the Page a Cluster of TEN Outgoing Links in a Box:
<a href="my_page.htm">Mortgage anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">College Degree anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">Hoodia anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">Fish Oil anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">Fast Loan anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">Christmas Tree anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">Cancun Travel anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">More Mortgage anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">More College Degree anchor text</a>
<a href="my_page.htm">Real Estate anchor text</a>
Can you spot that pattern? Not even Bigfoot leaves a footprint as big as that. ;)
Spotable. But does it matter for either the advertiser (link buyer)
or the entity carrying the advertising (link seller)?
I've seen no evidence of this and I actively monitor a couple of sites that have purchased huge blocks of advertising links. In one instance, the purchaser-advertiser has manged to get to the top of a niche/serps based almost entirely on this strategy and has stayed there for about 1 1/2 years in all 3 major search engines. For this reason, I don't believe that the link buyer has been penalized in any way, nor has the link seller had their ability to pass reputation removed.
Judging from Adam Lasnik's most recent comments, I don't have the impression that a site buying advertising, even huge run of site links, necessarily has to worry about anything. Not as long as the links are pretty much out in the open. As long as they are, its up to google to decide to how to value them (or not).
I think the buyer of links (buyer of advertising) only takes a risk in this way: if google at some point determines that the link seller is not selling advertising but, instead, is selling pagerank, then the seller's ability to pass reputation will be removed, meaning that the buyer's purchased links may become null and void. For this reason, a site interested in advertising may simply wish to avoid placing all their advertising eggs in one basket and may also wish to consider a hodgepodge approach to link generation (quality content to attract natural links, writing a few articles and submitting them, submitting to relevant directories, press releases, and perhaps relevant reciprocal link exchanges).
From reading Matt Cutts' blog, I really don't have the feeling that google is going after sites that sell advertising, even sitewide links. As another poster noted, it all seems to come down to "interpretation of intent".
Google always seems to be about links, links, links. But, sometimes, I've really wondered if its not just about "links", but rather, about the reputation of the link seller.
If site A, a spammy site with very little original content and lowgrade incoming links of its own decides to sell sitewide links (through TLA or wherever), these links may be valued by google (aside from pagerank considerations) differently than the online version of the chicago tribune which has decided (just an example, I have no idea if they do) to sell sitewide links.
In other words, when it comes to buying advertising links, it may not be just about 1. the anchor text of the links, 2. the numbers of purchased links, and 3. the pagerank of the pages passing the links. It may actually have a lot to do with the history of the site selling the links.
For example, Joe's website that opened 4 months ago and uses reposted articles for 80 percent of its content and yet has high pagerank due to some link purchases of its own, may sell sitewide advertising that is relatively worthless due to the lackluster profile of Joe's website (not been around long, not garnering much organic traffic, very little original content of its own). Yet, purchased sitewides from an old and established site with loads of original content and a great IBL profile, mainly organic, may possibly be worth their weight in gold.
I have no proof that it works this way, but it would make sense. Sites that are more established in the ways I mentioned are far more likely to make the selling of their advertising links an "editorial decision" than Joe's spammy website who will sell to anyone anytime, mainly because such sites are concerned about their reputation, not necessarily to google but to their readership.
For this reason, a site interested in advertising may simply wish to avoid placing all their advertising eggs in one basket and may also wish to consider a hodgepodge approach to link generation...
Right. You should always diversify your backlinks, including the TLDs.
Joe's website that opened 4 months ago and uses reposted articles for 80 percent of its content and yet has high pagerank due to some link purchases of its own, may sell sitewide advertising that is relatively worthless...
I can't agree with you more. This highlights the problem of using the green bar for making link acquisition decisions.
Isn't that just a grouping of links that Google knows to be crud... MFA junk, scraper rubbish, affiliate dross etc etc which, if they are unrelated to the site carrying the links, will simply be ignored. No trust & no relevance = no value. No one is likely to dispute that and I guess you can say it fits a pattern.
But that isn't moving me closer to understanding how Google can determine the difference between a high quality, relevant, purchased text link and a high quality, relevant, purchased advertisement link.
Thats why they are asking you to use the no follow tag.
