Is This True About Backlinks?

[Dave Earley]

I read somewhere that Google only gives credit for so many backlinks per day, anywhere from 0-8? After that the links may continue to show up day by day, just not all in one lump at a time. Is this true?

So lets say that yesterday I bookmarked 7 articles on 40 social sites each. I would at least be able to expect 280 backlinks, not including the viral effect. This means that it may take up to 45 days for my backlinks from yesterday to show up, or even more days if I'm still backed up from previous days. Not sure if this is making sense. Is this at all how Google works, or not?

Dave

[Michael Dominic]

I don't believe that's the case at all. Why would they do that when anyone can link to your site? You would get penalized, not the linkers?

I do believe however that you might get a slight penalty for having too many new backlinks created in a short amount of time for a new page or site. They could see it as gaming the system. If this penalty does exist, I don't think it would last long at all.

Ultimately there's no problem with backlinking and no limit. I see my backlinks showing up in Google within days of creating them. And I definitely create more than 8 backlinks within a single day when I do!

[grafxgold]

My understanding is that Google's algorhythm was changed
on backlinks to penalize for "Farming Links" and "FFA Site
Links" and other massive link generators.

FFA links from what I read can even get your site de-listed.

Evidently this change has limited backlink allowances per day
but the I did not see any numbers.
Hope this helps.

[kevinw1]

Originally Posted by Dave Earley

bookmarked 7 articles on 40 social sites each

You're assuming that all those links are even followed by Google at all. Many social sites (most majors, and the number steadily increases among the minors) "nofollow" their backlinks which means that, officially Google won't count them. Unofficially, it might. But it might not tell you about it.

Kevin

[Angela V. Edwards]

Yeah, that sounds like one of the "made up" things that gets passed around on the Internet. NOBODY knows Google's algorithm, except Google. Not SEO experts, not webmasters. Competitors don't have the algorithm, either...although they would give their right arm to get it, probably.

Like Michael said, why would they do this; if other people are linking to you and you get penalized, how is that right.

A lot of what you hear about backlinks is just information that "somebody" heard and passed around. Other information that you might hear is an educated guess by someone who's been working with SEO and has studied what things have worked for websites and what things have not. Just like most things, don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

It does take a little bit of time for all your backlinks to show, however. I just don't think that anybody really has the "formula".

[grafxgold]

Originally Posted by kevinw1

You're assuming that all those links are even followed by Google at all. Many social sites (most majors, and the number steadily increases among the minors) "nofollow" their backlinks which means that, officially Google won't count them. Unofficially, it might. But it might not tell you about it.

Kevin

I agree with Kevin also.

One other problem from linking as you are
describing is that the links set up that way
could be labeled as "farming" if done too vigorously
in too short of an amount of time.

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Yeah, that sounds like one of the "made up" things that gets passed around on the Internet.

What are you talking about? I saw it on Oprah! ;-)

[grafxgold]

Originally Posted by markquinn

What are you talking about? I saw it on Oprah! ;-)

I'm not sure you are pulling my leg or not, but ....

My info is from Matt Cutts (do a search) who joined Google as a software engineer in January 2000. He's currently the head of Google's Webspam team.

Before Google, he worked on his Ph.D. in computer graphics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has an M.S. from UNC-Chapel Hill, and B.S. degrees in both mathematics and computer science from the University of Kentucky.

He wrote the first version of SafeSearch, which is Google's family filter, and
he's worked on search quality and webspam at Google for the last several years.

I may be a "Newbie" in this forum but I am not a newbie to the interesting
and diversified subjects of this fantastic forum.

I most certainly do not post erroneous chit chat.

[dvduval]

Most important is a plan to build quality over time. Sure, get some "quickies", but don't get too caught up in that and lose site of quality.

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by grafxgold

I'm not sure you are pulling my leg or not, but ....

My info is from Matt Cutts (do a search) who joined Google as a software engineer in January 2000. He's currently the head of Google's Webspam team.

Before Google, he worked on his Ph.D. in computer graphics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has an M.S. from UNC-Chapel Hill, and B.S. degrees in both mathematics and computer science from the University of Kentucky.

He wrote the first version of SafeSearch, which is Google's family filter, and
he's worked on search quality and webspam at Google for the last several years.

I may be a "Newbie" in this forum but I am not a newbie to the interesting
and diversified subjects of this fantastic forum.

I most certainly do not post erroneous chit chat.

Ah. OK. Sure, I think most of us read Matt Cutt's info and watch his videos.
But I have never seen that and it doesn't make any sense as it would be more logical that it would depend on the age and history of the site along with many other factors.

Can you point us to the specific post from Matt Cutts you got that from?

It just doesn't compute for me. For example a site like NBC.com gets around 17 Million visitors per day and other news sources have huge traffic, too. Google's going to limit those sites to 8 links per day?

I'm thinking along the lines of some of my sites. I have one site where I very often get new pages indexed in under 5 minutes and page 1 listings in under an hour for semi-competitive keywords, but other sites where the new pages don't even get indexed for an entire day.

I would think the same type of variable treatment would apply to the links as well.

[tommygadget]

If you suddenly get around 300 or more links all from social bookmarking sites in a few days you certainly are running the risk of raising a red flag. Just diversify your link portfolio. It really is not too hard to do this.

TomG.

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by tommygadget

If you suddenly get around 300 or more links all from social bookmarking sites in a few days you certainly are running the risk of raising a red flag. Just diversify your link portfolio. It really is not too hard to do this.

TomG.

Sure, Tommy. Good advice.

I was trying to focus on his question now. At first I thought the question was so off-the-wall that it didn't even need to be answered, but now that he's stated the amount of time he's put into studying SEO I'm wondering if maybe there's some specific quotation he's referring to...maybe just during the early period of a site?

I was looking at the Link Behavior section in their Information Retrieval Based on Historical Data patent and even that seems to support variable treatment of link growth factors depending on other site factors.

I'm really curious about this quotation directly from Matt Cutts.

[grafxgold]

Originally Posted by markquinn

Can you point us to the specific post from Matt Cutts you got that from?

I have been watching and reading his sites since around early 2006
and I keep notepad open while doing so,

I would have to research as to find the post or video, so
I am sorry that I can only post from my notes.

As you can see from his blog, there are many years of archives,
but I believe that this backlink subject was late 2007 or early to middle 2008.

The notes are accurate and there are no penalties for quality backlinks
for the same type/subject of site or any mention of a limited number backlinks.

The qualification, as I wrote it, is that the link cannot exist from, for example,
a site on fishing (from a paid link or buddy) with a backlink from a
Jewelry site (which is not related).
These type of unrelated and non-quality links between the two sites will be penalised as per my notes.

You may need more convincing, but I am sorry that I will not do further
research. Your search capabilities are probably quite as good as mine.
If you cannot believe me and my honesty, so be it.
I came into this thread only to help.
The best to you in your search.

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by grafxgold

I have been watching and reading his sites since around early 2006
and I keep notepad open while doing so,

I would have to research as to find the post or video, so
I am sorry that I can only post from my notes.

As you can see from his blog, there are many years of archives,
but I believe that this backlink subject was late 2007 or early to middle 2008.

The notes are accurate and there are no penalties for quality backlinks
for the same type/subject of site or any mention of a limited number backlinks.

The qualification, as I wrote it, is that the link cannot exist from, for example,
a site on fishing (from a paid link or buddy) with a backlink from a
Jewelry site (which is not related).
These type of unrelated and non-quality links between the two sites will be penalised as per my notes.

You may need more convincing, but I am sorry that I will not do further
research. Your search capabilities are probably quite as good as mine.
If you cannot believe me and my honesty, so be it.
I came into this thread only to help.
The best to you in your search.

Actually what happened is I was responding to the original poster and you responded to mine as if I responded to yours. And then I thought you were the original poster.

I thought the original poster said he got his information from Matt Cutts about the maximum # of links per day. I wasn't responding to your post at all.

Ugh. No wonder I'm so confused. I should go to bed. LOL

Sorry about that.

Yes, definitely quality of a link is a factor.

[grafxgold]

Originally Posted by tommygadget

If you suddenly get around 300 or more links all from social bookmarking sites in a few days you certainly are running the risk of raising a red flag. Just diversify your link portfolio. It really is not too hard to do this.

TomG.

At the time of the video, blogging and social bookmarking was in
it's infancy or just begiining to be understood by the public.
The avosve is as my memory serves at this time.

The thrust of my note evolves around the trend, at the time, of
programs and tools to produce massive linking and backlinking
or "Blackhat" techniques.

There were no limititations on any number of qualified links discussed.
As I understand it the Google powers that be were basically
going to "impose" their software to alert them to massive
"spamming" of links.
How they do this or what limits were imposed, other than in
my other posts, was not discussed.

[grafxgold]

Originally Posted by Dave Earley

I read somewhere that Google only gives credit for so many backlinks per day, anywhere from 0-8? After that the links may continue to show up day by day, just not all in one lump at a time. Is this true?

So lets say that yesterday I bookmarked 7 articles on 40 social sites each. I would at least be able to expect 280 backlinks, not including the viral effect. This means that it may take up to 45 days for my backlinks from yesterday to show up, or even more days if I'm still backed up from previous days. Not sure if this is making sense. Is this at all how Google works, or not?

Dave

I see now that I have been misidentifed as the original poster.

Perhaps I should ask Dave if his articles are related to his site.
If not, then Google will be doing something to his backlinks.
As to daily limits, I have no clue as to this and have not
seen anything on limits as of this date.
Hope this clarifies who is who.
Apologys to all.

[Angela V. Edwards]

The qualification, as I wrote it, is that the link cannot exist from, for example,
a site on fishing (from a paid link or buddy) with a backlink from a
Jewelry site (which is not related).
These type of unrelated and non-quality links between the two sites will be penalised as per my notes.

I have studied dozens and dozens of Big Name websites and believe me, they all have many backlinks from sites that are not in their "niche". You have secular college websites backlinking to The Bible Gateway.com, you have Catholic websites backlinking to CNN, you have colleges and governmental agencies linking to YouTube, you have BlackRebelMotorcycleClub also linking to YouTube, you have the Department of Energy and Commerce (a .Gov website) linking to Microsoft, you have www.google.com linking to Whitehouse.gov (what does a search engine have to do with the United States Government?) and you have dozens and dozens of blogs of every type linking to ALL the big name websites.

Relevant links in your niche are good, but they are not the only backlinks that count. Nor will you be penalized for non niche specific backlinks. Do you really believe that when people use Linkbait that ONLY sites in their specific niche post links back to their website?

[Andy Fletcher]

Let's dispel a couple of SEO myths shall we?

Myth: Google only values X backlinks per day.
Truth: Look at any hype/buzz type site (great examples being sites created about stuff going on in the US elections at the moment) and you'll see they get linked to by literally thousands of bloggers and promoters within 24 hours and they shoot to the top spots within hours as well.

Myth: Unrelated links harm your rankings.
Truth: Google doesn't value unrelated links as highly as related ones but it doesn't devalue you for rubbish links. If you believe this to be true start link spamming your competitions pages and see if their rankings drop. What might harm you is link spamming your own sites to begin with when that's all you've got linking to you (especially if the links are all from your own server) etc.

[patJ]

No, that is complete BS.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Also, remember that you are given weight for backlinks from High Quality, Authority Sites. Google gives weight to those as well. It's a natural thing that websites will have some backlinks from non-relevant sites; you can't prevent that and Google isn't going to punish websites for things that happen naturally on the Internet.

[CodrutTurcanu]

I predict that's another rumor or myth, just like "duplicate" content thing.

When Google, or other search engines limit the number of links you get (per day), they're getting out of business in record speed.

That's crazy! Everybody wants to be on top of digg or receive a huge stream of INSTANT traffic from referrals!

That means Google would penalize or ban our site?

I guess not! Just my 2 cents...

Anyway -- regarding back-linsk -- I've heard that no matter how many back-links you have from the same site/blog/domain name -- it still counts as one "do-follow" link... or something like that.

Maybe it's still a myth, don't know -- what do you say?

Whatever the truth might be, it's wise to have 100 back-links from 100 unique blogs, than 100 back-links from just 10 blogs, know what I mean?

[krishnaprj2ee]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Also, remember that you are given weight for backlinks from High Quality, Authority Sites. Google gives weight to those as well. It's a natural thing that websites will have some backlinks from non-relevant sites; you can't prevent that and Google isn't going to punish websites for things that happen naturally on the Internet.

Hi Angela,
I am the Member of your Opt-in Email but i could not take advantage of the 85 high PR back links offer that you gave me in the Email, I am desperate to take that offer Now, Please Help Me , Can I take the offer now, Can You please PM Me the Link so that I can get the offer,

Waiting for your positive response,

Thanks & Warm Regards,
Krishna

[Simon_Sezs]

From my experience, social bookmark sites and other sites that can be manipulated (and that every webmaster and his mother do) aren't valued as much.

Unrelated High PR sites pass some value but not as much as related sites that have the relevant anchor text.

Anchor text is the key here. Get a link with your name attached to it or the domain URL and guess what?...you rank for that. (which is why trying to get backlinks for long tail phrases like "how to...." can be a mother if you are trying to grab them using do follow blog commenting).

The holy grail of backlinks is to get your primary keyword anchored in text (preferably within the body of an article) on a high PR website that is RELEVANT to your niche.

Everyone focuses so much on PageRank but who cares about PageRank. In the end, all that matters is where you sit in the SE. If you can't get your primary keyword anchored correctly (for instance, all of your backlinks are anchored with your name or the ambiguous "click here), then you are doing nothing more than spinning your wheels.......that is, unless you are planning to use your site as a farm site for another site.

The big players understand this. This is why they find link brokers and find sites that are willing to link to them with the appropriate anchor text and pay for it.

That is my experience at least.