Stop Wasting Time and Money When Backlinking

20 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Recently theres been some posts about backlinks not working for new sites and sites going down in ranking rather than up (And for a longer time than the Google dance would explain) when they have applied links.

Still other posts have indicated that backlinks are working fine and dandy. Why could that be? What makes the difference? First lets admit the obvious. No one has the secret ingredients search engines use - not all the ingredients at least. In many cases the site should be fine and will return but it also may be because of backlinks that will end up wasting your time and money.

The popular misconception is that all High PR backlinks are the same. they are not. Another popular misconception is that all that matters is quantity. Also false. So what are some of the things that can waste your time and money when backlinking? Not getting REAL quality backlinks. thats right there are several kinds of low quality backlinks even when the PR is high. I'll list four scenarios where this is true -

The first one is kind of obvious to me.

1) Using nofollow backlinks that you bought in a package, are free, or you found yourself. Several people are inflating the number of backlinks in their package by including nofollow backlinks. Some are claiming in the tens of thousands of backlinks by doing this and the person who knows nothing about SEO are buying into the power of numbers.

There is all kinds of debates on this but I am going with Google. They own and run the world's most popular search engine and they have said along with a number of top search engine experts that the the nofollow attribute on a page means what it says- Google will not pass on PR or count the link. Its ignored. Anyone want to claim otherwise has the burden of proof to show otherwise. IF you don't want to rank for Google thats fine but most of us do.

2) Diluted links. This is the practice of either sharing your links or getting links that are shared by too many people. Some people even think they are doing a good thing when they share links in an open forum. What people don't seem to understand is that NO site or page on the internet has unlimited power to help in search rankings. In other words a page with 200 links on it on a PR 4 page is worth less than 3 links on a page rank 1. WORSE? Google has algorithms to detect link farming - sites with just too many links. Dofollow blogs that exist for no other purpose than allowing anyone to drop their links have next to no value. Too many cooks spoil the broth and that doesn't even begin to tak about the chance of the links eventually being all removed.

3) Non diverse link. I shudder a bit at this one because I know I am stepping on some feet here and it doesn't make sense to make enemies. Too many people build their backlink list for themselves or get them from others that use the simplest method in the world to find backlinks and because of that they offer backlinks all from one source.

All vBulletin forum signatures
All Phbb sites
All Ning or kickapps.

This allows anyone to build a quick list of hundreds of backlink sites but for the same reason any programmer will tell you its pretty easy for Google to identify the same footprints of those software packages and limit their effect. It may or may not be true that now Google doesn't look at this but for a company that is fighting web spam they will eventually. Why roll the dice? Its natural to have hundreds of links to your site per week but its not natural to have all the hundreds of backlinks from forum signatures. Any fool would know that that is almost always a product of a webmaster creating links to his own site and speaking as a programmer it is the simplest thing in the world to program a detection sub program to identify. the answer is simple. Mix it up

4) Anchor text Diversity - This will be controversial and I'll get some heat from it but I always diversify my anchor text a little. Again maybe its the programmer in me but I've seen good evidence that Google likes to see variation in anchor text. No natural linking pattern includes just one anchor text over and over. People link in a variety of ways. One way the whole time is a dead give away of web spam.

Some of these you might scoff at but remember the time and money you are spending now you expect to help keep your site ranked high for years to come. Theres no sense in wasting either time or money or you just might come here in a few months and be one of those writing

"My site fell to page 200 - why?"
#backlinking #money #stop #tme #wasting
  • Profile picture of the author Andy Fletcher
    Hi Mike,

    I think your post is a bit one dimensional and I'd like to expand on it a bit if I may. I know you have a vested interest in promoting some of these views since they favour your WSO but you only seem to be telling one side of the story.

    I'm concerned this post may come off as a bit confrontational though so if any of it reads that way please drop me a PM and we can edit it to show off the facts.

    The main thing I disagree with is your stance on link diversity. You paint a picture as if link diversity is always an absolute must have but in my mind that's just not the case.

    If you're involved in heavily competed keywords then link diversity is an absolute must. You need links from all manner of platforms (with as few common footprints as possible), spread across diverse IP addresses (preferably C-class) and you definitely better vary your anchor text. This also applies to new sites. If the first thing you do to a new site is fire up Xrumer and throw a few thousand links at the homepage it is going to get canned. But a 10 year old site that you've been deep linking for ages can easily stand a blast from some of the most powerful link building tools without any ill effects. Imagine trying to negatively effect Wikipedia in this way, that's just laughable!

    If you're just starting out and your goal is to rank a couple of Go Articles for some long tail phrase that gets a few hundred searches a month then this is frankly over engineering. Just the domain trust/authority of Go Articles will carry you through a fair amount of link spamming and help you rank your article and without needing hundreds of links. So little link diversity is needed and your goal should be to build them as quick as possible but still at a rate you can maintain.

    So moral of the story. If you're just starting out in SEO please realise that Mike's points above are *very* important when working at a higher level but they really don't need to apply to you. So just get out there and start building some links.

    Cheers,

    Andy
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533608].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Andy Fletcher View Post

      Hi Mike,

      I think your post is a bit one dimensional and I'd like to expand on it a bit if I may. I know you have a vested interest in promoting some of these views since they favour your WSO but you only seem to be telling one side of the story.
      Hi Andy

      No, you have that a bit backways. Obviously anything I sell is going to agree with my core values and understandings. So its not a matter of telling a side of the story that agrees with any offer. Its that I wouldn't be selling anything I didn't believe in. Thats hardly a point against my position. I'm curious why you think that me staying true to core principles I have is a point against what I am saying

      'm concerned this post may come off as a bit confrontational though so if any of it reads that way please drop me a PM and we can edit it to show off the facts.-
      Mike's a big boy and he expected to step on someones feet. Don't worry about it Andy. I expected it. We are fine.

      However first you need to understand what was written and I don't think you did. You jumped to assuming what I was saying rather than reading what was written.

      The main thing I disagree with is your stance on link diversity. You paint a picture as if link diversity is always an absolute must have but in my mind that's just not the case.
      Link diversity IS a must have you just don't undersand what I was saying is all. The point is not that you cannot rank for awhile with just links from one platform. I as much as said you can but that link diversity is important for the future of your site so that later you don't see your site drop like a rock. Thats the issue being addressed .

      But a 10 year old site that you've been deep linking for ages can easily stand a blast from some of the most powerful link building tools without any ill effects. Imagine trying to negatively effect Wikipedia in this way, that's just laughable!
      It would be if I had made that statement. How can you miss that Wikipedia already HAS diversity? Thats terribly obvious. However if all that were propping wikipedia up were signature links from scraping "powered by vbulletin" what happens when Google decides to consider these footers and wipe out there effect? It would fall flatter than a pancake. You couldn't have drawn on a worse example.

      So little link diversity is needed and your goal should be to build them as quick as possible but still at a rate you can maintain.
      Sorry. This is nonsense. Where did Iever object to building backliks as quickly as possible. First off I certainly didn't have in mind trying to rank an article site but one's own site. Article directories get all kinds of diverse backlinks coming in. I get backlinks to my articles almost immediately from syndication so again its a poor example. Secondly this doesn't take any engineering as you claim. It takes the same amount of time to post a backlink to a profile page as it does a forum and dropping a link from an about me page or a blog takes just a copy and paste . I really don't get your point. Why should you have all one kind of platform link to the same page? When you are building your site why shouldn't you use solid material all the way if it takes you no additional time to do it? Why should you build it in such a pattern that the rug can be pulled out from you? Makes no sense to me.

      I do think you are confused though Andy. This was never anything to stop people from getting out there and doing backlinks. People spend hours doing backlinks or hiring people to do them. There is nothing wrong with building your site from the beginning with the same kind of links that will serve them (as you admit) for years. it takes no additional time or engineering. If I've stepped on your foot here or a friends then I'm sorry but I really don't get your point.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533792].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
    Mike, do you think posting a number of links to my sites on a profile page (not any of the Angela links, pual links, etc..) is a bad thing per say? IE: 10 links from 10 different sites of mine posted on one page?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533819].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bigcat1967
      Anchor text Diversity - This will be controversial and I'll get some heat from it but I always diversify my anchor text a little.
      Good post - but hey - I'll have to give ya a little grief here

      I first started off by diversifying my anchor texts as well - then a experimented w/ using the same anchor texts...using the same anchor texts is a lot better than varying your anchor text. I've seen this personally with my work at least. Maybe other ppl seen differently.

      Also - about the Google dance...from what I've been told - the G dance has been dead for about six years now. If I can find the article - I think it's from searchEngineJournal - I'll go ahead and post it.
      Signature

      <a href="https://changeyourbudget.com/save-money-on-your-water-bill/">How to Lower Your Water Bill</a>

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533863].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Marhelper View Post

        Mike, do you think posting a number of links to my sites on a profile page (not any of the Angela links, pual links, etc..) is a bad thing per say? IE: 10 links from 10 different sites of mine posted on one page?
        In my opinion way too many.

        A) you are multiplying the chances your links will be removed entirely. Bare in mind that other users of that site are some of the chief reporters and when they see that many links they are likely to report it;

        B) you are dividing the power of the page's links several times over.

        By the way I think Angela and Paul do a pretty good job at mixing things up - at least from what I have seen. They don't just scrape forums but have a variety of kind of sites over three months.

        Originally Posted by bigcat1967 View Post

        Good post - but hey - I'll have to give ya a little grief here

        I first started off by diversifying my anchor texts as well - then a experimented w/ using the same anchor texts...using the same anchor texts is a lot better than varying your anchor text. I've seen this personally with my work at least.
        Good point. Yes I should clarify that in the OP. I was talking about just a little variation. I will do like 5-10%. As I wrote there is some controversy on that but I think the other points are solid.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1534090].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Lam
    Great post and explanations, Mike. Keep up the good work.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    Don't waste your anchor text by posting something different just for the sake of it. If you want anchor text diversity then use it to target other keywords for a page. Changing it to something generic such as "Click Here", "Homepage" is inefficient. You can get this variation naturally by posting on different types of sites. Slightly varying a keyword is also diluting the power of the link.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HomeComputerGames
    I've read 1000s of posts (at least it seems that way) concerning backlinks and how to get them.
    There is one common theme I see with almost every one of these posts of this type:
    "Looking Natural"

    I wonder what would happen if people quit trying to make it look like they are getting natural backlinks and actually concentrated on getting natural backlinks?

    It seems that all of the time, money, and effort put into making links look natural could be put to better use by using these resource to present material that will get these natural backlinks, well, naturally.

    I'm not talking about forum footer or blog posts where you frequent and contribute, but by using all of these so called "packets" that have no intent other than to generate backlinks.

    It seems I've managed to always end up working in some major niches in one way or another be it doing grunt work or consulting, (gambling, travel, gaming, finance, insurance, and now retail) and it seems all of the major players do not buy Angelas packets or anything of the sort. In fact artificial backlink generation has never even been a topic at any of the meetings I have attended.
    What was most often a topic though is "what new can we offer our guests?"
    How stupid is that? Give the people what they are looking for?!! JEESH!! :rolleyes:

    Perhaps I'm just stuck in the past but to this day during my research it seems that most all of the top sites do not outwardly try for backlinks but rather try to offer something above and beyond that will naturally get people to use them as a resource.

    I challenge anyone to find me a spun article from expedia.com or gambling.com or gamestop.com or smartmoney.com or progressive.com.

    What you will find is some excellent and ingenious link bait on these sites. Not 100,000 comments at blogs and forums.

    I'll admit I got sucked into this "backlink vortex" for awhile and hated every bit of it. I tried to outsource it and they just made me a spammer. I'll not do that again. It just seemed like such a falsehood and lowers you and your site to the level of the email spammer.

    I guess that is ok for people wanting a quick buck but I think it goes back to what Google wants to do in the first place and that is to present honest, quality material to it's guests and not just sites that have the most links pointing to it.

    But perhaps I'm wrong.

    Ken
    Signature

    yes, I am....

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1533977].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by HomeComputerGames View Post


      I challenge anyone to find me a spun article from expedia.com or gambling.com or gamestop.com or smartmoney.com or progressive.com.

      What you will find is some excellent and ingenious link bait on these sites. Not 100,000 comments at blogs and forums.
      You just shot your argument in the foot. No I take that back. You shot your point in the head. Its officially dead. Why?

      ALL those sites BUY their backlinks. Ingenious link bait my eye. Expedia runs millions of dollars in ads, has their own PR department and runs print, online and radio spots. Same with progressive and Gamestop and Smartmoney. They all generate a buzz in their market with deep pocket advertising budgets and so people link back to them because THEIR ADS TELLS US THEY EXIST.

      The little guy doesn't have those resources. You are not even close to being old school. In the old days sites referred sites regularly. News groups regularly suggested sites to use. people actually used top sites. The web was for anyone then and then big business got a hold of it and now you need millions of dollars to get exposure and you have Google telling you that if you don't get backlinks they may not even show that you content exists.


      http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...3PXOes3PH6opw6

      So your point by your examples is dead.

      I guess that is ok for people wanting a quick buck but I think it goes back to what Google wants to do in the first place and that is to present honest, quality material to it's guests and not just sites that have the most links pointing to it.
      Honestly visit the link above and tell me again Google doesn't want sites with alot of links to it. Watch the videos. Hint -they are videos from Google themselves that prove what you are saying is false-

      But perhaps I'm wrong.
      You got that right. you really can't tell people what their intentions are and be right. You have no clue what everyones intention is. There are people who actually use many of the sites they backlink on (just like you did four times in one signature I might add). I've got a project right now about the benefits of participating. Its really not a step up when people stop spamming (As they define it) and then start judging everyone.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1534292].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Lam
    Ouch. And another point goes to Mike.

    Oh, this post is supposed to be evil! It's my 666th post...... so uhh............................................... ........................ damn, I can't think of anything evil to say.

    Damn you, Mike! You wasted my 666th post!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1534740].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    Google will not pass on PR or count the link. Its ignored. Anyone want to claim otherwise has the burden of proof to show otherwise.
    Hi Mike-

    Obviously minds can differ on this, but I don't see how the burden of proof necessarily falls on others here. When you type in "Link: " in google's search functionality it says some absurdly low number too. I guess Google never tries to hide the ball :rolleyes: It obviously would be above the high and mighty Google to play such games.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1535548].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author grumpyjacksa
      hi

      i beg to differ on the nofollow links....

      i recently slapped up a small site, and linked one of my old twitter profiles to it...

      twitter is nofollow (u can check the page source code)

      now that link has shown up in webmaster tools....

      and this one happens to be pr 5.....

      now if it shows in webmaster tools i think it is safe to assume that google has credited me for that link....

      i think

      pls correct me if i am wrong

      pj
      Signature
      Ex-ghostwriter now writing exclusive PLR ebooks - Limited PLR Club
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1535701].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by grumpyjacksa View Post

        hi

        now if it shows in webmaster tools i think it is safe to assume that google has credited me for that link....

        i think

        pls correct me if i am wrong

        pj
        backlink checkers will show all links to your site. Seeing them in a result does not mean that Google is counting the links in regard to rankings.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1536443].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author grumpyjacksa
          well....

          i won' call this ANY backlink checker...



          taken from inside webmaster tools.

          is this proof enough ?

          according to the source code, the profile link on twitter is nofollow...

          regards

          pj
          Signature
          Ex-ghostwriter now writing exclusive PLR ebooks - Limited PLR Club
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1536616].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by grumpyjacksa View Post


            taken from inside webmaster tools.

            is this proof enough ?

            according to the source code, the profile link on twitter is nofollow...

            regards

            pj
            No as I explained all of the backlink checkers show nofollow links, the fact that they appear in Google's does not mean that google is giving you any credit toward Serps . the checker just identifies all links regardless of whether they are used to rank or not.

            Its not a new question or point . its been debated before

            nofollow "webmaster tools" - Google Search

            Listen if you want to risk your time and or money putting down nofollow links thats fine but just bare in mind you are doing it under the conspiracy theory mentality that Google is trying to mislead webmasters and webmasters are wasting their time adding the nofollow tags to their site. As a programmer I can tell you how simple it is to discount any tag in an algorithm. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF A NOFOLLOW TAG. Sure the link will be seen but the tag takes it right back out of the equation when it comes to serps. Its simple and elementary. There is no reason for Google not to do what they claim to do. No rational reason. No technological reason , no time reason, no resource reason.

            This is one of the thinnest conspiracy theories I've ever seen and my job is not to waste my readers or subscribers time with running down conspiracy theories. I'd gladly add nofollow links to my arsenal but no one is able to put one good piece of evidence on the table. Almost always it comes down to some anecdotal experience where the effect may be due to the nofollow link or something entirely different.

            Don't take my word for it. You have Google. You have most of the top SEO experts and you have the easy technology to accomplish something that stop spammers. Want to believe that they all don't exist be my guest.

            No follow will give you some traffic in some cases and I think the odds are pretty good they work for BIng and Yahoo (although I haven't researched it much) but who wants to build links that google ignores. Google is BY FAR still the most popular search engine.

            But hey whatever floats your boat.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1536707].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

      Hi Mike-

      Obviously minds can differ on this, but I don't see how the burden of proof necessarily falls on others here. .
      OF course it does Tom. If Google says that it does not follow nofollowed links and they are the only ones in a position to know then it falls on others claiming otherwise to disprove that. The whole point of the nofollow tag was to cut down on the incentive to spam. Google has actively advertised for webmasters to put the nofollow tag to achieve that result. The nofollow tag is a simple thing to program for and there is no reason for google to count the links that they see as spam and put their reputation on the line saying they do not follow links with the "nofollow" tag.

      I'm a lover of conspiracy theories as much as the next guy but the claim that the nofollow tag being added by millions of websites to limit spam have no effect is just not sustainable without evidence. It doesn't even make sense. The nofollow SEO supporters HAVE to put good evidence on the table and I've never seen them do it. Much less I've never even seen a logical motive for Google to do such a thing.

      Meanwhile its just too easy for backlink sellers to claim that the nofollow tag works. It makes the job of finding usable backlinks so much easier and faster. Just find a bunch of links and go to town without spending the time to filter through the usable links.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1536436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author grumpyjacksa
    ok...i get the point.

    but it's still a tad confusing....

    since the serp shows many more backlinks than the ones listed in webmaster tools - so naturally the assumption was that only qualified links would show up in w/m tools....

    guess now i know even less than before....

    rgds

    pj
    Signature
    Ex-ghostwriter now writing exclusive PLR ebooks - Limited PLR Club
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1536727].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by grumpyjacksa View Post

      ok...i get the point.

      but it's still a tad confusing....

      j
      Yes it is. I guess its made worse by alot of people claiming to be SEO experts. I won't even call myself that. I just go where the evidence leads and instead of just pushing what I want to use I use the facts the best way I can

      Merry Christmas Jack
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1537179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clownlover
    I totally agree, folks should spend more time getting links from a larger variety of sources as well as changing up their anchor text.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1536761].message }}

Trending Topics