Questions to ask before buying backlinks

[jasonsluck]

I am in the market to buy backlinks but I don't want to buy the wrong ones or make a mistake. What are some common questions I should ask and find out before buying backlinks from a seller? All feedback is appreciated!

[ibacklinkpro]

Don't buy backlinks at all, unless it is for a review process like Yahoo.com (and maybe not even then.) Google has become very smart about figuring out who bought links and once they see that your site is doing that, your site will be penalized, and maybe even banned.

[ashleysmith12]

hi
buying links is not a good option better to generate manually is better option, buying links not liked by search engines and this may lead your website get penalized and lose rank.

[trytolearnmore]

1) Ask what kind of backlinks and how many are they offering
2) Do these backlinks come from different IP's

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by jasonsluck

What are some common questions I should ask and find out before buying backlinks from a seller?

Common questions won't help, Jason: if you ask the common questions, you're likely to end up getting the value that people who buy backlinks "commonly" get. And you certainly wouldn't want that.

Rare questions might be a little more useful.

The things that would actually matter to you are ...

(i) Are the sites on which my backlinks will appear specifically relevant to my own niche? (if the answer to this one is "no", move on and ask no more questions), and ...

(ii) Please may I have the contact details of three people who were your customers more than 6 months ago (less than that and they don't yet know whether the service really "worked") who are willing to give informal references? (Again, without that - and without contacting them yourself - move on and forget it) and ...

(If you care about page ranks) (iii) What are the page ranks of the actual pages on which my backlinks will appear (NOT "the site's own home page") and how do we know they'll stay on those pages? (Again move on and forget it, without a clear and satisfactory answer to that).

(iv) What's the maximum number of backlinks that can appear on the pages on which I'm buying backlinks, and how is that guaranteed? (The link-juice is divided between the backlinks on the page). This determines the maximum potential value of what you're buying, so, again, without a satisfactory answer to this question ... well, you know ...

In fact, probably best just to move on and forget it rather than asking questions at all, to be honest ...

[maribelle]

Originally Posted by jasonsluck

I am in the market to buy backlinks but I don't want to buy the wrong ones or make a mistake. What are some common questions I should ask and find out before buying backlinks from a seller? All feedback is appreciated!

Actually, I never buy any back links, I believe that by doing it manually will somewhat help.

[trytolearnmore]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

(i) Are the sites on which my backlinks will appear specifically relevant to my own niche? (if the answer to this one is "no", move on and ask no more questions)

Well, some people won't agree with that statement (including me). Even according to Terry Kyle, relevance is irrelevant If a URL has a decent PR - go for it.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by trytolearnmore

Well, some people won't agree with that statement (including me).

Yes, I know.

On the other hand, Matt Cutts agrees with it and says so very openly, every standard SEO textbook writer agrees with it, my own evidence and experience agrees with it, and all the expert SEO Warriors whose opinions I trust and successfully rely on agree with it.

I do accept, though, that there are others who don't.

Page ranks have become a little bizarre.

As so many people have now wisely and correctly explained this to me, we can all see for ourselves, in Google's SERP's, the regularity with which lower-PR pages with fewer incoming backlinks outrank higher-PR pages with more incoming backlinks.

What some don't realise, I think (though actually it's similarly easy to see for ourselves), is that what's determining all those "discrepancies" is simply the relevance of the sites holding the backlinks to the pages linked to. (They're not really "discrepancies" at all, of course - they only appear that way to people who imagine that page ranks matter more than relevance).

I'm among the many here who would be delighted if Google just abandoned "page ranks" rather than struggling, as they do, to continue to maintain the fiction that they're of much significance at all.

There's no secret about these things: rolling up the bottom of your pants and swearing an oath of confidentiality isn't required - it's all out there in the open, ready to be seen by anyone who's willing to look. Rankings are increasingly determined by quality and relevance.

And according to Google's various blogs, videos, and so on, that isn't going to be changing, any time soon.

One thing's for sure: people who are abandoning their former quantitative approaches to SEO, based on "numbers of backlinks" and "page ranks", and switching instead to focusing only on quality and relevance are certainly not switching back.

[ok123]

Buy homepage contextual backlinks. They are much more effective than profile or comment links.

As far as people above me saying don't buy backlinks, well the biggest companies on the planet buy backlinks ( overstock anyone... ) so there is no harm in that.

[cooler1]

If Google was against people buying backlinks wouldn't they have deindexed all those sites which are selling backlinks or would it just be too time consuming? There must be loads of sites in Google's search results in which people are selling backlinks.

[App Developers]

If Google could figure out who bought back links all of my competitors would be off the front page of googe! Some of the questions to ask above were pretty good. A lot of people prefer to do the back links manually and then just as many use software and trickle in their back links. I am from the school of doing the back links manually but.......that can get boring at times! I have thought about purchasing a few but you never know what you are getting into until you actually purchase. also, be sure you will work on getting your links indexed if needed.

[KylieSweet]

Other people who own a site usually tend to buy links in order to boost the site's backlinks and to have a short process in gaining high rankings in search engine. There are many natural ways to get rank and be aware of the risk.

[JamieSEO]

Originally Posted by jasonsluck

I am in the market to buy backlinks but I don't want to buy the wrong ones or make a mistake. What are some common questions I should ask and find out before buying backlinks from a seller? All feedback is appreciated!

I recommend being very careful with buying backlinks. If that persons site is picked up by Google then they will de-index outgoing links, meaning that any SERP improvement it gave you could vanish overnight.

You are better off with legit links and just outsourcing the creation of them with new content (eg Videos, Press Releases, etc).

[shakil754]

I do not buy many backlink packages. If you apply normal backlinking strategies like article submissions, web 2.0 submissions, social bookmarking, creating videos and submitting to various sites, using press release then you will see an increase in your ranking.

Having said that I have bought some .EDU, forum profile, submission to high PR sites gigs on fiverr and that has helped my rankings

[NZB]

-Search for links from pages thematically similar to your site,
-Search for links from sites with high Page Rank - though no longer so important,
-Search pages with large amounts of valuable backlinks.
It's just very briefly.

[trytolearnmore]

Originally Posted by sales@plrarticlecontents

Don't buy backlinks because Google knows that building links in natural and intelligent fashion is always long and slow.

Well, imagine that you've built a Wikileaks-esque website, and the amount of links(probably, thousands) that you are going to get per day. What will happen then?

Although i do think you are right, steady link building is important, the key to ranking high is much deeper than that.

[chandan_dutta]

If I were you, I would go for below:

1. Are the links from content?
Ans: It should be YES but it's not like that BlogRoll links are worthless. They also work but Contextual links are better.

2. Are they from related content? (It's not mandatory but relevancy is always better)
Ans: YES is better

3. Are they from Different CLASS C IP?
Ans: It should be YES if you are going to get more than one link from the same person.

4. If it is blog network, is there any domain privacy? Separate Name Server?
Ans: It should be YES.

5. What will happen if the PR gets dropped? (It depends on type of link though)
Ans: Seller mast take action

Basically before joining to any blog network for links, I look for this information.

Hope it helps.

Regards,
Chandan

[NEseO]

Originally Posted by ok123

Buy homepage contextual backlinks. They are much more effective than profile or comment links.

As far as people above me saying don't buy backlinks, well the biggest companies on the planet buy backlinks ( overstock anyone... ) so there is no harm in that.

Agree with this (shameful promotion of my sig link ).

Honestly though check some out in the Classified, mine is good but there are others too so shop around and see what suits you and your price. Usually the more expensive will be better, although a lot bulk up their links with low PR0-2 links.

Diversity in IP, content, tld etc etc is key. I do not agree that relevance has impact. Yes it will have impact if you are looking to drive traffic with the links because if it is not relevant then it is pointless. However, if you want to increase in SERPS (which is what these homepage links are generally used for) then they are perfect.

Ideally you should build plenty of lower quality links to get up to the top of page 2 or on page 1 and then use homepage links for the final push to the top.

If you want to drive traffic then this is completely different and you should search for websites related to your niche but not in direct competition and approach them for an ad. So you could have a ski holiday site, so going to a snowboard or ski equipment seller would be great!!

[Cash37]

Originally Posted by jasonsluck

I am in the market to buy backlinks but I don't want to buy the wrong ones or make a mistake. What are some common questions I should ask and find out before buying backlinks from a seller? All feedback is appreciated!

Try to get links from sites that are close to your niche though its not important.

More importantly vet the site that is linking to you and mix your links. Dont get a bunch of links from Spam blogs. That wont work.

[Targeted Traffic]

As far as SEO goes, buying backlinks is just a No-No, getting 500 high PR links in 7-14 days... when you previously didn't have even half that, Google aren't that stupid, at the end of the day, buying back links can potentially do a lot more harm than good

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Yes, I know.

On the other hand, Matt Cutts agrees with it and says so very openly, every standard SEO textbook writer agrees with it, my own evidence and experience agrees with it, and all the expert SEO Warriors whose opinions I trust and successfully rely on agree with it.

I do accept, though, that there are others who don't.

Page ranks have become a little bizarre.

As so many people have now wisely and correctly explained this to me, we can all see for ourselves, in Google's SERP's, the regularity with which lower-PR pages with fewer incoming backlinks outrank higher-PR pages with more incoming backlinks.

What some don't realise, I think (though actually it's similarly easy to see for ourselves), is that what's determining all those "discrepancies" is simply the relevance of the sites holding the backlinks to the pages linked to. (They're not really "discrepancies" at all, of course - they only appear that way to people who imagine that page ranks matter more than relevance).

I'm among the many here who would be delighted if Google just abandoned "page ranks" rather than struggling, as they do, to continue to maintain the fiction that they're of much significance at all.

There's no secret about these things: rolling up the bottom of your pants and swearing an oath of confidentiality isn't required - it's all out there in the open, ready to be seen by anyone who's willing to look. Rankings are increasingly determined by quality and relevance.

And according to Google's various blogs, videos, and so on, that isn't going to be changing, any time soon.

One thing's for sure: people who are abandoning their former quantitative approaches to SEO, based on "numbers of backlinks" and "page ranks", and switching instead to focusing only on quality and relevance are certainly not switching back.

You must not have tested the relevancy vs non-relevancy, then. If you have, then you'd surely know that relevancy doesn't mean much at all, if anything. Not sure why anyone believes a damn word what the head of Google's web spam team says, when he's the one trying to fight SEOs and their tactics

[tryinghard]

If you have a good budget start buying from guest blog post

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

I'm among the many here who would be delighted if Google just abandoned "page ranks" rather than struggling, as they do, to continue to maintain the fiction that they're of much significance at all.

Alexa your bright and I will listen to you as an expert on article marketing and syndication any day but with SEo you are just dead wrong here. Unfortunately there are a lot of people pushing this myth that Pagerank is of no significance when all they are doing is confusing the issue of the PR of the page ranking and the PR of the page linking to you with the targeted keyword

PR is still very significant when linking. If Adobe links to you from one of its PR9 pages and a friend links to you with a PR1 link then the Adobe link will be worth far more. Google can abandon PR but it would only be replaced by some other weighting system similar to it. Some votes will always and should always be worth more.

Plus people who think they are pointing to evidence because one site with PR is beaten by another without (or lower) are just not getting that PR is universal to the page not related to anchor text used. So universally you will find that a PR4 will beat a PR 1 all the time if the anchor text links are the same between them and the content is relevant- So again PR is not of "no significance". given the same achor text and goals its in fact would be very significant.

Finally I have to smile at the superior attitude of those who claim to have left linkbuilding and SEO behind. Its just another way to go. Fact is none of them have left link building behind at all. Its actually impossible to get meaningful traffic without links online.

Syndication brings traffic through links, all kinds of article marketing brings traffic through links and even list builders get traffic through links in their emails to their sale pages. its all quite honestly a crock. So you do link building to bring traffic from a variety of sites and someone else does it to bring traffic from google? Different strokes for different folks. The other myth is that one is more secure than the other all things being equal.

Non SEO types just about gloat every time there is an algo change like they invalidate the SEO approach. They in fact don't for many sites. Theres in fact only one condition under which it would invalidate it -If and only if you are doing SEO for a site that has nothing worthy to come back to, However thats not an SEO issue.

There is such a thing as repeat traffic that arises out of original SEO traffic. , A site whose traffic drops to zero because of an algo change is only demonstrating that they have nothing to offer not that SEO wouldn't have built their traffic up to a point of not having to depend on it exclusively,

Try building a list that you don't have quality to offer and the fall out rate will make you long for Google rankings. Try being a writer that offers nothing good on your own sites and the bounce rate will soar. SEO for a site with good content and user experience builds long term repeat traffic that will not give a fig stick about algo changes in the future.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

In fact, probably best just to move on and forget it rather than asking questions at all, to be honest ...

That is EXACTLY what they should do in regards to your seo advice, considering you were wrong on most every point you tried to make.