How many Backlinks are to many ?

57 replies
  • SEO
  • |
A question for IM'ers out there

With all your past experience what is your opinion on the back-linking stuff. I've been backling for a few months and am undecided on how many backlinks needed on a daily basis. I see the google dance going crazy, sometimes the site disappears for a day sometimes a month. I've really slowed down by just doing 2-3 a day but sometimes I think that might be too much

What does the WF think ? Thanks for reading
#backlinks
  • Profile picture of the author jennypitts
    I do not think that there is ever too much backlinking. As a matter of fact, I have always heard SEO experts recommending more and more backlinking. However, there may be other factors involved, as to why your site may be appearing and disappearing from Google. Keep in mind that Google changed its rules, and their spiders concentrate more on the quality of the content, both on site and off site. Therefore, you should continue to write and distribute quality and informational articles, as well as backlinking, advertising your site, and so on. I also read recently that one of Google's top executives said that people tend to overhype PageRank (do a search for it, I think it happened in a recent tech conference). I am not sure what he meant by that, but this is just an example that Google is constantly looking and changing the ways pages are indexed and ranked.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828111].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dvduval
    I like to tell people to imagine you are a google employee looking at a list of the links pointing to your site. How would you feel about the links?
    Signature
    It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andy Marco
    Hi Darell,

    Hmmmmm I don't know how to tell you this but unless all you're backlinks are completely relevant to your market and are of a good status i.e above Page Rank 4/5 at least then you're probably wasting your time. As to the number you need, lets just put it this way. It would be better for you to get 1 incoming link from an authority relevant website than 200 from general directories and other more dubious sources of backlinks. I've been an SEO consultant for over 10 years and backlinking like this has never ever worked. Period!

    Unfortunately there's an awful lot of mis-information about backlinks and their value, including on this site. Concentrate on developing good unique content and relevant websites will link into you. This should be your focus.

    In summary ... just don't do it. Sorry but it just doesn't work and anyone who tells you anything different is just plain wrong.

    Hope thats of help
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828120].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828140].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
      Originally Posted by Andy Marco View Post

      Hi Darell,

      Hmmmmm I don't know how to tell you this but unless all you're backlinks are completely relevant to your market and are of a good status i.e above Page Rank 4/5 at least then you're probably wasting your time. As to the number you need, lets just put it this way. It would be better for you to get 1 incoming link from an authority relevant website than 200 from general directories and other more dubious sources of backlinks. I've been an SEO consultant for over 10 years and backlinking like this has never ever worked. Period!
      Wrong.

      Study after study after study has been done that prove these typical seo philosophies wrong. Go read Terry Kyle's stuff. Real-world, case studies.

      But, feel free to keep towing the seo party line as it makes it so much easier for me to overtake you in the SE's

      Warmly,

      Brandi
      Signature
      My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
      http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
      Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828431].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        HAHA I love your sig line and the redirect message! Hi to you too!

        And I agree with you as well.

        Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post

        Wrong.

        Study after study after study has been done that prove these typical seo philosophies wrong. Go read Terry Kyle's stuff. Real-world, case studies.

        But, feel free to keep towing the seo party line as it makes it so much easier for me to overtake you in the SE's

        Warmly,

        Brandi
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828461].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post

        Wrong.

        Study after study after study has been done that prove these typical seo philosophies wrong. Go read Terry Kyle's stuff. Real-world, case studies.

        But, feel free to keep towing the seo party line as it makes it so much easier for me to overtake you in the SE's

        Warmly,

        Brandi
        That's my girl .... Tell him Brandi ... "SEO Experts" annoy me.

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1829265].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Yeah it is a shame misinformation gets spread around that harms others business.. Maybe you should stop spreading the misinformation. Can you prove it does not work ?? Come on let's see proof!

      To The OP: It is a proven fact by many many people that you can build 10,000 backlinks in a week and it not hurt you one single bit. You do not have to get all "relevant" links either, this is incorrect. Matter fact if all you do get is "relevant" links then its looks like it was planned that way.

      You are better off getting legit backlinks from anyplace you can .. Do not worry about no follow/do follow, do not worry about PR*, do not worry about relevant sites.

      Here goes a fact .. If you post a Press Release o PR Web and spend the $300 for their top package, it will produce thousands of backlinks within hours and no not all the sites are "relevant". These backlinks will skyrocket your traffic (assuming your press release is new worthy)..

      PR* - This is the funny one... People say post on PR5+ websites, create profiles on PR5+ websites, and etc ... Idiots!!! The homepage is a PR5+ but the page you are posting on is a PR0 ...

      In closing, do not listen to bad advice but listen to those that have really tested and have proven what they say... The best thing you could do for yourself though is - TEST!!!

      EDIT: Let me specify this real clear "It Does Not Matter If Your Site Is One Day Old Or 10 Years Old" You can build 1,000 links in one day to a brand new site just like you can an old site.

      James


      Originally Posted by Andy Marco View Post

      Hi Darell,

      Hmmmmm I don't know how to tell you this but unless all you're backlinks are completely relevant to your market and are of a good status i.e above Page Rank 4/5 at least then you're probably wasting your time. As to the number you need, lets just put it this way. It would be better for you to get 1 incoming link from an authority relevant website than 200 from general directories and other more dubious sources of backlinks. I've been an SEO consultant for over 10 years and backlinking like this has never ever worked. Period!

      Unfortunately there's an awful lot of mis-information about backlinks and their value, including on this site. Concentrate on developing good unique content and relevant websites will link into you. This should be your focus.

      In summary ... just don't do it. Sorry but it just doesn't work and anyone who tells you anything different is just plain wrong.

      Hope thats of help
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1829250].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    If your competition has 1500 BLs, then you need more than them

    My understanding however, is they must be relevant (Many disagree with that). Now making your own relevancy is possible to do as well. Squidoo, hub-pages, other social properties you own about your niche and linking back to your site I have been told works. You do want to stay out of 'bad neighborhoods' like linkfarms and that sort of thing. Also using your own IP may not be such a good idea. (some say Google cannot be everywhere at once or be able to tell IP of the link poster, but who really knows?)

    Personally I outsource all my back-links to others better knowledgeable than I on this subject. I have never been burned and it has worked like magic! (especially James Stein's RichJerk.Net Back link packages and Flip Diva's)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jennypitts
    Alexa is right, with so many different opinions, it will be very hard to get a consensus from so many warriors. However, I too have been doing business online for quite sometime, and have never had any problems with backlink building. I also DO understand that QUALITY content, both on site and in the articles written, is imperative. I am a strong believer in quality before quantity. YET, I have never heard that too much backlinking can actually be a disadvantage.

    I guess in this venture of online marketing, it will always be a matter of preference, personal experience and results, and of course individualized trial and error.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828167].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jaiganeshv
    just beat the #1 in your niche with your content+backlinks
    spy the numbers he has got and +1 might be good some time
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828171].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Unruh
    I think you should completely forget about backlinking as a number to achieve, and instead start focusing on creating content where your customers are.

    By working to find every potential good hangout your niche uses regularly, and creating content, posts, videos, etc., in those places you will create backlinks, relevancy, and even more importantly motivated visitors.
    Signature
    Brain Drained...Signature Coming Soon!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828186].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author shmeeko69
      I'm still learning about what is good & not so good backling. As far as I'm aware & according to Angela, It dosn't really matter if your backlinks are
      niche related, it's more to do with the page ranking quality of the website(s), as yellow pages have been doing & relating themselves to strong businesses for years.

      I'm still mystified about this point & curious to know, If I've been wasting
      my time & money for the past few months in using backlink packets to my websites, which have incidentally helped increase my keyword page ranking.

      Mark :confused:
      Signature
      The Rock n Roll of Marketing Reviews
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828291].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bidnessboi
        Originally Posted by shmeeko69 View Post

        I'm still learning about what is good & not so good backling. As far as I'm aware & according to Angela, It dosn't really matter if your backlinks are
        niche related, it's more to do with the page ranking quality of the website(s), as yellow pages have been doing & relating themselves to strong businesses for years.

        I'm still mystified about this point & curious to know, If I've been wasting
        my time & money for the past few months in using backlink packets to my websites, which have incidentally helped increase my keyword page ranking.

        Mark :confused:
        I have over 30 sites with backlinking all from unrelated content. I have steadily climbed weekly and have most of the 30 on p 1 of Google now. All travel related. Very few travel websites linking to me. So, I say backlink away. Just be smart. I have seen the "magic" daily recommended number at around 20-25 backlinks as acceptable and no problems.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1837459].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    I am going to qote myself:

    Originally Posted by skyfox7 View Post

    I have a simple question for each of you:

    How exactly is Google supposed to track in real time how many back-links you receive every single day when there are hundreds if not billions of new pages being created every day that it needs to index?

    Define for me please what your idea of 'natural' link building is, what I mean to say is, please tell me what the number of links my site needs to stay under to look 'natural' and what evidence you have to prove any of this?

    And before you say I added 50 links and my serps dropped or something along those lines, has it never crossed your mind that because of the amount of new pages being created and existing ones updated etc that there are new competitors entering your niche and as a result Google needs to re-evaluate your website and its ranking within the results?

    hmmm.....I distinctly remember Mat saying that Google doesn't penalize you for how many links you get because you CANNOT control who links to you.

    Believe it or not, it is actually possible to get more than 10K links or more(bearing in mind that they will not be picked up by Google instantly, contrary to what the above posters seem to think), heres how:

    • create your seed article and learn how to properly spin it using a human controlled spinner such as MAR or TBS or TheRichJerksNet's article production service. Then submit to as many directories as possible.
    • Create a press release: do it for multiple articles if you write more than one a day. I wrote one and it was picked up by over 1k directories( I wasn't 'sand-boxed' BTW, and it was a fresh new site a couple days old)
    • Articlebot's new update reportedly will have close to 1200 bookmark sites so use it
    • If you can handle it, create a free blog, write article summaries which link to your articles, then using a program like scrape-box, spam the free blogs link out to and many blogs as possible using your keywords, and enjoy the link juice you receive from that, beauty of this is if someone does complain to Google or Akismet, then only the free blog gets banned and de-listed, not your money site.

    There are other ways to but you get the point.


    Peace
    Chris
    Please note my emphasis on what Matt said.


    Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828338].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author My220x
      Originally Posted by skyfox7 View Post

      I am going to qote myself:



      Please note my emphasis on what Matt said.


      Chris

      Was just about to say that mate. Google can't penalize you on the amount of links you have or how fast you get them because it can be manipulated by competition! Google will only ever penalize you for things you do on site.

      Also the OP isn't asking for a limit on the amount of links you should build in total his saying how many he should do each day which I say as many as you want but there not going to count much unless the sites you are getting them from are decent and related to yours.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828388].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
        Originally Posted by My220x View Post

        Was just about to say that mate. Google can't penalize you on the amount of links you have or how fast you get them because it can be manipulated by competition! Google will only ever penalize you for things you do on site.

        Also the OP isn't asking for a limit on the amount of links you should build in total his saying how many he should do each day which I say as many as you want but there not going to count much unless the sites you are getting them from are decent and related to yours.
        Obviously if you are blog commenting and forum marketing for the purposes of traffic then yes, obviously relevancy is vital, however for the purposes of link-building it is not.

        And the computing power required to calculate how 'relevant' every single link for every single page every single day would be staggering. I think people give Google just a little too much credit in this regard.


        Chris
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828430].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rezbi
    I've done backlinking but never seem to see any of them pointing to my site.

    In fact, the only backlinks I ever see are the ones where my blog posts are mentioned on other sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    I firmly believe that back linking should be a blended approach. If all your back links are coming from industry related sites and from sites like squidoo, hub pages, and social network profiles its going to appear very contrived.

    If a bridal shop owner buys a car from a dealership and got great service and price, the owner might be inclined to place a link on his/her site to the dealership.

    Now a bride to be finds the bridal shops web site, happens to see the dealerships link and decides to go and get a new car. The bride to be places a link on her husbands construction site for the dealership as well as the bridal shops site because she received great service at both places.

    I seriously don't think Google or any other Search Engine presumes to think these types of links are of little value. These people linked in this fashion because they are patrons of each other and happy with services rendered.

    These links do hold "some" value obviously and in the matter of good faith and fair dealing a search engine is obligated to count these links as having some amount of link juice. Obviously not as much as industry related links.

    I used to own a construction company, and you'd never catch me allowing a link from any construction company in "ANY" trade on my website. To get the major manufacturers of the products I purchased to link to me? Forget about unless you want to pay the big bucks, (usually thousands of dollars) to be in their Premier Certified Programs that make you go through all this crap to qualify and then you get your kudos link on their web site. Right with all your competitors in your area as well.

    Oh and Google knows I paid for that link and if we don't think they realize that we are naive as hell.

    Do you need industry related links pointing to your web site? Yes
    Do you need regular links from other places pointing your web site? HELL Yes
    How many links? As many as possible!

    A blended approach to back linking looks more natural because it IS natural.

    That's my take on this subject.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828407].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
    The opinions are going to vary. I have done fine with consistent backlinking from relevant sites with high PR.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828441].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Troy_Phillips
    Three .... yes that is a nice number
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828566].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author FredJones
      Personally, I have made more than 1000 backlinks on some days, and have received temporary pushes from #5-6 to #1 on the first page on competitive terms. Once your website is a little old (more than a couple of weeks or a month), I would say building 50-200 backlinks per day is also safe, though the long term average may be better off around 50 rather than 100. I don't mind making 500 links a day too.

      By the way, I have been on page 1 in even some super-competitive keywords (such as, right now I am not backlinking but yet I am on page #1 bottom half for "how to get your ex back" without quotes just because of my older backlinks - there you are - an exact keyword that many of you would really love to be on the first page).
      Signature

      $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

      $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
      I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
      Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1828734].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dvduval
    It so much depends on how you got the links too. I have been fortunate to get over 10 million links pointing to my site, but it took years to reach that point, and a good plan of action. Quality is really important if you have long term plans, though sometimes people can get short term results with low quality links (though ofter short lived).
    Signature
    It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1829170].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Mensah
    Originally Posted by darrellw View Post

    A question for IM'ers out there

    With all your past experience what is your opinion on the back-linking stuff. I've been backling for a few months and am undecided on how many backlinks needed on a daily basis. I see the google dance going crazy, sometimes the site disappears for a day sometimes a month. I've really slowed down by just doing 2-3 a day but sometimes I think that might be too much

    What does the WF think ? Thanks for reading
    hey darrell, keep backlinking but for newer sites take it slow. like wait a week and then start blinking on newer sites but on older sites you can backlink more. Also, if it is a web 2.0 property or blogger blog you can backlink like crazy as those sites are used to getting tons of traffic in google's eyes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1829287].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author happymoney8
    Backlink building or off page SEO needs to be natural and gradual to the search engines eyes. Assuming that you have unique quality content, you also have to have links from relevant sites and good anchor text (ideally w/ variations).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1829345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    To The OP: It is a proven fact by many many people that you can build 10,000 backlinks in a week and it not hurt you one single bit. You do not have to get all "relevant" links either, this is incorrect. Matter fact if all you do get is "relevant" links then its looks like it was planned that way.
    Hey! Some one else actually confirms what I believe too! I knew I liked JERKS! hehe
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1829485].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dvduval
    To The OP: It is a proven fact by many many people that you can build 10,000 backlinks in a week and it not hurt you one single bit. You do not have to get all "relevant" links either, this is incorrect. Matter fact if all you do get is "relevant" links then its looks like it was planned that way.
    Yes, but have you ever been approached by a customer whose site is now penalized as a result of paying for a bunch of low quality links, and want you to turn it around?

    I have on multiple occasions.

    I remember a recent case of a family owned furniture business that purchased a bunch of links that were then appearing on:
    1. Crappy link exchange pages with 100+ unrelated links
    2. Blogs that had been spammed to the point that just about every comment was irrelevant to the original article
    3. Casino, warez and pharma sites in site wide link blocks or boxes
    4. Made for adsense sites also selling site wide link blocks

    And unfortunately I told them that there really much they can do. It's pretty much trashed now. They can try to track down the site owners and get the links removed, and they can try to find some better quality links to offset the damage.

    But unfortunately, their pagerank was worse, and their rankings had plummeted.

    I am NOT saying their aren't strategies that can build links fast, but be extremely careful you give your money to in the spirit of "building links" or being promised 1000s of links. It CAN hurt you.
    Signature
    It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1830007].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Actually I guess my customers are on a higher level, since I really have had no customers that have come to me with the problems as you explained below ...

      James

      Originally Posted by dvduval View Post

      Yes, but have you ever been approached by a customer whose site is now penalized as a result of paying for a bunch of low quality links, and want you to turn it around?

      I have on multiple occasions.

      I remember a recent case of a family owned furniture business that purchased a bunch of links that were then appearing on:
      1. Crappy link exchange pages with 100+ unrelated links
      2. Blogs that had been spammed to the point that just about every comment was irrelevant to the original article
      3. Casino, warez and pharma sites in site wide link blocks or boxes
      4. Made for adsense sites also selling site wide link blocks

      And unfortunately I told them that there really much they can do. It's pretty much trashed now. They can try to track down the site owners and get the links removed, and they can try to find some better quality links to offset the damage.

      But unfortunately, their pagerank was worse, and their rankings had plummeted.

      I am NOT saying their aren't strategies that can build links fast, but be extremely careful you give your money to in the spirit of "building links" or being promised 1000s of links. It CAN hurt you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835470].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dvduval
        Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

        Actually I guess my customers are on a higher level, since I really have had no customers that have come to me with the problems as you explained below ...

        James
        I'm not knocking you specifically. I don't know anything about what you do, and there are lots of good SEO people out there that do a good job. That said, people who don't educate themselves and purchase services that offer tons of low quality links CAN be hurt, so I'm not okay with just saying that any amount and quality of links is fine. It's not.

        Additionally, sometimes a faulty SEO service can bring about short term improvement, and then the customer finds themselves in a very awkward position a few months later as google locates and scores all the low quality links, and sees the links are part of an automated method used to produce links that affect google's algorithm in such a way as to promote low quality sites to the top. If you get caught in the middle of an automated strategy google decides to penalize, it's too late (and again, it usually takes anywhere from a couple month to several months to get penalized).
        Signature
        It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836025].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author darrellw
    Thanks for everyone's great advice - really appreciate it !!!!!
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1832855].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author caliray
    I don't worry about how many per day since I do manual relevant commenting on high PR pages and get really bored after 100 or so in a day. In 6 months, my home page went from 537 to number 5 on Google through building backlinks. It's now at #5 or #7 or whatever depending on who's checker you believe.

    I have more than a 1000 backlinks. But I can't emphasize enough how important the quality of the backlink is. Lots of people talk about high PR sites. Google doesn't rank your site as a whole; it ranks pages on your site. If you find a site with a high PR but the page where you are commenting is PR0, you aren't going to get much link juice benefit.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835452].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Preciseim
    Man I am so sick of reading so much rubbish...

    Once and for all you have no control over who links to you..Google have stated that spammy backlinks will never hurt you

    SEOmoz | Whiteboard Friday - Interview with Google's Maile Ohye

    watch at around 6.27..

    Please will someone do a live experiment of deindexing a site by building links to it..

    In fact I invite any warrior to build links to my site!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836216].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dvduval
      Originally Posted by Preciseim View Post

      Man I am so sick of reading so much rubbish...

      Once and for all you have no control over who links to you..Google have stated that spammy backlinks will never hurt you

      SEOmoz | Whiteboard Friday - Interview with Google's Maile Ohye

      watch at around 6.27..

      Please will someone do a live experiment of deindexing a site by building links to it..

      In fact I invite any warrior to build links to my site!
      If spammy links are all you have pointing to your site, don't count on it. There are lots of stories of...
      1. Massive Link Exchanges
      2. Paid Links on crappy and unrelated sites
      3. Automated programs (ex. DP coop, linkvault)
      ...where it did hurt.
      Signature
      It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836562].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DanielSanderson
      Originally Posted by Preciseim View Post

      Man I am so sick of reading so much rubbish...

      Once and for all you have no control over who links to you..Google have stated that spammy backlinks will never hurt you

      SEOmoz | Whiteboard Friday - Interview with Google's Maile Ohye

      watch at around 6.27..

      Please will someone do a live experiment of deindexing a site by building links to it..

      In fact I invite any warrior to build links to my site!

      I can tell you now that google does penalize sites for spam

      roulettesystemwinner.com

      formally held high rankings for many terms in the roulette niche, and obviously it was number 1 for "roulette system winner"

      it's now penalised for comment spam

      if you use comment spam when your site is nowhere then it **could** be penalized

      if it happens when you hold high rankings then there is a much smaller chance of being penalized because it looks more like a malicous act rather than an act to manipulate google
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836599].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        Google does not penalize you. Just because you go out
        and get 1,000 useless links, then see your position drop,
        does not meant there is a penalty. It means you did nothing
        to improve your standing. There's a difference.

        The answer to the question is, you can never have too many.

        But that answer needs to be in context. The site that is
        listed instead of yours may not have the #1 position because
        of backlinks. People confuse this issue all the time.

        I know for a fact that I rank #1 with far fewer backlinks
        than #2 for one of my sites.

        Google could care less how you got a link. It knows nothing.
        Google does not have a person with a crystal ball looking at
        each link. In fact, google has stated many times that inbound
        links to not count against you. They can't. You have no control
        over them.

        If spammy links really penalized you, guess what everyone here
        would start doing the the #1 site in their niche?

        Not helping does not mean hurting. Unless you consider your
        time wasted a penalty.

        Paul
        Signature

        If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836626].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DanielSanderson
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Google does not penalize you. Just because you go out
          and get 1,000 useless links, then see your position drop,
          does not meant there is a penalty. It means you did nothing
          to improve your standing. There's a difference.

          The answer to the question is, you can never have too many.

          But that answer needs to be in context. The site that is
          listed instead of yours may not have the #1 position because
          of backlinks. People confuse this issue all the time.

          I know for a fact that I rank #1 with far fewer backlinks
          than #2 for one of my sites.

          Google could care less how you got a link. It knows nothing.
          Google does not have a person with a crystal ball looking at
          each link. In fact, google has stated many times that inbound
          links to not count against you. They can't. You have no control
          over them.

          If spammy links really penalized you, guess what everyone here
          would start doing the the #1 site in their niche?

          Not helping does not mean hurting. Unless you consider your
          time wasted a penalty.

          Paul

          I don't give a f*** what you say

          roulettesystemwinner.com has been penalized

          Google

          it was formally number one for "roulette system winner" which is not a term that anyone is trying to rank for, it was there because of the domain

          take a look at the link, its taking places 63 and 64, it used to hold number 1 and 2, it dances a little bit varying from page 5 to 8, it may be different when you check it
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836650].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dvduval
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Google does not penalize you. Just because you go out
          and get 1,000 useless links, then see your position drop,
          does not meant there is a penalty. It means you did nothing
          to improve your standing. There's a difference.

          The answer to the question is, you can never have too many.

          But that answer needs to be in context. The site that is
          listed instead of yours may not have the #1 position because
          of backlinks. People confuse this issue all the time.

          I know for a fact that I rank #1 with far fewer backlinks
          than #2 for one of my sites.

          Google could care less how you got a link. It knows nothing.
          Google does not have a person with a crystal ball looking at
          each link. In fact, google has stated many times that inbound
          links to not count against you. They can't. You have no control
          over them.

          If spammy links really penalized you, guess what everyone here
          would start doing the the #1 site in their niche?

          Not helping does not mean hurting. Unless you consider your
          time wasted a penalty.

          Paul

          I understand your argument, but unfortunately I have seen otherwise. The penalties I am referring to usually take several months to take place, so if all you care about is improving rankings over the next couple of weeks or months, I agree with you. However, if you care about link quality over the coming year (or years), it does matter, and google does build a "trust rank" for domains over time. They can tell the difference between quality links and spam, especially over time.
          Signature
          It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836660].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bidnessboi
            Originally Posted by dvduval View Post

            I understand your argument, but unfortunately I have seen otherwise. The penalties I am referring to usually take several months to take place, so if all you care about is improving rankings over the next couple of weeks or months, I agree with you. However, if you care about link quality over the coming year (or years), it does matter, and google does build a "trust rank" for domains over time. They can tell the difference between quality links and spam, especially over time.
            Many people's argument to this theory is, someone who is number 4 on Google could just post 100s of low quality porn spam backlinks for their competition in spots 1, 2 and 3 and essentially take over.

            Even if Google didn't give as good of credit to them, they can't penalize them for the above reason.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1837466].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by DanielSanderson View Post

        I can tell you now that google does penalize sites for spam

        roulettesystemwinner.com

        formally held high rankings for many terms in the roulette niche, and obviously it was number 1 for "roulette system winner"

        it's now penalised for comment spam

        if you use comment spam when your site is nowhere then it **could** be penalized

        if it happens when you hold high rankings then there is a much smaller chance of being penalized because it looks more like a malicous act rather than an act to manipulate google
        Hi Daniel,

        I see no evidence that Google has penalized this website, and if they have, it is likely due to the outbound links to bad neighborhoods. This website links out to some really nasty websites that have been involved in phishing scams and other nefarious practices.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1839138].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dburk
          Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post

          Wrong.

          Study after study after study has been done that prove these typical seo philosophies wrong. Go read Terry Kyle's stuff. Real-world, case studies.

          But, feel free to keep towing the seo party line as it makes it so much easier for me to overtake you in the SE's

          Warmly,

          Brandi
          Hi Brandi,

          I constantly see Terry's material being quoted out of context. To be more specific his conclusion was that the topic of a website does not matter. This is not the same as saying that an irrelevant backlink is useful for ranking, because it isn't.

          A backlink must be relevant to see any significant ranking benefit. The website topic has no bearing on this, only the on-page SEO and particularly the anchortext and the words near the anchor.

          Originally Posted by shmeeko69 View Post

          I'm still learning about what is good & not so good backling. As far as I'm aware & according to Angela, It dosn't really matter if your backlinks are
          niche related, it's more to do with the page ranking quality of the website(s), as yellow pages have been doing & relating themselves to strong businesses for years.

          I'm still mystified about this point & curious to know, If I've been wasting
          my time & money for the past few months in using backlink packets to my websites, which have incidentally helped increase my keyword page ranking.

          Mark :confused:
          Hi Mark,

          I think you may have missed a nuance in what Angela has been telling folks. She has said that the website topic doesn't matter, which makes since since search engines do not rank websites they rank web pages. Angela gives very specific instructions that you must make your backlinks relevant by using relevant anchor text.

          Irrelevant backlinks do little to nothing to help you rank for your targeted keyword. Don't confuse website topic relevance with page relevance, they are not they same thing. For SEO website topic plays no role while on-page elements for your page as well as the pages that link to you are paramount.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1839219].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
            Originally Posted by dburk View Post

            Hi Brandi,

            I constantly see Terry's material being quoted out of context. To be more specific his conclusion was that the topic of a website does not matter. This is not the same as saying that an irrelevant backlink is useful for ranking, because it isn't.

            A backlink must be relevant to see any significant ranking benefit. The website topic has no bearing on this, only the on-page SEO and particularly the anchortext and the words near the anchor..
            Don,

            I completely understand what you're saying, but I think it's a case of you and many other people misinterpreting the same terms.

            You're saying that the website topic doesn't matter, but the page does. Now, a forum profile on an off topic website is not a relevant page, however, once you include your desired anchor text on that page and some relevant text around it, the page then becomes somewhat relevant, yes?

            Many people refer to this exact situation as being an irrelevant backlink, as the website topic is not relevant.

            So I think that both you and Brandi agree, you just have a differing opinion in the term "irrelevant backlink".
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1839898].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author dburk
              Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

              Don,

              I completely understand what you're saying, but I think it's a case of you and many other people misinterpreting the same terms.

              You're saying that the website topic doesn't matter, but the page does. Now, a forum profile on an off topic website is not a relevant page, however, once you include your desired anchor text on that page and some relevant text around it, the page then becomes somewhat relevant, yes?

              Many people refer to this exact situation as being an irrelevant backlink, as the website topic is not relevant.

              So I think that both you and Brandi agree, you just have a differing opinion in the term "irrelevant backlink".
              Hi Pat,

              You are correct, but it doesn't matter if you understand it correctly, if you are telling others with imprecise language, it leads to a lot of confusion. At the root of this confusion is a fundamental lack of understanding of one of the most basic concepts of how search engines work.

              Search engines spider and index URLs individually. They never get into analyzing a website's topic, nor would they ever want to. What makes search engines far superior to directories is the granularity they achieve by ignoring websites and focusing instead on the page relevance exclusively. This is the key to their popularity and their success. It is so fundamental to what makes a search engine that it is unlikely to ever change.

              When people constantly refer to the relevance of a website topic it demonstrates that they lack this basic understanding of what a search engine does. They index pages not websites. They rank pages, not websites. They don't ever look at your website as anything but individual pages. They look at your page content, the content of pages that link to yours (regardless of which website they are from) and your page's outbound links, to determine the relevancy score for your page. Website topics never enter into their calculations.

              To say that "website topics do not matter" is true in all discussions related to search engines, because search engines are never aware of website topics. If you do not understand this fundamental concept, should you be offering anyone advice about SEO? I think a person who doesn't understand this has not yet mastered the basics and should consider themselves a student, not a teacher.

              I think a lot of people hear that a backlink doesn't need to be from a related website and automatically assume that backlinks do not need to be relevant. The truth is that backlink relevance is paramount to proper SEO and website topics are irrelevant to anything related to SEO. If you understand that search engines ignore website topics why bring it up in a conversation about SEO except to say that search engines deliberately ignore website topics.

              Words mean things. One of the hallmarks of a professional is the correct understanding and usage of industry terms. What makes a backlink relevant or irrelevant to a keyword has never had anything to do with website topics. Website topics have no valid meaning in any discussion of SEO. Website topics are important to building backlinks to promote targeted traffic to your web pages, but no relevance to a discussion about SEO.

              So when is website topics important to SEO?

              The answer: Never! Search engines ignore website topics.

              When is the relevance of a backlink important to SEO?

              The answer: Always! Relevance is always the primary factor in any SEO technique.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840364].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
                Yes, Don. I completely agree with all of that.

                I was simply letting you know that many other people also agree with you, just that there was a confusion on terms.

                I've seen you correct quite a few people on here about that point so just thought I'd point out that when many people refer to irrelevant backlinks, albeit incorrectly, they are referring to the websites topic being irrelevant, the same as you.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840389].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                  Who is to say what is relevant?

                  Quality high PR backlinks count more.
                  A so-called relevant backlink on a PR1 site would
                  not be worth squat compared to a PR6 link not
                  on a so-called relevant site.

                  Throws out the whole idea of EZA, doesn't it?

                  There should be no article in EZA showing up as #1
                  or even close. EZA is the epitome of a mish mash of
                  anything and everything relevant and irrelevant.

                  Paul
                  Signature

                  If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840516].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author dburk
                    Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

                    Who is to say what is relevant?

                    Quality high PR backlinks count more.
                    A so-called relevant backlink on a PR1 site would
                    not be worth squat compared to a PR6 link not
                    on a so-called relevant site.

                    Throws out the whole idea of EZA, doesn't it?

                    There should be no article in EZA showing up as #1
                    or even close. EZA is the epitome of a mish mash of
                    anything and everything relevant and irrelevant.

                    Paul
                    Hi Paul,

                    Website topics have nothing to do with SEO. Your observation is confirmation of this fact.

                    Sites don't have PR only pages do. Search engines are oblivious to website topics and are only concerned with page relevance. If you "throw out" the concept of "sites" everything related to SEO makes more sense. Especially why so many EZA pages rank highly, while many others don't. Sites don't matter, only pages matter.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840599].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author dburk
                  Hi Pat,

                  That was my point. Saying "irrelevant backlinks" sometimes confuses folks because they interpret that to mean website topic. Ambiguous interpretation leads to misunderstanding.

                  How do you get across the point that a backlink can be relevant, or irrelevant, regardless of the website topic? :confused:

                  To say backlink relevance is not important is completely wrong when you are looking at the precise meaning of the words. Conversely, when we use ambiguous interpretations then anything we say could be right and wrong at the same time, and therefore meaningless. How do we communicate unless we agree on terminology?

                  What then do we call a backlink that is not relevant, if not an "irrelevant backlink"? Is it really accurate or even useful to call a completely relevant backlink an "irrelevant backlink"? Words mean things, don't they?

                  You have to admit that it is difficult to get your head around the "importance of backlink relevance" wth the use of your "irrelevant backlinks".

                  As soon as you accept the term "irrelevant backlink" to mean backlinks from unrelated websites, you make it impossible to discuss the importance of backlink relevance in a comprehensible fashion. If I say "make your backlinks from unrelated websites relevant to your keyword" it makes some sense. But if I say "only use relevant irrelevant backlinks" it doesn't really seem to make sense, does it?

                  I only hope to bring some clarity to a subject that seems to create so much confusion on this forum. Words mean things and we need to use them precisely to have some clarity, else confusion prevails.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840575].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
                    Originally Posted by dburk View Post

                    Hi Pat,

                    That was my point. Saying "irrelevant backlinks" sometimes confuses folks because they interpret that to mean website topic. Ambiguous interpretation leads to misunderstanding.
                    I think it may only be a confusion point to you and I don't mean that badly- really.

                    I've never heard of anyone using the term "relevant backlinks" for anything other than a site being on the same topic or theme as theirs. I mean, never.

                    I'm pretty certain the general understanding by everyone is that relevancy=whether or not it's the same topic as your site.

                    (And, again, as you said, that doesn't make one iota of difference.)

                    Warmly,

                    Brandi
                    Signature
                    My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
                    http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
                    Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840952].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author dburk
                      Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post

                      I think it may only be a confusion point to you and I don't mean that badly- really.

                      I've never heard of anyone using the term "relevant backlinks" for anything other than a site being on the same topic or theme as theirs. I mean, never.

                      I'm pretty certain the general understanding by everyone is that relevancy=whether or not it's the same topic as your site.

                      (And, again, as you said, that doesn't make one iota of difference.)

                      Warmly,

                      Brandi
                      Hi Brandi,

                      If you call a backlink "relevant" based on the "website topic", then what is a backlink called that has no relevant anchor text, no relevant text on a page that has no relevance to your targeted keyword? Do you call that a "relevant backlink" because some page somewhere else on the website is relevant? Search engines don't see it that way. How does it serve our purpose to refer to it as "relevant backlink" when the search engines do not see it as relevant. I see this as the mislabeling of a term which leads to confusion.

                      What do you call a backlink that is on a page that is highly relevant, using relevant anchor text, but the main website topic is not related? Do you call that backlink an "irrelevant backlink"? Does it make sense to call a backlink from a highly relevant page "irrelevant" because the website topic differs? Don't you see how absurdly confusing that makes it for anyone trying to make sense of what you are saying.

                      This also flies in the face of how search engines work. They don't see website topics. They only see individual pages and how those pages link to other pages, regardless of which website they are located on. Website topics are irrelevant to SEO, therefore it serves no purpose to refer to the relevance of a website topic when discussing SEO, it only confuses things. It makes you say silly things like calling backlinks from highly relevant pages "irrelevant backlinks" just because other pages on that website include different topics.

                      This is a classic example of using a term out of context. In the context of SEO, there is no such thing as website relevance. Search engines do not index websites, they index individual web pages. This is a fundamental concept in understanding basic SEO. It is also the root cause of so much confusion in the SEO industry.

                      If we drop the notion of relevant "websites" and instead look at page relevance we can see things related to SEO more clearly. We see backlinks from relevant "pages" as "relevant backlinks". We see backlinks from pages without any relevance as "irrelevant backlinks". It's clear, it's accurate and it's true.

                      Then we can see that irrelevant backlinks don't help us rank for our targeted keyword. I'm sure that you don't mean to imply that a backlink from a page about "auto insurance" with anchortext about "auto insurance" and nothing at all on the page about "dog training" will help you rank for the keyword "dog training". That just doesn't work. Your backlinks must be relevant to have any real benefit towards ranking for your targeted keyword. Nowhere does website topic play a role in SEO.

                      Please don't take me wrong, I don't mean to belittle your opinion. I just don't buy into the argument that just because many people think of irrelevant backlinks as relating to website topic, that it is correct terminology, or that it is useful to look at it that way. Most people use to think that the world was flat and that you would sail off the edge of the earth if you went too far.

                      I'm trying to get folks to look at SEO as it really works by explaining some basic facts. Hopefully this will help those that are willing to open their eyes and see the truth. It doesn't help folks much to keep talking about concepts in such contradictory fashion. How can we explain what makes a backlink relevant while calling relevant backlinks "irrelevant" and irrelevant backlinks as relevant based on website topics, which happens to be irrelvant to SEO.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1841203].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
                Originally Posted by dburk View Post

                Hi Pat,

                You are correct, but it doesn't matter if you understand it correctly, if you are telling others with imprecise language, it leads to a lot of confusion. At the root of this confusion is a fundamental lack of understanding of one of the most basic concepts of how search engines work.

                Search engines spider and index URLs individually. They never get into analyzing a website's topic, nor would they ever want to. What makes search engines far superior to directories is the granularity they achieve by ignoring websites and focusing instead on the page relevance exclusively. This is the key to their popularity and their success. It is so fundamental to what makes a search engine that it is unlikely to ever change.

                When people constantly refer to the relevance of a website topic it demonstrates that they lack this basic understanding of what a search engine does. They index pages not websites. They rank pages, not websites. They don't ever look at your website as anything but individual pages. They look at your page content, the content of pages that link to yours (regardless of which website they are from) and your page's outbound links, to determine the relevancy score for your page. Website topics never enter into their calculations.

                To say that "website topics do not matter" is true in all discussions related to search engines, because search engines are never aware of website topics. If you do not understand this fundamental concept, should you be offering anyone advice about SEO? I think a person who doesn't understand this has not yet mastered the basics and should consider themselves a student, not a teacher.

                I think a lot of people hear that a backlink doesn't need to be from a related website and automatically assume that backlinks do not need to be relevant. The truth is that backlink relevance is paramount to proper SEO and website topics are irrelevant to anything related to SEO. If you understand that search engines ignore website topics why bring it up in a conversation about SEO except to say that search engines deliberately ignore website topics.

                Words mean things. One of the hallmarks of a professional is the correct understanding and usage of industry terms. What makes a backlink relevant or irrelevant to a keyword has never had anything to do with website topics. Website topics have no valid meaning in any discussion of SEO. Website topics are important to building backlinks to promote targeted traffic to your web pages, but no relevance to a discussion about SEO.

                So when is website topics important to SEO?

                The answer: Never! Search engines ignore website topics.

                When is the relevance of a backlink important to SEO?

                The answer: Always! Relevance is always the primary factor in any SEO technique.
                Anchor text is anchor text. Relevancy is relevancy.

                And, frankly, even without anchor text, a backlink is good. (I'm not saying ALL of your backlinks should be like this.. but it's a good thing, still. Pull up SEO spyglass and see how many links lack anchor text.. TONS!)

                The general understanding for anyone wanting relevant links for their website is that they want "on topic" sites. (If they have a real estate site, they want a link from something related to real estate. Funny thing is, I can relate SOMETHING to almost anything in my mind... toilet paper, real estate... merely a few degrees of separation...ha)

                I will not even accept a client who wants "relevant linking" simply because their SEO philosophies and my SEO philosophies are worlds apart and it would not be a good working relationship.

                Warmly,

                Brandi
                Signature
                My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
                http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
                Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1840941].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836297].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author guidojongbloed
    I think there is no specific way. I've seen website with thousands of backlinks in their first 3 months, that were doing really well. But generally speaking to more relevant and the higher quality the better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1838507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mcain
    Backlinks is very important to increase site traffic. But unrelated back link are useless. only related category back link are very usefull of the site. More number of back links will help your site to get easily ranked by search engines.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1838794].message }}
  • 184 that is the magic number. Hit it and stop.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1845875].message }}

Trending Topics