Backlinks About To Take Another Hit? Google taking NEW AIM

[Mike Anthony]

Link is here

Calling for link spam reports

First line is interesting

"Google has been working on some new (bolded for those who always claim theres nothing new) algorithms and tools to tackle linkspam"

Knew some of this was coming since they kept saying that Caffeine was just an upgrade so they could do somethings going forward

Second line is not so nice either

"If you’d like to tell us about web sites that appear to be using spammy links"

and gives the links to report. Not new to be able to report sites for link spam but never a good thing when Google starts asking competitors to report sites - especially a competitor in the niche you just ranked a site for with 10,000 links you know Google sees as spam..


There is also this

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...ge-center.html

That goes into some "abuses" that Google is looking at


Sooo discuss. What do you think this means for the future of backlinking and in particular automated linkbuilding which tends to leave a larger footprint for people to identify as spam?

[digidoodles]

I think this means exactly what it's always meant: do what you've always done and adjust later.

There's some people who spend just far too much time debating this and that and something else. If that time was spent utilizing the methods they espouse, if they are onto something, there's no doubt they'd be number one for every keyword they could possibly want (ok, a bit of an exaggeration there but..)

Point is this: be secure enough in what you do to DO IT and DO IT WELL! Who cares what others think about what you do/what your seo philosophies are? And, I don't mean constructive, empirical, measurable SEO projects like Terry and Tom's... I just mean speculative conversations in general.

The bottom line is: we have no idea what this means. We may never know. Is that going to stop us from doing what we do? Nope, not me.

If you haven't discovered by now.. SEO philosophy talk generally gets no one anywhere. You aren't going to change someone's SEO philosophy, in general. Either deal with it or leave them alone.

I have clients whose methods I completely disagree with, but they are bent on doing it their way. That's fine. I'll do it. I have a client, with whom I have NEVER spoken about SEO philosophies-- E V E R. Why? The way he began this project, indicated to me that he's not interested in hearing anything other than what he wants done. So be it.

And, there are some people I won't even accept as clients because of their specific requirements, which I believe are completely baseless. When they tell me that they want to rank for xxx and then start telling me about this and that and it has to be xxx, I politely tell them that I'm probably not the person for their project and send them on their merry way.

There are just some conversations that are never going to produce any results, ever. Why even bother?

Warmly,


Brandi

[Andrew Wilson]

Brandi, I tend to agree, after all, apart from anything else, if somebody wants to try to sabotage me what can I do to prevent it? All I can do is run my business the best way I know how and as I go along try to learn my business better.

[DPM70]

In the comments section further down:

Frank Collins:
I am wondering what the repercussions of this may be for those of us that have fairly competitive websites. I know a lot of competitors would not give it much thought to throw out a bunch of spammy blog/guestbook comments pointing to your page if they knew it would hurt you.

Matt Cutts:Frank, we’ve said in the past that we work very hard to prevent competitor A from hurting competitor B.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by digidoodles

There are just some conversations that are never going to produce any results, ever. Why even bother?

i

??? Why bother linking to an announcement about a search engine in a forum that discusses search engine? If we removed discussion of issues like this the board would be near empty. That seems like a knee jerk reaction to not wanting to hear any bad news (although I don't think it is bad news). Just keep on going as if nothing happened and adjust after? No I'll take a look at the weather then step out with an umbrella and still have a great day.

Are you saying it has no value to ANY webmaster to know that Google is changing their algorithm to target of all things blog spam?

I'll respectfully disagree. I think if this post stated that Google was now definitely going to allow comment spamming it would be met with thunderous applaud and lots of discussion on how to better utilize the news. No objections. What you wrote just seems to me to be saying - its easier to just keep going on as usual than it is to hear things that may make us change. I have to advise clients so maybe I come from a different place but I'd back them way away from what Google considers blog spamming as I would mutual funds if the government said they were going to triple tax them shortly.

Still one of my favorite posters though (and one of the funniest).

[Tom Goodwin]

Thanks for the post Mike. Interesting read. When I read between the lines, I read this to say that they will try to use the data to better their ranking calculations, rather than penalize actual sites.

The back and forth in the comments is the most enlightening part of this post, I think....

Poster A: "I am wondering what the repercussions of this may be for those of us that have fairly competitive websites. I know a lot of competitors would not give it much thought to throw out a bunch of spammy blog/guestbook comments pointing to your page if they knew it would hurt you."

Matt Cutts: "Frank, we’ve said in the past that we work very hard to prevent competitor A from hurting competitor B."



Poster B: " I always thought that Google would ‘devalue’ the backlinks which would bring down the sites automatically since there isn’t any juice coming from the paid backlinks/guestbook comments. Penalizing a site directly….should be done if the site itself is linking out to bad neighborhoods. Now that Matt says “we work very hard to prevent competitor A from hurting competitor B.” it sounds like there are instances where Competitor A can hurt Competitor B""

Matt Cutts: "Poster B, I try to be careful where I think about every potential corner case. For example, sex.com has a fascinating history where someone impersonated the domain owner, stole the domain, and exploited it for quite a while. Weird cases like that are why I try to avoid absolutes when I’m answering questions (“But clearly some other site was able to hurt sex.com when they hijacked it, right?”)."




My take away from this back and forth exchanges is what most of us on here preach, is that we need to be careful about out outgoing links, but at most incoming links may be devalued or not counted.

Tom

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Link is here

Calling for link spam reports

First line is interesting

"Google has been working on some new (bolded for those who always claim theres nothing new) algorithms and tools to tackle linkspam"

Knew some of this was coming since they kept saying that Caffeine was just an upgrade so they could do somethings going forward

Second line is not so nice either

"If you’d like to tell us about web sites that appear to be using spammy links"

and gives the links to report. Not new to be able to report sites for link spam but never a good thing when Google starts asking competitors to report sites - especially a competitor in the niche you just ranked a site for with 10,000 links you know Google sees as spam..


There is also this

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Is your site hacked? New Message Center notifications for hacking and abuse

That goes into some "abuses" that Google is looking at


Sooo discuss. What do you think this means for the future of backlinking and in particular automated linkbuilding which tends to leave a larger footprint for people to identify as spam?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Beau19

I agree with you Brandi, you must do what your client wants or not accept the work. My only say in this is that you should present all options available to the client and also warn him about Google's new ways of tackling linkspam. It's their choice from there on.

Bingo. Thats all I would take away from it and thats where I am adjusting. I am not even worrying about the reporting part. From the way it is written I don't think that they are going go after any site to punish them directly. To me they said it upfront - they are working on their algorithm in order to go after what they consider spam and getting reports from people about spam activity helps them to fine tune that algorithm. Its like their way of doing a beta.

So to me the focus is not on what might happen when someone reports you but what will happen when Google gets the right algorithm they are going after as we speak.

I find discussing alternatives and how I am going to handle the changes coming very fruitful and I think like you do people just need to know they are now eminent.

[Gary Becks]

I cant Lie Mike, although I do feel that your thread titles can be a bit overly dramatic at times.... You do, for the most part always provide useful information that comes straight from the horses mouth and forces any self respecting SEOer to push for finding new strategies to employ in terms of finding new backlinking methods. I can't speak for anyone else but I say keep posting them. With you here its like we have our daily SEO news reports right here at the WF. Maybe Allen should give you your own section on the forum.

I know one thing for sure, I never hear about any of the stuff going on with google, Vbullettin, or the likes because I am to busy to go to their sites and read them, but I guess I don't have to with you here. So Keep posting the useful updates Mike. It is needed and appreciated.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Bingo. Thats all I would take away from it and thats where I am adjusting. I am not even worrying about the reporting part. From the way it is written I don't think that they are going go after any site to punish them directly. To me they said it upfront - they are working on their algorithm in order to go after what they consider spam and getting reports from people about spam activity helps them to fine tune that algorithm. Its like their way of doing a beta.

So to me the focus is not on what might happen when someone reports you but what will happen when Google gets the right algorithm they are going after as we speak.

I find discussing alternatives and how I am going to handle the changes coming very fruitful and I think like you do people just need to know they are now eminent.

I think that is spot on Mike.

The one thing I wonder though is....with respect to blog comment spam, this is certainly not new coming from Matt Cutts, yet I think we both agree that as of right now blog comment spam is still effective (at least based upon the Google rankings of certain keywords). How long has bookmarking spam been going on? A pretty long time (certainly longer than I have been in IM). Of course certain bookmarking sites have made particular changes with respect to things like adding the no-follow attribute, but it doesn't seem to me that Google has done anything to actively combat that in their ranking calculations.

So, while I do understand that Google is looking into the potentially changing their ranking calculations to deal with things related to this, I do wonder how long it would take for their calculations to change considering how long link spam has been going on (in terms of how fast IM moves, I would guess that this would be relatively slow), and at the end of the day, I think the only way we'll be able to see what, if any, effect this has to see what happens in the SERPs when and if Google does make a decent change. Everyone was talking about all of these crazy ranking changes when Caffeine went into place, although none of my sites fluctuated by more than 1 or 2 spots.

Tom

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

"Frank, we’ve said in the past that we work very hard to prevent competitor A from hurting competitor B."

Agreed thats the key part as far as the reporting part. I 'm beginning to realize people in this thread are concentrating on that part because thats the title of the link but I do NOT think there is anything big there with reporting sites. Its the story and the line I quoted - the new algorithm.

The only thing thats with the reporting to me is that they want to get reports to find out what to fine tune. I never got into blog commenting but I am going to let my clients know that blogs are mentioned by name so they are on the bubble and I am going to stay away (I was on the fence)

Thing with blogs is that its really easy to do since unlike forums and other backlink platforms where you actually have various software footprints most of the blogging world runs on Wordpress.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Embions

I cant Lie Mike, although I do feel that your thread titles can be a bit overly dramatic at times....

Never intended that but I'm now watching that. Bare in mind though. Google rarely tells us what works so most of the news from them tends to be what they are trying to make no longer work.

Maybe Allen should give you your own section on the forum.

Noooooooo. Besides the board riot I wouldn't want that Job. You sir are a real comedian with my death wish.

[c0rv3tt3]

I welcome this.
I am sick of being out ranked by crap sites with cheap content who used certain programs to get quick backlinks.

If your completely white hat you have nothing to fear. Nothing should come easy. Do it the hard way or go home.

Good work Google.

[digidoodles]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

??? Why bother linking to an announcement about a search engine in a forum that discusses search engine? If we removed discussion of issues like this the board would be near empty. That seems like a knee jerk reaction to not wanting to hear any bad news (although I don't think it is bad news). Just keep on going as if nothing happened and adjust after? No I'll take a look at the weather then step out with an umbrella and still have a great day.

Are you saying it has no value to ANY webmaster to know that Google is changing their algorithm to target of all things blog spam?

I'll respectfully disagree. I think if this post stated that Google was now definitely going to allow comment spamming it would be met with thunderous applaud and lots of discussion on how to better utilize the news. No objections. What you wrote just seems to me to be saying - its easier to just keep going on as usual than it is to hear things that may make us change. I have to advise clients so maybe I come from a different place but I'd back them way away from what Google considers blog spamming as I would mutual funds if the government said they were going to triple tax them shortly.

Still one of my favorite posters though (and one of the funniest).

A quick address, only because it's half-time for the Wildcats in the SEC tournament..

Perhaps I really didn't have a point.. ha! No, seriously, it's really great to be aware of what may happen and what might happen, etc. But, personally, I don't think that Mr. C gives the straight dope all the time. (Gotta talk in code so that G machine doesn't hit my sites based on my IP

In my younger years, I spent so much time worrying about things that I just couldn't control and fretting on strategizing my next move should XX happen. I can't help what the G machine does or affect it all. I know what works today and what doesn't. And, if that changes in the future, I'll just have to make adjustments then.

Speculation is just that... speculative.

Naturally, playing the defense is a good strategy, when called for.

Speaking of defense.. I hear the call of the 'Cats and gotta answer the phone!

GO WILDCATS! WOOT!

Warmly,

Brandi

[digidoodles]

Originally Posted by c0rv3tt3

I welcome this.
I am sick of being out ranked by crap sites with cheap content who used certain programs to get quick backlinks.

If your completely white hat you have nothing to fear. Nothing should come easy. Do it the hard way or go home.

Good work Google.

Exactly. Completely white hat. Like getting other sites to link to you "naturally".

Not like using an RSS mish-mash of pre-built forum backlinks and linking to it within another forum signature. We'll have none of that with white-hat link building..

Is there a rolling-eye icon?

Warmly,

Brandi

[DanielSanderson]

this just goes to show that google does penalize sites for spam/paid links

if not then google wouldn't need this form would they?

However I do believe that if a site which already holds strong rankings in it's niche suddenly starts getting spam links then google will ignore them as it's more likely to be a malicious act compared to a website with no links that starts getting a lot of spam/paid links

[MarkAse]

Heck bring on the new algorithm.....most of my competitors are slightly ahead of me through their simply having an older website with a couple of hundred links from 10+ years ago. Devalue those older blog comments and I feel pretty good.

For most of us, as long as we're building a variety of links I can't imagine something like this is really going to hurt us.

Ending the autoblog comment programs though would be a nice thing.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by digidoodles

A quick address, only because it's half-time for the Wildcats in the SEC tournament..

Why didn't you say that to begin with. I will never disagree with a woman who likes basketball. She is right in anything she says.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by DanielSanderson

this just goes to show that google does penalize sites for spam/paid links

if not then google wouldn't need this form would they?

I don't think this is true. First, google is talking about making prospective changes/tweaks. It doesn't really discuss what google has done in the past. Second, Matt Cutts says a lot of useful stuff, but what is says is not 100% gospel. Third, Matt more or less said that they won't let other sites sabotage your own site by spamming incoming links. So, even if Google changed things, we are talking about a devaluation of link power, rather than "penalizing".

[digidoodles]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Why didn't you say that to begin with. I will never disagree with a woman who likes basketball. She is right in anything she says.

HA HA!

And we won!

Now, back to backlinking...

Warmly,

Brandi

[paulgl]

I think people are mixing things up.

Google penalty?

Google has always not counted links from link
farms and other such nonsense.

They are devaluing blog comments, and, probably
eventually devalue forum sigs/links.

But discounting is not a penalty. People can talk
about google penalty as if there actually is such.

Devaluing is not a penalty. Not taking into consideration
is not a penalty. Not acknowledging is not a penalty.

Do nothing but eat pizza and drink beer a month before
a marathon, and finish way back in the pack. Then tell
the refs, time keeper, and race officials that they must
be penalizing you because you drank beer and ate pizza.

Hardly. You brought the poor finish on yourself.
There was no beer drinking penalty from the officials.

Paul

[Vexo]

So then simply build loads of quick spam links to your competitors site and then report them. I think the word "penalty" has been seriously misused in this industry but as always only time can tell.

[GeorgettaSterling]

Do folks here really believe that Google has these various "spam" and "paid backlink" reporting forms in order to take direct action against the reported sites???

Newsflash: Google doesn't care about those sites. They don't care about your sites either, or where they rank. On the "Search Engine" side, Google cares about its database and the algorithm that pulls data (in real time) from that database. Those few thousand reports won't change their database. They aren't interested in hand-correcting TRILLIONS of entries for BILLIONS of webpages.

As Mr. Cutts said when they rolled out the "paid backlinks" reporting form, Google wants DATA to create PROFILES. They have teams that work on developing patterns from certain behavior so that they can then program that into their search algorithms.

I know 4 people who work for Google. They are all sworn to secrecy about their activities. However, let me give you some background on them. One has a PhD in Physics, and his dissertation involved symbolic interpretation of large data sets, and data reduction. The other three had advanced degrees in statistics.

Now I am just guessing, but if I had a search engine, I would want to mine my database (statistics) to develop patterns that I could use to eliminate "undesirable" behavior and results.

I suggest to you that the point of these forms is so that their mining teams have lots of examples to analyze so they can develop new statistical profiles of "spammers." Then their programmers will test these profiles by creating new algorithms. The ones that are fast and fairly effective remain. The rest are sent back for further development (or the trash heap).

A search engine engineer doesn't care to remove some "bad apples" - he wants good patterns to program to remove ALL "bad apples" completely automatically, and hopefully not remove too many "good apples" - - although they don't care that much about removing a few good apples, as they have BILLIONS to choose from.

I also suggest that this is an ongoing process. They have know very well about all these "abusive" linking schemes for as long as they have existed, and they have hundreds of people who work to defeat them. Bear in mind, they want to defeat them algorithmically, which is to say - totally automated. The Google search engine is a computer program after all, not a bunch of people desperately trying to give you some search results, or a 1000 monkeys with a 1000 typewriters.

And I will say it yet again - Mr. Cutts is not on the side of marketers. He is a PR person working for Google - a company who is at war with people trying to "manipulate" their search rankings (and that is YOU, Mr. SEO person). Do you really believe that they would tell you what they are up to, or how to get better rankings for your business? Google's business interest is to (a). scrape websites on the web and then (b). surround that scraped content with advertisements.

Mr. Cutts won't tell you the "truth" as it is not in his employer's interest.

So - all this little bit of PR from Google says is that they are now looking for people to do some work for them (for free) by giving them more "spam link" examples than they could find themselves.

Best Regards, Georgetta

[Bruce Hearder]

Google can't really takes these reports for real..

If they did, it would be too easy to get your compeitiors taken out of the SERP.

Just ignore it.. More BigG smoke and mirrors..

Bruce

[DanielSanderson]

Google do penalize for paid links

I see it everyday

casinotropez.com

formally pr5 and on page 2 for "online casino"

now deindexed

casinodelrio.com

another one that's been deindexed

I could give you many more

obviously these are rogue companies and i am more than aware that google could have got rid of them because they're scammers rather than the links they paid for but somebody would have alerted them to their links or activities in the first place in order for them to take the action

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by GeorgettaSterling

I know 4 people who work for Google. They are all sworn to secrecy about their activities. However, let me give you some background on them. One has a PhD in Physics, and his dissertation involved symbolic interpretation of large data sets, and data reduction. The other three had advanced degrees in statistics.

Now I am just guessing, but if I had a search engine, I would want to mine my database (statistics) to develop patterns that I could use to eliminate "undesirable" behavior and results.

Excellent post. I don't know anyone that works at Google but from a programming mindset this is how its done and why the first line of that report is the only point to really look at

A) there is a new algorithm coming
B) They are looking for patterns

Those of us who actually find backlink sites know how important B is. We find many sites by looking for patterns which we call footprints.

We utilize fairly unsophisticated tools to find those footprints and most of the time they work by looking through Google's own search engine.

So like you said smart people over at Google don't have to remove sites manually. Thats not the main take away and not what they are after. They can just simple remove the "juice" of those links and sites ranked on that basis will take a tumble.

Who knows what wil happen but I got to think that programmers as sophisticated as the ones that work at Google can find the footprints for blog comments that reside on an easily recognized footprint on a single platform (Wordpress) or "powered by Vbulletin" and profile identifiers. Its elementary

I'm a neophyte programmer to these guys and I could do it. They've been busy with other things. Now they are ready to take on link spam. Programmers like the ones that developed Scarpebox have known how to spot the sites for a long time.

Laugh and put down the guy that talked about white hat. It ain't that crazy. I'll still use sites I use now yes but I don't think it crazy to think of some other stuff -and they've always been there and under utilized - that aren't viewed as spam, won't be removed by webmasters and won't go poof in a new algorithm or updated version of a platform. Present practices of backlinking completely go away?


Nah.

but weaker going forward. It appears so. things change. i'm not going to wait till my customer's sites tumble before getting some backups in place

[4morereferrals]

And there in lies part of the problem with google and my concern. Ask any de-indexed adsense'r ...

Guilty until proven innocent. But you likely never get your day in court.

A search engine engineer doesn't care to remove some "bad apples" - he wants good patterns to program to remove ALL "bad apples" completely automatically, and hopefully not remove too many "good apples" - - although they don't care that much about removing a few good apples, as they have BILLIONS to choose from.

Either way we're building links :-) to our own - or to a competitor.

Ohh and best use a brand new puter and new google account that isnt stuffed full of google flash cookies, mac addresses and ip addresses they might know [ track] - to report the naughties ...

[rayray7]

If all your links come from comments and you have thousands of them within a very short time and mostly same words, then they might take a closser look at your site.

Diversity your links:

articles

forum profiles

comments

bookmarking

directory listing

etc

if you have all the above combination, then yo should be okay

[JohnMcCabe]

Georgetta nailed what I was thinking -- big G isn't witch-hunting, they're looking for tracks to follow.

If you want to get dramatic, it's like when the feds offer some lower-level lowlife immunity so they can nail the big cheese.

I don't do SEO professionally, just for my own sites. Once I get past the obvious things -- submission to directories, RSS aggregaters, etc. (the stuff the bright folks G hires likely expect to see en masse) -- I try to make my linking look more like a drunk's walk down an uneven street than an army marching in close order drill.

[Daniel McGonagle]

Awesome! Well put! this is a nugget right here that should not be ignored

Following the drunk's linking profile will surely reveal a natural footprint. Read more into what John wrote here and glean something from it. Natural link building has patterns that are acceptable and patterns that at some point may not be deemed acceptable, like closed link wheels.

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

I don't do SEO professionally, just for my own sites. Once I get past the obvious things -- submission to directories, RSS aggregaters, etc. (the stuff the bright folks G hires likely expect to see en masse) -- I try to make my linking look more like a drunk's walk down an uneven street than an army marching in close order drill.

[RedEvo]

Google has to address link spam or its index will start to look silly (sillier?), this will impact on its profits. It's not rocket science

d

[GeorgettaSterling]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Who knows what wil happen but I got to think that programmers as sophisticated as the ones that work at Google can find the footprints for blog comments that reside on an easily recognized footprint on a single platform (Wordpress) or "powered by Vbulletin" and profile identifiers. Its elementary

I'm a neophyte programmer to these guys and I could do it. They've been busy with other things. Now they are ready to take on link spam. Programmers like the ones that developed Scarpebox have known how to spot the sites for a long time.

I agree - I don't think it is "hard" to develop algorithms to detect abusive linking patterns. I think what IS hard is to develop algorithms that do it reliably and quickly, without creating other problems.

We always assume that Google wants to deliver the "most relevant" results, but forget that they want to deliver acceptable results (so people look at their ads), as quickly as possible, with minimal processor power. With however many millions of queries per day, I suspect that minimizing computer usage is a far bigger priority than weeding out spammers. Heck, they have had a lot of crappy sites in the SERPS for a long time...and people still use Google. I still use it probably 25x a day!

I just think about the uproar over the "paid links" thing (a year or two back?). A lot of people said stuff like "they can't detect paid links." Of course they can, and it is easy, at least for the obvious ones. I recall looking at backlinks for one site, and finding countless low quality blogs in other languages. I couldn't find the backlink on the page. The browser "search" function found the link - in tiny white text, on white background, at the bottom of the page. Pretty obvious that isn't a link earned or given in good faith, now isn't it? Easy to detect. Easy to discount. Eventually Google did that, but it took a pretty long time.

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

I try to make my linking look more like a drunk's walk down an uneven street than an army marching in close order drill.

Haha, that was awesome! So well put!

Best Regards, Georgetta

[mikkosant]

I was worried google would be knocking out sites left and right a year ago. Yet, another year later, and not much in terms of stable rankings has changed for my sites. Make haste while the seo goodness is still here. We all know how to get to get to the top of google. Better to go for it now than to worry about what happens in the future.

Random linking = low footprint
Mix your links too. (not just profile, although they work like gangbusters for time being)

Cheers

[webber1]

Surely I would need to do to hurt is competitor is to post some spam on a number of sites and report one post. Google will find the rest. It cant be that simple. Google will have thought about this. Id say its just a ploy to help make spammers think twice about spamming in an effort to limited spam comments

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by GeorgettaSterling

, I suspect that minimizing computer usage is a far bigger priority than weeding out spammers.

I'll disagree with that one a bit. Google like any company is looking at the bottom line and when a guy ranks high with "spam" links thats one person that isn't going to spend money on adwords. Some things will take priority for awhile but making money off Google without paying Google doesn't really make their hearts warm. When they get around to crushing it they will. You kow MS would and in some ways they are the same beast.

[paulgl]

You need to remember the google definition of linkspam.

It is not getting 1,000's of links fast. Not even close.

It is using link farms, link exchanges, linking back and
forth with others who do the same thing, etc.

Here's the quote of what to avoid:
Links intended to manipulate PageRank
Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging
("Link to me and I'll link to you.")

Getting 1,000's of quality backlinks fast is not even
in question.

Too many people think google penalizes for getting a ton of links
fast. They don't. It's quality. They may deindex you for linking up with
know linkspammers. That's deindex, not sandbox.

Paul

[Mike Anthony]

Yep. Its not the quantity. New sites get featured on popular tech blogs all the time and get massive links in a week or two. Instead of being penalized their Pr jumps at the next update.

[StewieG]

Mike Anthony == Google Pr Rep/CoIntelPro Agent =)

[alansalton]

i think that at the end backlinking are backlinking.

the question is at what speed do you get those backlinking.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by alansalton

i think that at the end backlinking are backlinking.

Thats deep man.

[Spot the Ball]

Been doing some looking around and reading between the lines, my take on this is the small niche sites are going to be the ones hit whilst the authority sites with constantly changing content will do much better.

Maybe the days of sites with pages in single digits will become much harder to rank for with any decent length of time, if your content isnt fresh and hot off the press .. but we shall see.

[Spot the Ball]

As an afterthought, this could be really good news for IMers as long as you are prepared to put the work into your sites.

Instead of seeing "such a bodys site" occupying the top spots with thin pages of no more than a product description and thousands of pages exactly the same (product descriptions).

We now get the chance to challenge them more easily by putting far more imformative pages out there and knowing a crap load of easily obtained backlings just wont do the trick anymore.

[BrendanBurner]

"If you’d like to tell us about web sites that appear to be using spammy links"

and gives the links to report. Not new to be able to report sites for link spam but never a good thing when Google starts asking competitors to report sites - especially a competitor in the niche you just ranked a site for with 10,000 links you know Google sees as spam..
oh my god are they having a laff theres gonna be some scullduggery going on there then isnt there

Regards Brendan.

[Mike Anthony]

Not much of an update but to confirm what we have been saying this came from a recent interview Cutts had.

Our stance has not changed on that, and in fact we might put out a call for people to report more about link spam in the coming months. We have some new tools and technology coming online with ways to tackle that. We might put out a call for some feedback on different types of link spam sometime down the road.

So the reports they want to get are clearly in reference to the "new tools and technology" that they will be rolling out. Don't know who or what is going to get slapped but I am going to start dusting off my white hat