Good backlinks and bad backlinks ... ?

[nushi]

I have come to rely on the warriorforum for not only great products and services, but great advice from experienced marketers. So, I'd like to ask something about backlinks here that gets me a little confused as the search algorithms evolve and we all try to stay ahead of the *game*. I see a lot of services offered on WF for backlinks. All sorts of backlinks .... and I have purchased most of mine from a couple of great fellow warriors here that have yielded some fantastic results. A great success thus far and no complaints there. Only kudos and good things to say about them

Here is my question: What determines a *good* backlink? For me, I would think a backlink from a high PR site; or one that is on a site or forum related to the link being placed there along with comments that *make sense*; or one embedded naturally within a well written article related in some way to the site being linked to...etc .. What happens to a company's reputation down the line when upon further research the links back to their site are on webpages completely unrelated to their company or on abandoned forums or completely unrelated .EDU/.GOV sites or even porn sites... Someone once told me it doesn't matter where the backlinks come from. If it doesn't matter now, then in the near future I suspect it will ... To all the professionals out there who offer SEO services how can a client be sure the footprint left will not detract in some way from the reputation and growing popularity?

Just something I've been thinking about especially since I outsource this service for my own clients. As I learn and my own small business grows helping people optimize their sites and get listed locally (amongst other things), this question comes to mind.

I just recently read this article below about JCPenny and what happened to them. Many of you may have seen this already, but for those who haven't, I have posted the link below:

msnbc.com business - The dirty little secrets of search

Any thoughts or comments from those in the trenches with their fingers on the pulse?

thx!

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by nushi

What determines a *good* backlink? For me, I would think a backlink from a high PR site; or one that is on a site or forum related to the link being placed there along with comments that *make sense*; or one embedded naturally within a well written article related in some way to the site being linked to...etc ..

For me, what matters most is that it's from a context-relevant source.

After that consideration, I'd prefer a backlink on a higher PR page to one on a lower PR page, but I set little store by that, in the overall scheme of things.

And whether it's do-follow or no-follow, I don't even look at, at all.

Originally Posted by nushi

Someone once told me it doesn't matter where the backlinks come from.

Well, clearly you know better than that.

[nushi]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Well, clearly you know better than that.

LOL.. yes, I do,.. and thanks for your input
So is it safe to say most of your backlinks are embedded within articles then?

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by nushi

So is it safe to say most of your backlinks are embedded within articles then?

Many. And most of my best ones are in articles on other people's context-relevant (i.e. non-article-directory) sites. Some of those have got there because they've syndicated my articles from directories, and some because they've done that in the past and I've contacted them and arranged to give them more (not "specially written more", of course, just "more").

I also have plenty of backlinks from article directories (pretty useless backlinks other than as a potential stepping-stone to syndication), and some from blogs (context-relevant), PDF directories, forum comments and sig-files (context-relevant sites only) and "web 2.0 sites" (as people call them) and the "usual sorts of things".

I don't check page-ranks too carefully, to be honest, but sometimes I do out of curiosity when I manage to get backlinks on what look to me like "real authority sites". (I also have a couple of .edu blogs of my own, and a waste of time those are, because they're not anything like "authority sites" at all!).

[donhx]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

For me, what matters most is that it's from a context-relevant source.

After that consideration, I'd prefer a backlink on a higher PR page to one on a lower PR page, but I set little store by that, in the overall scheme of things.

And whether it's do-follow or no-follow, I don't even look at, at all.

This is an excellent summary. The one point of different thinking is that I would take a do-follow over a no-follow if I had the choice, but beyond that I would not sweat the follow issue.

[BacklinkExcellence]

Well, consider leaving out the nofollow links. Do a few tests by only pointing nofollow links at an aged site of yours and you will notice that there will be no increase in rankings. If you re-do the experiment with "dofollow" links, the rankings will come.

Good summary Alexa, but definitely look more into the issue of nofollow vs. dofollow.

[dvduval]

I've increasingly seen sites hacked just for the purpose of placing links in them secretly.

[jonnyhardbaked]

As a newbie, I have learned a lot, thanks!

[nushi]

Originally Posted by dvduval

I've increasingly seen sites hacked just for the purpose of placing links in them secretly.

Really? How did you come about to know this? ... I can see *why* it would be done, terribly unethical as it is, but I've never even heard this tactic .. I imagine the only way a site owner would find out is if they had a sys admin guy or coder on their team ..

[keepgoin]

How had I never before seen this thread - packed with super info!!

[retsek]

Originally Posted by nushi

Really? How did you come about to know this? ... I can see *why* it would be done, terribly unethical as it is, but I've never even heard this tactic .. I imagine the only way a site owner would find out is if they had a sys admin guy or coder on their team ..

You'd be surprised. There's a group of link directories right now which got PR7-PR9 by hacking and inserting hidden links into well respected PR9 pages.

[rocks00]

Blog Commenting and Directory Submission is good way to get backlink..

[marksmith21]

I think all backlinks are good except for links on PR 0 pages and sites and pages that have spam on them. Google knows and marks the sites that have spam on them so stay away from them, far away. Most of the time try to avoid getting no follow backlinks, even though getting no follow links on social media sites can prove to be helpful.

Of course the preference is always high PR sites with do follow and authority sites.