I Learned My Lesson Building Backlinks too Fast!

[D Baker]

Originally Posted by mysticmadness

in one of google conference they told that they determine the whole pattern to see if links are genuine, bought ot exhanged. somehow i believe them.

Do you really think Google will tell you anything different than that ???

[Jacob Martus]

Originally Posted by jacksonlin

Shannon,

I have the same experience with new sites if I blast out thousands of backlinks and then stop like you did.

Ignore all these people who say that you're wrong and backlinks can't hurt you.

They aren't you or I and they have not experienced it.

So of course what we're telling them sounds like BS.

Until they get hurt like this, they will never listen.

I USED to believe that blasting backlinks won't do your site any harm - until I did it to 3 sites. All of them got penalized, all of them were brand new. 2 of them now rank well, one still suffers.

I didn't do it to my other sites and they were fine.

So I'm telling you, there's a lot of misinformation going on here.

You can only test what you think is right.

Once you test it, you have PROOF.

I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people here who don't believe that blasting thousands of new links to a new site won't do that site any harm - haven't tested their theory.

I have.

I KNOW it harms my sites, so I have stopped blasting my new sites.

I have TESTED IT.

I have proof.

I don't care what anyone else says, because I have confirmed it myself.

Did you even bother reading the thread? His website came back at a higher position. So, no incoming links can't hurt you.

And your testing is flawed. There are any number of things that could cause a website to drop and you attributing it to links is just silly. Unless you did a 100% controlled test (which is nearly impossible with so many variables), you would have no way to determine what would cause a site harm. Sites rise and fall in the SERPS everyday and blaming it on links is just false logic.

[jscanlan84]

In my experience, building links too fast won't hurt you as long as they are quality links. Make sure they relate to the keywords that you are promoting. That will give more value to the links that you build.

But either way, a link is a link. Basically what happens when you build link, at any speed, is that you drop out of the SERPS briefly as the search engines try to decide where you should be placed. It's called the "Dance".

It happens to almost every site, especially if it is new. You may not see it as much with a more established site. But your site will come back. It may be a few days, or a few weeks. Just continue to build quality links, and your site will slowly move up the rankings.

In my experience, often times people confuse not ranking immedietely for competitive keywords, as a punishment. Really it just takes time. Stick with it and you will see results.

Jack

[jacksonlin]

Originally Posted by Jacob Martus

Did you even bother reading the thread? His website came back at a higher position. So, no incoming links can't hurt you.

And your testing is flawed. There are any number of things that could cause a website to drop and you attributing it to links is just silly. Unless you did a 100% controlled test (which is nearly impossible with so many variables), you would have no way to determine what would cause a site harm. Sites rise and fall in the SERPS everyday and blaming it on links is just false logic.

Like I said, no one believes you until you're suffering from the pain.

Yes, I read his post.

2 of my sites came back as well.

1 is still in there.

I can sit here and argue about it till my face goes blue, but the fact is, you don't believe me and I don't believe you.

There will be people who agree with you.

There will be people who disagree with you.

I'm just one of them.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Jacob Martus

And your testing is flawed. There are any number of things that could cause a website to drop and you attributing it to links is just silly..

thats a bit overstated Jacob. There's more than enough evidence of people experiencing falls in the serps after a backlinking campaign. We can't stick our head in the sand and play ostrich.

two problems I see

The first problem is one of semantics. One side says that if the site comes back that is was never a penalty but the other side that loses income for a few months sure feels it being a penalty. Being put in time out sure can seem like a penalty. and no I have not experienced month long dances the way I do SEO.

the second problem is that most non SEO types that have a site do a burst of these blasts and then do very little for the next few weeks/months. We can pretend and say thats not what should be done but we all know thats how it works for those who are not hard nosed SEOs. they buy a package or a service of such and such blasts and its over for awhile. they might have well took the safer route doing moderate links because it evens out over the inactive time periods.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

the second problem is that most non SEO types that have a site do a burst of these blasts and then do very little for the next few weeks/months. We can pretend and say thats not what should be done but we all know thats how it works for those who are not hard nosed SEOs.

...despite the probably 1000+ posts on here where many of us specifically state that if a site experiences a google dance downward, one should always continue linking to the site and not do a deadstop? Hell, its the worst time to stop linking (much worse in my experience than if your site reaches its intended Google position).


Tom

[FredJones]

Could not agree more with this. Absolutely the way I look at it too.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

...despite the probably 1000+ posts on here where many of us specifically state that if a site experiences a google dance downward, one should always continue linking to the site and not do a deadstop? Hell, its the worst time to stop linking (much worse in my experience than if your site reaches its intended Google position).


Tom

[Mike Anthony]

So what?

How many times have we put out that search result count means nothing and people still think it does. or how about one of your favorite that if you just write great content the links will come. Still see that every day. Sure you keep firing your xrummer but how many people are just buying packages with submittal services and have next to no intention of making it a monthly expense.

real world Tom not what you think people should do but what they really do. the guy thats just bought 1,000 links for $89 doesn't expect and isn't told at the point of purchase that its something he needs to put down as his monthly budget from then on.

So for that guy - the average IM Joe/Jane -he is better off not doing one of your blasts. He can "inspire" a hundred a week never see a big dance and over a ten week period do the same as your blast maybe even with greater diversity to his link portfolio.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

...despite the probably 1000+ posts on here where many of us specifically state that if a site experiences a google dance downward, one should always continue linking to the site and not do a deadstop? Hell, its the worst time to stop linking (much worse in my experience than if your site reaches its intended Google position).


Tom

[Tom Goodwin]

So what? The point is that they have no right to b&tch, or at least, they have no right for anyone to answer their b&tching. Period.

Of note though, that i've seen huge dances from throwing 5 links at a page, and not had huge dances throwing 50k links at a page, so it isn't as simply as saying "lets just send fewer links to the page."

Tom

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

So what?

How many times have we put out that search result count means nothing and people still think it does. or how about one of your favorite that if you just write great content the links will come. Still see that every day. Sure you keep firing your xrummer but how many people are just buying packages with submittal services and have next to no intention of making it a monthly expense.

real world Tom not what you think people should do but what they really do. the guy thats just bought 1,000 links for $89 doesn't expect and isn't told at the point of purchase that its something he needs to put down as his monthly budget from then on.

So for that guy - the average IM Joe/Jane -he is better off not doing one of your blasts. He can "inspire" a hundred a week never see a big dance and over a ten week period do the same as your blast maybe even with greater diversity to his link portfolio.

[Mike Anthony]

Yep so what. No one said anything about the right to complain about it (although full disclosure to those that buy certain packages wouldn't be a bad idea). Strictly talking about whats best for those people. Huge dances from five links? beh. take a look at your overall portfolio thats more the cause right there.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

So what? The point is that they have no right to b&tch, or at least, they have no right for anyone to answer their b&tching. Period.

Of note though, that i've seen huge dances from throwing 5 links at a page, and not had huge dances throwing 50k links at a page, so it isn't as simply as saying "lets just send fewer links to the page."

Tom

[goosexxx]

Google has something going on right now that is affecting many. I have read a lot lately about people dropping off of page 1. I have experience this myself with some long tail keywords I used to dominate (and yes my sites are over a year old) and have been replaced with profile pages for pete's sake - not even legitimate content.

Google is reworking something or will be forced to because these strategies that are being employed now are making google searches irrelevant.

Keep killing that goose that lays the golden egg there guys.

And thank goodness that Bing and Yahoo are putting a better search together that what google offers.

[Jacob Martus]

Originally Posted by goosexxx

Google has something going on right now that is affecting many. I have read a lot lately about people dropping off of page 1. I have experience this myself with some long tail keywords I used to dominate (and yes my sites are over a year old) and have been replaced with profile pages for pete's sake - not even legitimate content.

Google is reworking something or will be forced to because these strategies that are being employed now are making google searches irrelevant.

Keep killing that goose that lays the golden egg there guys.

And thank goodness that Bing and Yahoo are putting a better search together that what google offers.

The fact is, Google is changing something everyday statistically. They make over 400 algorithm adjustments every year.

Doesn't worry me. I'll worry when the internet breaks down. :P

Until then, I'm going to keep going to the bank.

[goosexxx]

yep... to the bank... for now... lol

[seoindiaforu]

Absolutely true..building backlinks too fast can get your site in trouble.My suggestion would be build backlinks at a steady rate...keep the number stable and consistent.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by jacksonlin

Shannon,

I have the same experience with new sites if I blast out thousands of backlinks and then stop like you did.

Ignore all these people who say that you're wrong and backlinks can't hurt you.

They aren't you or I and they have not experienced it.

So of course what we're telling them sounds like BS.

Until they get hurt like this, they will never listen.

I USED to believe that blasting backlinks won't do your site any harm - until I did it to 3 sites. All of them got penalized, all of them were brand new. 2 of them now rank well, one still suffers.

I didn't do it to my other sites and they were fine.

So I'm telling you, there's a lot of misinformation going on here.

You can only test what you think is right.

Once you test it, you have PROOF.

I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people here who don't believe that blasting thousands of new links to a new site won't do that site any harm - haven't tested their theory.

I have.

I KNOW it harms my sites, so I have stopped blasting my new sites.

I have TESTED IT.

I have proof.

I don't care what anyone else says, because I have confirmed it myself.

Hi jacksonlin,

It sounds like you have confused QDF with a penalty. Many folks who are new at this make that same mistake. When that temporary effect wears off it can leave you scratching your head wondering where your rankings went. It seems natural to assume that that the backlink blast you just did somehow had something to do with it, but no. its just the temporary boost of QDF wearing off.

I realize that I may never convince you of the truth, but I have replied in hope that some folks reading this thread may question their first assumption and dig a litter deeper to find out what is truly happening, not just what we might imagine.

If you have tested, I don't doubt that you did, how were you able to isolate QDF from your tests? I'm guessing that you did nothing to isolate QDF, and as a result, jumped to a false conclusion. If you perform your tests after QDF wears off, of both your own pages as well as the pages where you have placed your backlinks, I'm sure that you will see that the backlinks were not the cause of a decline in rankings. Instead it was the temporary boost of QDF wearing off. Since in your own words you say it only happens to "new sites", that seems to indicate QDF, not a backlink penalty.

One can test and yet still draw an incorrect conclusion from that test if one doesn't fully understand all the forces at play. I'm just saying...

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Since in your own words you say it only happens to "new sites", that seems to indicate QDF, not a backlink penalty.

Not really. If a site is sitting in a position for a few weeks and then tanks just as soon as you backlink it then thats very unlikely to be QDF. Also the fact that after a few months the sites come back in many of these cases defies QDF wearing off as the reason they dropped.


Google is well known to favor sites with some history. Much harder to rank a domain under three months old as opposed to a two year old one so there is something in the equations that gives more respect to older sites not just QDF.

[Jacob Martus]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Not really. If a site is sitting in a position for a few weeks and then tanks just as soon as you backlink it then thats very unlikely to be QDF. Also the fact that after a few months the sites come back in many of these cases defies QDF wearing off as the reason they dropped.


Google is well known to favor sites with some history. Much harder to rank a domain under three months old as opposed to a two year old one so there is something in the equations that gives more respect to older sites not just QDF.

In most cases when your site drops off after some backlinks, the only way it will return is if you continue to backlink it. If your site disappears and you stop building links, it will very rarely ever return to that position.

That would indicate to me that it is QDF initially and because of the consistent backlinking despite the drop, it then returns.

Site ranks well due to backlinks and QDF.
Site drops out of the rankings when QDF wears off.
Site regains its rankings due to consisten backlinking and earns its rightful position.

For the majority of the sites that I've ever had drop off, they only returned if I continued to build backlinks. For the few sites that I stopped backlinking after a drop, they never returned to their QDF position.

[Mike Anthony]

Sorry Jacob. Not buying that as the answer to all situations. People who don't want to admit that overt backlinking can affect SOME sites will hold on to that but in some cases the sites have held at a low position climbed up the ranks and then fell after a massive backlinking campaign. The content need not have changed and thats what QDF is all about.

I posted a link to one of google's patents awhile back and it clearly shows that Google looks at how the algorithm can potentially spot spam patterns in link acquisitions. No one knows what exact patents made it into today's algorithm but there is little doubt from the technology patents filed that it was on their radar from years ago. Now will you be able to kill a competitor's sites with massive backlinks?

Of course not.

The whole reason why they are your competitors is because they have ALREADY established themselves in the serps before you mass backlink them. they have trusted, aged or authority links established before.

Theres just too many variables in the algorithm for anyone to claim that under no circumstance can a mass backlink spree hurt any site. thing about this is that in mainline SEO (not internet marketing SEO) this isn't anything controversial. Its accepted that it can with a site with no age to their links.

As a matter of fact ther have been cases where the sites came back. we've had them right here on warriors discussed. I still hold that for most people who do good keywod research its better to go slower and be consistent and I'm not talking about real slow either just not 10,000 forum backlinks in a week.

Originally Posted by Jacob Martus

That would indicate to me that it is QDF initially and because of the consistent backlinking despite the drop, it then returns.

.

[Roberto L]

How many backlinks you guys are adding perday? I only have 3 hours for link adding,lol.....

[wariswar]

IMO 50 High PR Profile links/week is good enough to get higher rankings.

[dagaul101]

Yep slowly and surely, you always have to think natural with Google, those that have been penalised might find they have a long wait before things get to normal

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by wariswar

IMO 50 High PR Profile links/week is good enough to get higher rankings.

thats always been the flip side of the equation. the only way your are going to self backlink thousands of sites in a week is if you utilize sites with next to no PR. At least with High Pr sites you stand the possibility of more PR juice flowing to those profile pages but in the end you want to eventually start getting links from on page PR pages.

I'm not anti these links. far from it. I just think theres a horrible over emphasis on this. theres too many people whose sole idea of SEO is running spam bots.

You CANNOT rank for any term with just forum profile links. In the real competitive niches even if theres a glitch in the algo the competitor who you knocked dollars from is going to make sure to report you and in enough cases (not all not even most) they will be heard. whining about them doing it is just foolishness. They have every right to. The site that controls the serps and ranks the page (Google) has stated they should and they have no reason to buy into your ethics since you don't buy into theirs. They don't have to resort to playing the spam blast game.

All things in moderation.

[Fernando Veloso]

This discussion STILL goes on?

[BillWynne]

You need to use a "drip" system when it comes to article submissions or commenting.

Does anyone know how many backlinks a day would be appropriate and keep you under the radar?

I would imagine that the older your site the more backlinks would come naturally to your site. Think of all the backlinks coming to wikipedia from all the people that use it as a research site.

Good post

[Teravel]

For everyone that says "If you get tons of backlinks, you will disappear from Googles search engine" please read this article about someone that Sued Google for that exact claim, and won...
Suing Google Because Your Google Site Ranking Sucks | Techdirt

It seems to me that all those people saying "We could just sandbox our competition by generating thousands of backlinks" may just be correct about this. Maybe Google does just move you until it can determine a proper place for your site on the listings. With 2,000 backlinks on a new site, Google has to look at a ton of variables, including searching 2,000 sites (and their PR), and make adjustments to a wide range of things.

Edit: Grats on getting back to page 1! :-D

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Teravel

To the OP: Give it a month or two. If your website hasn't returned with a higher PR, come back here and let us all know.

I guess you missed his update like on page 3 or something, but he came back to page 1.

[seomasterstroke]

This sounds like the 'Google Dance', and also that newer sites tend to rank higher initially and then stabilize a bit with a lower rank.

Well, the only thing you should now do is continue the backlinks...

Stopping the backlinks could be the worst thing you do...like the way you bounced back, you could get pushed back again...

Aditya

[jhonsean]

Originally Posted by Shannon Spoon

I just wanted to start this thread to let anyone know that doesn't that you can build backlinks too fast, Google will punish you.

My site was on the first page of Google 7th position and after i bought a backlink package that added 2,000 backlinks in 7 days it went to the last page.

So anyone who tells you to go crazy on backlinks that Google doesn't mind, does not know what they are talking about.

Now before i bought the package i read several times that you need to build your links slowly. Man, i wish i would have listened. Lesson learned.

This is the proof that we cannot overcome google because its the search engine itself. We SEO's only optimize sites the way google likes. hopw this helps.

[fannyballard]

Building Yeh backlinks too quickly can be a problem that Google will see your site as spam. However, this also depends on the quality of their links are. I would choose quality over quantity every time.

[SGdarling]

it is not only the speed, but also the diversity of the anchor texts. I sow some IMs who try to rank their sites for only 1-2 keywords. If you do so, google will consider you a spam. Try to use many different variants of your keywords

[iresh]

I just wanted to start this thread to let anyone know that doesn't that you can build backlinks too fast, Google will punish you.

Ya sure this happens if you just stop the back linking process after some time, if you keep doing this, Google cant know

[chiwawa]

Yeah, i'm glad you learnt that the quick way doesnt always pay. Building links fast on google is bad and whoever does it will be penalized.

[JHC81]

That's why I always say build your links naturally. Do it yourself or hire someone to do it for you, don't use any software or packages.

[Soulofinfamy]

Building backlinks fast is not a problem.

[kimberly Aita]

I have a site that is about 2 months old and when it first ranked it was number 75 and slowly climbed up until I was #3 on google's first page, within a day or so it completely disappeared and it has been a week and it's finally showing up on rank checker again at number 167 yesterday. 166 today.

I could just be that google dance thing people talk about. You should probably continue to add content if you are still doing that other wise just wait and see.

Kim

[n00b1]

Is that last post supposed to make sense in English ^^.