Do our tactics ever worry you?

[DavidO]

Like many people here I'm using Angela's backlink packages, bookmarking groups, blog "communities" and just about any other tactic I can get my hands on to build backlinks.

At the same time, I frequently worry about the repercussions of these methods. Some of it is a bit gray and a lot of it borders on spamming.

For example:

1. Posting links on an endless number of non-relevant profiles and other community sites where you don't participate = spam?

2. Bookmarking groups = gray hat?

3. Paid-for backlinks on purpose-built blogging networks = spam/gray hat?

4. "Backdoor" links on edu and gov sites = spam?

I have just two established and totally original websites promoting my own unique products. They are the result of 4 years work. I'm building a long-term business.

In other words, I have way too much to lose. A ban or even a slap by any search engine, especially Google, would be disastrous.

So I often wonder if I should just give up on the gimmicks and stick to creating quality content and promoting it in a conventional way through respected methods and resources.

Am I worrying unnecessarily???

[Terry Kyle]

Hi David,

Great post and issues raised.

Here are my thoughts:

Quite a lot of heated debate rages about whether backlinking is basically spamming or not.

My own position is that backlinking (Profile) sites clearly IS spam.

BUT…

On the scale of spam ‘evilness’, a profile that nobody is forced to deal with (unlike email spam) and that most of that community will never see on a site with banner ads and/or Adsense hardly seems immoral to me.

However, everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion on the matter.

Also, have a look at the backlink volume of most #1 sites (on Backlinkwatch dot com or in Yahoo Site Explorer), and you will see that those high-ranking Webmasters/companies have usually been VERY busy building their own backlinks.

The simple fact is that if your sites are going to compete on Page 1, backlink building is ESSENTIAL if you are serious about getting seen on Google.

On the one hand, Google doesn’t have much else to go on in terms of determining which sites deserve Page 1 SERP prominence but through backlinks and on-page SEO – how else could they do it?

Manual assessment of every single site in every single niche?

Yet ironically linking to a site that a visitor likes is just NOT natural behaviour. I love sites like whatatop dot com, BBC news and YouTube’s ‘funny animals’ videos but I would never NATURALLY think, “I love this site so I will put a link on my stamp collecting blog to it”.

It just isn’t NORMAL netsurfing behaviour.

And, by operating this way, Google implicitly ENCOURAGES artificial link-building because Webmasters like you and I have quickly realized that ‘quality content’ is not rewarded with SERP prominence at all!

How else therefore can we give our ‘babies’ (the sites in our portfolio) a chance of succeeding but through artificial linkbuilding?

Let the debate continue...

[bgmacaw]

Go look at the backlinks for any of the top 10 sites in highly competitive commercial niches (ex: credit cards, fat loss, etc.) and see what you find. Very few get there without using one or more of the techniques you mentioned or other similar gray-ish techniques.

[TMG Enterprises]

I'm not going to comment on the nature of the methods you mention as that just starts pointless debate but if you feel something is not right and you spend time worrying about losing your income from a Google slap, then perhaps you should avoid those methods.

You will get many arguments on why each and every one of those is perfectly okay and hey, "everyone else is doing it" but what it should be boiling down to is how it sits on your conscience. If it makes you nervous or you feel like you're spamming, then you shouldn't do it.

Tina

[shirland]

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

I'm not going to comment on the nature of the methods you mention as that just starts pointless debate but if you feel something is not right and you spend time worrying about losing your income from a Google slap, then perhaps you should avoid those methods.

You will get many arguments on why each and every one of those is perfectly okay and hey, "everyone else is doing it" but what it should be boiling down to is how it sits on your conscience. If it makes you nervous or you feel like you're spamming, then you shouldn't do it.

Tina

If the pit of your gut is telling you something then you should listen to it. I am currently reading this book called "Finding your own North Star..." by Martha Beck and she talks about your essential self and your social self. Your essential self the feeling in the pit of your stomach is telling you that it it wrong. Your social self is saying that it is the only way to get rank and everybody else is doing it. When your essential self and social self are in harmony then you will be at peace.

[Paul Hancox]

Here's the deal.

I've seen some people place their backlinks like this:

About me:
vacation homes
vacation homes
vacation homes
vacation homes
vacation homes
vacation homes
vacation homes
vacation homes

Now, I think that's pretty stupid, because...

(a) it IS spam.
(b) it LOOKS like spam.
(c) it has a reasonable to high degree of being removed, because it LOOKS like spam.

You know what, it wouldn't take more than a few extra minutes to craft something like this:

Hi, I'm John and I love travelling and seeing the world. I'm still new to this site, so hoping to get to know some of you. If you're interested in me, you can read some of my stuff here:
florida vacation homes | california vacation homes

Looks much less spammy. In fact, there are several OTHER things you could do to virtually eliminate the perception (and even the reality) of spam, if you're smart.

[The Expert]

I'm doing many of the same things as you for a handful of sites. My "baby" is a long-term authority site that I'm working on.

The niche has a lot of traffic, and strangely enough, not a huge amount of competition. Good thing is that the people who are interested in this niche DO backlink to sites they like.

The hope is that once I get first page ranking there will eventually be such a large influx of traffic that they'll begin backlinking naturally in droves.

The other 5 sites are not authority sites at all. Traffic for the #1 guy on the best of them is estimated at 3,200 hit p/day. That's just not enough traffic to hope to build 100 or 200 links per month naturally. You need like, 10,000 or 20,000 p/day to even hope for that kinda natural link juice.

Anyway...consistent backlinks being generated in large quantities naturally is another of the many benefits that the "authority site" approach has which the "low competition niche" sites can never hope to have.

I guess the question boils down to whether you're building an authority sites that sits in a large traffic stream or not. If so, then you can hope to stop doing link building entirely.

I'm serious. Do you think that Digg, Stumbleupon, Twitter, TechCrunch, Mashable, Ford, Yahoo, Ikea, Dewalt, Ebay, or any other "authority site" has a backlink building team? I think not.

[dburk]

Hi DavidO,

The very act of placing a link on another site, a backlink, is not in and of itself spam or grey/black. Just as the act of sending an email is not spam, however sending an unsolicited promotional email is the original definition of marketing spam. Placing a backlink purely for promotional benefit and making no contribution is certainly spamming or spamdexing. You can bet that the search engine's anti-spamdexing teams are gunning for those type of links.

Matt Cutts from Google's anti-spamdexing team is on record in support of merit based backlinks, links placed as an attribution for a contribution. Getting a link for contributing something of value is the purest form of backlink, the kind that SEs value the most.

Many of the link building techniques discussed on this forum can be used responsibly, or callously abused. Ultimately it becomes a matter of character, either you are a person of character or you are not.

A man with a knife can take money from people, is that a bad thing? It all depends on whether he is making a worthwhile contribution or not. If he's a chef that creates culinary masterpieces then he's a hero, if he's mugging people on the street he's a villain.

Which are you, a backlink hero or a spamdexing villain? Answer that question and you have revealed your own character!

Here's a hint: Search Engines love backlink heros and aggressively devalue backlink villains. To use another analogy, merit based backlinks are built on solid bedrock, while backlinks without merit are built on a foundation of sand and won't stand the test of time.

[DavidO]

This is why I love the Warrior Forum! Excellent answers here. Thanks for giving me a lot to think about.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by The Expert

I'm serious. Do you think that Digg, Stumbleupon, Twitter, TechCrunch, Mashable, Ford, Yahoo, Ikea, Dewalt, Ebay, or any other "authority site" has a backlink building team? I think not.

Many corporations large and small with authority sites do have an in-house SEO person/team in their marketing and/or IT departments or outsource it to a consultant or SEO company. This is because they know that just getting an authority PR6-8 home page is only part of the big picture. They have to get 1000's of internal pages ranking well in search too. That's where you'll see the ugly underbelly from time to time.