Can bad link building hurt you?

by _jose_
68 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hi

Intro

Thank you for being the greatest community/forum I've been to on the internet. Though my post count says 1, like most noobs, I've been reading WF for a while now and have learned so much! Very open community and definitely not rude like others out there. Keep it up!


Question

Can bad link building/link baiting hurt your website? That is, if I outsource link building and the links end up being very spammy and on useless directories, could it hurt Google's perception of my website? or will google just not care and just not increase pagerank?

SEOMoz seems to think so, they say that google might mark you as a website trying to do SEO.

I also thought that I'd be ok if I read testimonials from users on a link building service, but apparently some services will do a really good job at first to get the testimonials and then a spammy crappy job then on forward.


Extra info

I have a web site that is an online community, i.e. no actual product for sell. Traffic seems to have hit a plateau that I want to break from....around 30-45 visitors per day, half of those from paid ads and half from organic search.

I want to outsource link building because the one man shop can get tough at times. I am doing some forum postings and article marketing myself.

Thank you!
#bad #building #hurt #link
  • Profile picture of the author George Chernikov
    I'd love to hear feedback on this as well.

    On the one hand, it stands to reason that, if you spam the hell out of everything to build links to your site, you'll get sandboxed or even banned by Google.

    On the other hand, if it was so simple, what's to stop people from ordering these spam services on behalf of their competitors and thus getting Google to sandbox them? That's why I've heard of a lot of people equally claiming that the penalty for spamming is a perpetuated myth rather than a SEO reality.

    Would be interesting to get professional insight on this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricky Dawn
    I very much doubt it will hurt you, but it will definitely not increase your rankings.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173664].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ArtofBlog
    Yes, bad link building can hurt your site. Think about it from the perspective of Google or another search engine: they provide value to visitors by producing relevant results. How does this work? By not allowing themselves to be conned is imperative, and Google certainly operates at least two separate units that use different techniques to track bad link building.

    If you were a search engine and your business was providing accurate results, would you honestly not do the same thing? It is only a reasonable precaution, and some call it the Google slapdown or Google beatdown.

    There really are no durable, long-lasting short-cuts my friend
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173668].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    I've tested this and found the answer to be yes - but almost everyone I've seen talk about the subject on this forum says no, however I don't believe any of them actually tested it.
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173670].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author profitgenie
      It really depends on the age of your website, if it is brand new and you suddenly get tons of links to your site they are going to look very spammy.

      I have not tested these stats but roughly 50 every couple of days for a new site would be your max, if your site is older than 6 months you can roughly double the figure and if your site is older than 2 years there really isnt a limit although adding like 10000 links a day would be a bit excessive.

      These figures are a rough guide and like i said I have not tested these theorys but 50 links a day is a modest start to any website
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173725].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
        Originally Posted by profitgenie View Post

        It really depends on the age of your website, if it is brand new and you suddenly get tons of links to your site they are going to look very spammy.

        I have not tested these stats but roughly 50 every couple of days for a new site would be your max, if your site is older than 6 months you can roughly double the figure and if your site is older than 2 years there really isnt a limit although adding like 10000 links a day would be a bit excessive.

        These figures are a rough guide and like i said I have not tested these theorys but 50 links a day is a modest start to any website

        Sorry but I have to call 'Bull****' on you there.

        You think that if Apple launched a new brand that they wouldn't get more than 50 links a day, or that they'd get penalised if they did?

        Come on......!!!

        It's NORMAL for a business to get hundreds/thousands of links in a short space when they launch their business and pay for advertising and press.

        This false speculation about limits doesn't help anyone.

        If you think that the way YOU get links may cause you problems - then you're probably using a questionable strategy.

        There are no fixed limits to look out for - just bad practices.
        Signature

        nothing to see here.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173738].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ryan D
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

          Sorry but I have to call 'Bull****' on you there.

          You think that if Apple launched a new brand that they wouldn't get more than 50 links a day, or that they'd get penalised if they did?

          Come on......!!!

          It's NORMAL for a business to get hundreds/thousands of links in a short space when they launch their business and pay for advertising and press.

          This false speculation about limits doesn't help anyone.

          If you think that the way YOU get links may cause you problems - then you're probably using a questionable strategy.

          There are no fixed limits to look out for - just bad practices.
          Where are your test results? How many domains did you test this on? How exactly did you test this?

          Sorry, but I'm going to have to reverse the BS call on you. If you post how you did the test I guarantee people will be poking holes in in left/right.

          You might be able to test whether or not it's effective to build spammy links. I find it hard to believe you can test whether or not it's hurting you. Cause even if you experience a drop in rankings, there's no way to attribute that to any collection of activities....especially since there are delays in the SERPS.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174023].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
            Originally Posted by Ryan D View Post

            Where are your test results? How many domains did you test this on? How exactly did you test this?

            Sorry, but I'm going to have to reverse the BS call on you. If you post how you did the test I guarantee people will be poking holes in in left/right.

            You might be able to test whether or not it's effective to build spammy links. I find it hard to believe you can test whether or not it's hurting you. Cause even if you experience a drop in rankings, there's no way to attribute that to any collection of activities....especially since there are delays in the SERPS.
            My test results are where they belong - in my business.

            I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything or proving anything to you.

            The only reason I even bother to waste my time telling people this is to get them to realise that they're making assumptions which have no actual basis in reality - just speculation.

            You can say what you like - but MY testing has demonstrated to me that you're creating facts out of thin air and trying to push them out to people as reality.

            I'm not selling anything so I have no duty to prove anything to you or anyone else.

            I knew when I posted that I'd get attacked for it purely because it goes against the assumptions that most people are making.

            It's not a problem for me if you all think something is right for some made up reasons.

            One minute people are telling me you can't build links fast without getting penalised and then telling me that linking can't get you penalised - it's laughable.
            Signature

            nothing to see here.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174071].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ryan D
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

              My test results are where they belong - in my business.

              I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything or proving anything to you.

              The only reason I even bother to waste my time telling people this is to get them to realise that they're making assumptions which have no actual basis in reality - just speculation.

              You can say what you like - but MY testing has demonstrated to me that you're creating facts out of thin air and trying to push them out to people as reality.

              I'm not selling anything so I have no duty to prove anything to you or anyone else.

              I knew when I posted that I'd get attacked for it purely because it goes against the assumptions that most people are making.

              It's not a problem for me if you all think something is right for some made up reasons.

              One minute people are telling me you can't build links fast without getting penalised and then telling me that linking can't get you penalised - it's laughable.
              So let me get this straight....

              1) You claim you've tested it and it's true.
              2) Someone refutes you, you ask to see THEIR test results.
              3) You mock them by saying you know they didn't test it.
              4) Someone asks for your test results, or even how you did the test, and you say it's for your eyes only.

              Please man. I'm quite sure that if you even posted the method of your test results, anyone that knows anything about SEO would poke holes in it all day.

              The guy asked for advice, you gave him a condescending answer, and then you failed to backup how you actually tested it.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174126].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Neromancer
                Originally Posted by Ryan D View Post

                So let me get this straight....

                1) You claim you've tested it and it's true.
                2) Someone refutes you, you ask to see THEIR test results.
                3) You mock them by saying you know they didn't test it.
                4) Someone asks for your test results, or even how you did the test, and you say it's for your eyes only.

                Please man. I'm quite sure that if you even posted the method of your test results, anyone that knows anything about SEO would poke holes in it all day.

                The guy asked for advice, you gave him a condescending answer, and then you failed to backup how you actually tested it.
                Heh - welcome to the Warrior forums :rolleyes: - I discuss this with my clients (when I did linkbuilding for them) Do what works and is whitehat not what people say. The proof is in the pudding . . . Still I agree in part what he says about his results being his -
                Signature

                Click Below To Order Ebook Creation Or Package:
                Click here to fill out this simple form
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174366].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ryan D
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Neromancer View Post

                  Heh - welcome to the Warrior forums :rolleyes: - I discuss this with my clients (when I did linkbuilding for them) Do what works and is whitehat not what people say. The proof is in the pudding . . . Still I agree in part what he says about his results being his -
                  I don't disagree with keeping results to himself. But don't come on a message board, ask to see someone else's test results to validate their claim, and then not produce your own when asked....or even under what conditions you performed the test.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174429].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mukul Verma
                    Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

                    I've tested this and found the answer to be yes - but almost everyone I've seen talk about the subject on this forum says no, however I don't believe any of them actually tested it.
                    Hey Andy thank you for sharing your thoughts. Without giving away the secret sauce, When you tested this, did you get a site blacklisted or penalized? OR was it just lower ranking?

                    General question; Angela claims her links dont hurt your website (I have no opinion true or not true), would they be considered bad links?

                    Cheers,
                    Mukul
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174438].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
                      Originally Posted by Mukul Verma View Post

                      Hey Andy thank you for sharing your thoughts. Without giving away the secret sauce, When you tested this, did you get a site blacklisted or penalized? OR was it just lower ranking?

                      General question; Angela claims her links dont hurt your website (I have no opinion true or not true), would they be considered bad links?

                      Cheers,
                      Mukul
                      Hi Mukul,

                      The site went from a Page Rank of 6 to zero within a couple of days of me starting testing and 5000 pages disappeared from the SERPs.

                      I can't comment on Angela's links as I don't use them myself.
                      Signature

                      nothing to see here.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174565].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mukul Verma
                        Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

                        Hi Mukul,

                        The site went from a Page Rank of 6 to zero within a couple of days of me starting testing and 5000 pages disappeared from the SERPs.

                        I can't comment on Angela's links as I don't use them myself.
                        Thanks Andy.

                        Andy, Ryan as much as you are feuding (which frankly there is 10 ways to do one thing, so often no right or wrong, whatever), it has been an educational debate from the outside to see both sides. To each there own

                        Angela link was for anyone to comment on as its commonly used by many others???

                        Cheers,
                        Mukul
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174593].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Heuristic
                        Last year, I hired a so-called "SEO expert" from another forum to do some backlinking to try and prop up a site of mine in a very competitive niche. The site was 4 years old, had more than 400 pages of how-to articles related to business start-ups. All the content was completely original and well written.

                        The site had a PR 4 and was completely white-hat.

                        After the "work" was done, I started checking backlinks and, to my horror, my site was included on a long list of other sites that had been spammed across inactive blogs (so the owners wouldn't notice, I guess). I'm sure you've seen these train-wrecks in the comments sections of some blogs. They are the one's that contain everything from viagra, to **** berry, to ugg boots.

                        I knew I was toast the moment I saw it. My whitehat site was now plastered across .edu blogs, corporate blogs, you name it. These were highly respectable sites and I had no idea how the owners would react.

                        I waited for the hammer to fall. I expected to be de-listed or have my hosting shut down. Well, my hosting stayed up, but I got a message in Google Webmaster Tools 3 months later saying that my site had been delisted for not following their webmaster guidelines (I actually thought I got away with it since it had been a few months).

                        And that was it - It went from a PR4 to n/a and was completely gone. Even googlebot stopped coming.

                        I have since written to them explaining what happened and applied for re-inclusion - and nothing - I never heard back from them. My site is now sitting there getting a trickle of traffic and all that hard work is wasted unless they approve a re-inclusion request in the future.

                        Could it be a coincidence? Maybe, but what are the chances that it was something else? Nothing had changed other than that spam campaign that was launched.

                        So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it appears that things like this can affect your site.

                        Keep in mind that this is only my experience, but it does make one wonder about how easy it would be to sabotage a competitor.

                        Steve
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174718].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Ricky Dawn
                        Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

                        Hi Mukul,

                        The site went from a Page Rank of 6 to zero within a couple of days of me starting testing and 5000 pages disappeared from the SERPs.

                        I can't comment on Angela's links as I don't use them myself.
                        :confused::confused::confused:

                        Maybe all the people that think 'Bad' Link building will hurt your rankings maybe you should take a look at some of Matt Cutt's Videos..........
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175420].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author _jose_
                      Thanks for the replies...confused, but less confused now... and sorry, I didn't mean to start an argument :p

                      Would have to give it a try, I would just hate for Google to put my website, which I've worked so hard for, on some black list. From what I see here, I think I'm safe...

                      The majority seems to be that no, it doesn't hurt, but it will not do you any good either with 1 member having tested that it can hurt your SEO.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174697].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
                Originally Posted by Ryan D View Post

                So let me get this straight....

                1) You claim you've tested it and it's true.
                2) Someone refutes you, you ask to see THEIR test results.
                3) You mock them by saying you know they didn't test it.
                4) Someone asks for your test results, or even how you did the test, and you say it's for your eyes only.

                Please man. I'm quite sure that if you even posted the method of your test results, anyone that knows anything about SEO would poke holes in it all day.

                The guy asked for advice, you gave him a condescending answer, and then you failed to backup how you actually tested it.
                Let ME get this straight....

                I jokingly asked if the person questioning my comment had tested it (they hadn't) and said that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than that they should consider testing things before making statements of 'fact'.

                and YOU are attacking me for suggesting that it might be different to your assumptions and suggesting that my testing (despite being an engineer for over 20 years and you have zero idea how I did it) is flawed.

                HAHAHAA

                Right.

                I knew I was wasting my time even mentioning it but so many people claim they know the answer with nothing more than speculation to back it up that I have to clap my hands occasionally just to remind people to look where they're getting their assumptions from.

                You may think this is about me - but I think this is about You.

                I don't care what you think, I just care that some people will blindly accept an answer if no-one questions it, and if all the people ranting about it like they know have never actually checked for themselves - I think it's worth doing.

                I'm not coming back to this thread again to be attacked for helping and Ryan you're now on my ignore list so I won't be arguing with you.
                Signature

                nothing to see here.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174536].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ryan D
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

                  Let ME get this straight....

                  I jokingly asked if the person questioning my comment had tested it (they hadn't) and said that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than that they should consider testing things before making statements of 'fact'.

                  and YOU are attacking me for suggesting that it might be different to your assumptions and suggesting that my testing (despite being an engineer for over 20 years and you have zero idea how I did it) is flawed.

                  HAHAHAA

                  Right.

                  I knew I was wasting my time even mentioning it but so many people claim they know the answer with nothing more than speculation to back it up that I have to clap my hands occasionally just to remind people to look where they're getting their assumptions from.

                  You may think this is about me - but I think this is about You.

                  I don't care what you think, I just care that some people will blindly accept an answer if no-one questions it, and if all the people ranting about it like they know have never actually checked for themselves - I think it's worth doing.

                  I'm not coming back to this thread again to be attacked for helping and Ryan you're now on my ignore list so I won't be arguing with you.
                  No, I think it's more like I called your bluff and you didn't have an answer for it.

                  If someone asks which headline or which ad is better, the correct answer is to test it and find out.

                  Your "test" doesn't sound like a test at all...it sounds anecdotal. Since you never say how you performed the test, I'm guessing that you know it was flawed....despite your 20 years as an engineer.

                  Sorry, but I think you tried to act like a big-shot in this thread and you couldn't backup your claim when challenged. Probably cause you know it wouldn't hold water.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174976].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      I've tested this and found the answer to be yes - but almost everyone I've seen talk about the subject on this forum says no, however I don't believe any of them actually tested it.
      Hi Andyhenry,

      I would love to hear about some of the specifics of your test. I would like to compare your results with some of my own data.

      To be absolutely clear, I did not setup a test where I created a bunch of spammy backlinks. My data comes from what I perceived to be attacks by competitors that waged a series of spamming campaigns targeting a number of websites that I operated as well as sites owned by some of my clients a couple of years ago.

      I first noticed this when I spotted some traffic coming from unusual keyword searches. On closer inspection I discovered that tens of thousands of very spammy backlinks had been placed on several thousand websites, all of dubious character. (we're talking porn, viagra, warez, etc. and many were hacked sites and loaded with virus infected files). First on just one website then every couple weeks a new website would be hit.

      These spam attacks took place over a period of about 9 months and then the backlinks started to gradually disappear. I don't think there would be any way a search engine could distinguish an apparent attack like this from a webmaster's own spamming activity.

      These attacks targeted websites that were in competitive markets and they each had pages that ranked #1 in SERP for a number of highly competitive keywords within their niche. We also had some fairly expensive PPC campaigns targeting the same keywords. The business we were generating from these terms was in the 6-7 figure range, so I was a little apprehensive about how this might affect our campaigns.

      I'm happy to report that our SERP positions never wavered during any of these apparent attacks and the only downside was the embarrassing backlink profile that could be seen by anyone who knew where to look.

      I would be very interested to learn the differences between your experience and my own, seems like there would be some valuable insight in that knowledge.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174861].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Adams
    @Andyhenry Its hard to argue with you if you have tested it. But if you can get banned or sandboxed for "SPAM linking", then you could increase your search ranking by getting your competitors banned. Just sign up your competitors to get "SPAM links"...

    For that reason, I don't believe that Google would penalize you because it could be used to harm other people. I don't believe Google will hurt you for something that you have no control over i.e. how people link to you on the web.
    Signature
    P.S. If you found my post useful, please click the "Thanks" button below...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173701].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricky Dawn
    If it were true there would be people spamming links to their competitors website just to get up one space in Google.

    Google doesn't just rank websites based on backlinks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
      Originally Posted by Ricky Dawn View Post

      If it were true there would be people spamming links to their competitors website just to get up one space in Google.
      Yeah, yeah - that's what people always say.

      Can I see your test results that prove this?

      Of course I'm joking because I know you haven't tested it - and you're just repeating what you think and what everyone else also thinks - but people haven't tested.

      That's fine - but please, don't think that because you're clever and you imagine something is 'surely' one way that that's the same as reality or fact.
      Signature

      nothing to see here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173731].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ricky Dawn
        Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

        Yeah, yeah - that's what people always say.

        Can I see your test results that prove this?

        Of course I'm joking because I know you haven't tested it - and you're just repeating what you think and what everyone else also thinks - but people haven't tested.

        That's fine - but please, don't think that because you're clever and you imagine something is 'surely' one way that that's the same as reality or fact.
        Ok Andy....

        I work for a company called Fubra and I do their SEO.

        They have over 100 Websites all ranked well.

        Lets take Gatwick Airport Guide - London Gatwick Airport, UK

        I done the SEO for this site... So now go to Google (obviously has to be Google UK)

        And take a look at these key words that Gatwick-Airport-Guide.co.uk Ranks Number 1# for:-

        gatwick taxi
        gatwick security
        gatwick travel money
        gatwick car hire
        gatwick airport transfer

        1st Page Rankings-

        gatwick airport
        gatwick bus
        gatwick south terminal
        gatwick north terminal

        There Will be more but these are all I track because these pages are the pages that make the Company money. (affiliate sales etc)

        I done the backlinking for this site and the other airport guides that also rank number one for many important keywords.


        So You can try and tell me I am wrong or whatever or you have tested this or that but plain and Simple I know SEO I know it very well, and I know some of the links I gained to get to number one were 'spammy'

        Google does not punish people for having spammy links it just doesn't praise them!

        I'm not sure what your company does but it is not SEO.

        Ricky
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricky Dawn
    And just say on the off chance you would get banned or penalised then a very good business Idea comes to mind.......
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173721].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bondtana
    I've tested this and found the answer to be yes - but almost everyone I've seen talk about the subject on this forum says no, however I don't believe any of them actually tested it.
    I haven't tested this either way, but I think I agree with this. It wouldn't be difficult to sort out many of the thin sites doing spammy backlinking if you really think about it. If google had some sort of system which estimates daily traffic, and a site which is getting a little bit of traffic suddenly gets thousands of backlinks, obviously its spamming.

    And yes then you could just spam your competitors, but who would do that other than people who are backlinkers against other thin sites? lol If anything, it would help them find much more thin sites.

    I think there is probably a certain level of trust your site needs to earn before you start backlinking like crazy. But then again I haven't tested this out either.

    I've tested this and found the answer to be yes
    I'd love to hear more details...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173769].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author syntheticrhyme
    It shouldn't hurt your website, unless most of the links are comming from spammy websites. Think about it, you would be able to take out your competition by building bad links to their site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173804].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ylvajanssons001
      Definitely bad link building will hurt you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173812].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PinkSassyRN
    It's great to know you are surrounded with great SEO people on this forum, I am learning a lot although I want to know as well if bad link building can affect your site. Keep you insights coming guys
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173880].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Neromancer
    “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” - Dresden James

    I can honestly say after running a link building service for over a year. . . and having tested this throughly, (there are many myths of course), still YES Google can not only remove your SERP but if you are openly spamming links to low pr neighborhoods you are wasting your time, energy AND getting sandboxed is a real possibility.

    There is a way to ensure this NEVER happens. Gradually build up the flow of backlinks
    to your site or let Google see numerous white hat methods that it approves of and you can get tons of these.

    I hope this helps
    Mike
    Signature

    Click Below To Order Ebook Creation Or Package:
    Click here to fill out this simple form
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ron Douglas
    We're about to launch a "crush your competition" link building service for anyone who is interested. We guarantee a first page ranking for you once all your competitors get blacklisted. LOL
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2173956].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author geegel
    Ron is spot on.There's no way incoming links can hurt you or your SERP's.

    There is however the possibility to perceive a penalty where there is none. Let me explain. For the purpose of simplicity let's say you have 24 backlinks, 20 paid and 4 organic. Suddenly Google decides to penalize paid links. The result? Instead of 24 backlinks, now you have only 4.

    This was a big story when sponsored links in WP templates suddenly stopped counting. If I remember correctly, Michel Fortin used this technique to achieve some pretty impressing SERP's, but he is nowadays fairing much poorer.

    Hope this helps.

    Best regards,
    George
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174040].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
    Bad link building will absolutely hurt you. Remember, it's all about quality (not quantity) with the search engines. The search engines (especially Google) have taken a very proactive stance against people who buy and sell links. To them, buying a link doesn't mean your site is credible or popular; it just means that you have the budget to try and manipulate the rankings.

    Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry - and stick to building links the ol' fashioned way!
    Signature
    Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174191].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gnet
    Yes and No.

    I had a wordpress theme site at the start of the whole wordpress theme trend and I was the reason that Matt had to actually look over the wordpress themes section of wordpress.org after i had submitted 40 themes in 1 week (teehee) and ban 3rd party links on themes.

    All my themes were linking back to the main site, my theme site got pr5 on the first pr update and right after that one it dropped to pr1 and got de-indexed big time.


    i had sitelinks in 3 months!!! and later...nothin

    so its a yes and no
    Signature

    Finance Blog - Technorati Authority - LINKS FOR SALE!!!!
    PM ME!!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174202].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ArtofBlog
    I'm going with Nicole on this one. The reason that there may be diverging opinions on this is that sometimes it is possible to fool Google's ranking system. That might be temporary or long-lasting, but it will not work every single time for every single person. It might work very well for one person and their niche for a long time before they get the Google ranking slap of death. In the end, hard work is what it takes to build links.
    To that end, socialize a little bit. Can you do some guest posts in your niche or related fields? Is it possible to spend some time on sites such as ezine/hub pages/etc. to build traffic and possibly link juice (after reaching a certain point the no-follow can go away).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174210].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Neromancer
      Originally Posted by ArtofBlog View Post

      I'm going with Nicole on this one. The reason that there may be diverging opinions on this is that sometimes it is possible to fool Google's ranking system. That might be temporary or long-lasting, but it will not work every single time for every single person. It might work very well for one person and their niche for a long time before they get the Google ranking slap of death. In the end, hard work is what it takes to build links.
      To that end, socialize a little bit. Can you do some guest posts in your niche or related fields? Is it possible to spend some time on sites such as ezine/hub pages/etc. to build traffic and possibly link juice (after reaching a certain point the no-follow can go away).
      Thanks for this - how true!
      Signature

      Click Below To Order Ebook Creation Or Package:
      Click here to fill out this simple form
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174341].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Chernikov
    As I said, this only begs one question - does this mean that others can penalize my sites by ordering black hat linking campaigns against me, and vice versa?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174384].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author geegel
      Originally Posted by George Chernikov View Post

      As I said, this only begs one question - does this mean that others can penalize my sites by ordering black hat linking campaigns against me, and vice versa?
      Indeed, this is the million dollar question.

      The fact that we haven't heard such horror stories is I believe the most compelling evidence that incoming links from bad neighborhoods can't affect your SERP's.

      Regards,
      George
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wags_is_my_hero
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174664].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author _jose_
      Originally Posted by wags_is_my_hero View Post

      Can bad link building hurt you? No. That's because link building is link building.

      Now, assuming you meant, "Would getting links from one source be less effective to my overall goal than another source?" Then yes, that would be true.

      I meant as in google putting your site on some special "Google doesn't like it" list.

      or as in, making it MUCH harder to get SERP therefore achieving the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174705].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author usearchme2
    I dont think backlinks can hurt your site, but ive read countless posts on other forums from people claiming they have, so its pretty difficult to say either way i reckon, as really you cant control who links to you, so its not really something can moderate.

    As for your site steve I wouldnt mind having a look at it if you pm me, as ive been doing a lot of research into banned and penalised domains.

    One of the main reasons peoples re-inclusions dont work, is because people dont resolve the issue thats at fault.

    Woc
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174793].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      50% of the people think bad linking can hurt your site.
      The other half know the truth.

      Google has said repeatedly, over and over, ad nauseum,
      that bad links cannot hurt you if you concentrate on stuff
      that matters.

      There are many myths about SEO, and this one refuses
      to die.

      If anyone says that bad links hurt you and leaves it at
      that, then they do not know what they are talking about.

      Bad links hurt bad sites. Anything bad hurts bad sites.
      Load time hurts bad sites.

      If you are one who insists on doing the mythology of
      SEO, and not hard work, quality backlinks, reputable and
      valuable content, url and site structure, then bad links will
      make your site sink as low as it can go.

      You cannot hurt a good, reputable site with bad backlinks,
      unless that sites turns into a lousy site.

      Paul
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author geegel
    Generally, you as a webmaster don't have much control over things like who links to your site. You do, however, have control over many other factors that influence indexing and ranking. Organize your content; do a mini-usability study with family or friends. Ask for a site review in your favorite webmaster forums. Use a website testing tool to figure out what gets you the most readers, or the biggest sales. Take inspiration from your favorite sites, or your competitors--what do they do well? What makes you want to keep coming back to their sites, or share them with your friends? What can you learn from them? Time spent on any of these activities is likely to have a larger impact on your site's overall performance than time spent trying to hunt down and remove every last questionable backlink.

    Cool stuff huh? The problem is I didn't say it, these guys did, and I expect they know a thing or two about how Google works.

    Regards,
    George
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175148].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Originally Posted by geegel View Post

      Generally, you as a webmaster don't have much control over things like who links to your site. You do, however, have control over many other factors that influence indexing and ranking. Organize your content; do a mini-usability study with family or friends. Ask for a site review in your favorite webmaster forums. Use a website testing tool to figure out what gets you the most readers, or the biggest sales. Take inspiration from your favorite sites, or your competitors--what do they do well? What makes you want to keep coming back to their sites, or share them with your friends? What can you learn from them? Time spent on any of these activities is likely to have a larger impact on your site's overall performance than time spent trying to hunt down and remove every last questionable backlink.

      Cool stuff huh? The problem is I didn't say it, these guys did, and I expect they know a thing or two about how Google works.

      Regards,
      George
      Yes, but unfortunately every time we quote it, 500 more people come
      and say it aint so. Just look at the responses to this thread. Most
      of them don't even bother to read the responses. If they did, the
      first one that says the above should end it. But it won't. Tomorrow,
      more threads like this will pop up. And so it goes.

      Paul
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175271].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by geegel View Post

      Generally, you as a webmaster don't have much control over things like who links to your site. You do, however, have control over many other factors that influence indexing and ranking. Organize your content; do a mini-usability study with family or friends. Ask for a site review in your favorite webmaster forums. Use a website testing tool to figure out what gets you the most readers, or the biggest sales. Take inspiration from your favorite sites, or your competitors--what do they do well? What makes you want to keep coming back to their sites, or share them with your friends? What can you learn from them? Time spent on any of these activities is likely to have a larger impact on your site's overall performance than time spent trying to hunt down and remove every last questionable backlink.

      Cool stuff huh? The problem is I didn't say it, these guys did, and I expect they know a thing or two about how Google works.

      Regards,
      George
      Hi George,

      Notice how they never say specifically if those spam links will have any negative effect on your SERP ranking, while they do specifically indicate that "You may also be concerned about users' perception of your site if they come across it via a batch of spammy links." Then they go on to suggest that you could try to get those spammy links removed, but only if it is easy to do. They clearly indicate that you may be wasting you time needlessly if you spend much time trying to eliminate spammy links. Your time would be better spent working on getting good links or optimizing your on-page factors.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175337].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        Originally Posted by dburk View Post

        They clearly indicate that you may be wasting you time needlessly if you spend much time trying to eliminate spammy links. Your time would be better spent working on getting good links or optimizing your on-page factors.
        Exactly. But people have lousy sites with pitiful content breaking the rules.
        Then they blame anything and everything on google. Must be the massive
        amount of links they got.

        Your time would be better spent working on getting good links or optimizing your on-page factors.
        is what I preach over and over. But people don't
        want to hear that. They're afraid of the good stuff because that actually
        involves hard work and knowing what you're doing.

        Paul
        Signature

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175431].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
    Sites that link TO you do not hurt you.

    Sites that you link to CAN hurt you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    While there's debate on both sides about whether linking can hurt a site, what we do know is at one time Google "bowling" was a big deal and was proof that outside sources could influence at least the relevancy of sites.

    If you are one that preaches that you need to use relevant anchor text in your links to increase relevancy, then you believe you can affect another site by way of linking.

    Logic dictates that if a link can't influence another site, then anchor text becomes totally N/A. Any "expert" SEOers willing to address this issue?
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175472].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    While there's debate on both sides about whether linking can hurt a site, what we do know is at one time Google "bowling" was a big deal and was proof that outside sources could influence at least the relevancy of sites.

    If you are one that preaches that you need to use relevant anchor text in your links to increase relevancy, then you believe you can affect another site by way of linking.

    Logic dictates that if a link can't influence another site, then anchor text becomes totally N/A. Any "expert" SEOers willing to address this issue?
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175475].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      While there's debate on both sides about whether linking can hurt a site, what we do know is at one time Google "bowling" was a big deal and was proof that outside sources could influence at least the relevancy of sites.

      If you are one that preaches that you need to use relevant anchor text in your links to increase relevancy, then you believe you can affect another site by way of linking.

      Logic dictates that if a link can't influence another site, then anchor text becomes totally N/A. Any "expert" SEOers willing to address this issue?
      Hi Kurt,

      That's an interesting take on the topic.

      I think the simplest way to address your question is to say that I believe that relevant anchortext definitely may influence your pages for the keyword contained within the anchortext by increasing the relevancy score. I see no way that a positive influence can cause a negative result in this particular circumstance.

      How would a link hurt you if it isn't counted because it was devalued? Logic dictates that it would not hurt nor help you. If the link is not devalued, then it seems likely that the link may be helping you and not hurting you.

      From what I have observed, inbound links help you or they don't help you, I have never seen a case where they hurt your rankings. Now outbound links are a different story. You can control those and Google seems to hold you accountable for your outbound links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175653].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by dburk View Post

        Hi Kurt,

        That's an interesting take on the topic.

        I think the simplest way to address your question is to say that I believe that relevant anchortext definitely may influence your pages for the keyword contained within the anchortext by increasing the relevancy score. I see no way that a positive influence can cause a negative result in this particular circumstance.

        How would a link hurt you if it isn't counted because it was devalued? Logic dictates that it would not hurt nor help you. If the link is not devalued, then it seems likely that the link may be helping you and not hurting you.

        From what I have observed, inbound links help you or they don't help you, I have never seen a case where they hurt your rankings. Now outbound links are a different story. You can control those and Google seems to hold you accountable for your outbound links.
        Hey Don and All...

        How about this...Let's say the author considers the phrases in blue to be "keywords". Take a page that says:

        Title: daschund dog training

        Content:
        Dachshunds, aka "wiener dogs" are a short legged dog bred to hunt rabbits. Remember, if it's hot, your dog doesn't sweat so be sure to give him plenty of water. Don't ever kick your dog in the backside, as dogs don't have fatty "buns" like humans do to protect them. The more you know about training your dog, the more you'll relish spending the time with your pet.
        But what if we took these words (in red) and built links to the very same page using the words in red as anchor text:

        Title: daschund dog training

        Content:
        Dachshunds, aka "wiener dogs" are a short legged dog bred to hunt rabbits. Remember, if it's hot, your dog doesn't sweat so be sure to give him plenty of water. Don't ever kick your dog in the backside, as dogs don't have fatty "buns" like humans do to protect them. The more you know about training your dog, the more you'll relish spending the time with your pet.
        And we took the following and use the following as anchor text pointing the the author's "dog training" page:

        Hot dogs
        wieners
        buns
        relish

        Let's assume the quality of these links is the same as the quality of the links the author has gotten.

        How will this impact the rankings of the page for the keywords "dog training"?

        Three possible outcomes:

        1 It will help the rankings for "dog training".

        2 It will hurt the rankings for "dog training".

        3 It won't affect the rankings for "dog training".

        (I'm presenting the following "backwards"...Usually we think of linking as something that is good. In this example, we're using it for "bad".)

        If getting links using irrelevant anchor words helps, there's no point in using keywords in anchor text. for either good or bad.

        Same thing if it doesn't affect the rankings, there's no point in using anchor text.

        So, the only reason to use anchor text in this situation would be if it will hurt the relevancy of the author's site.

        Let's now turn this back around...The conventional SEO wisdom is that your link anchor text should be relevant.

        And if we assume this is correct and that we need relevant anchor text, then we can also assume that irrelevant anchor text will hurt. And if it doesn't hurt, then there's zero reason to worry about anchor text.

        IMO, if there's significant links using "hot dog" related anchor text, Google will believe the page is about "hot dogs" and not dog training, therefore hurting the author's page. And if it doesn't, then we shouldn't tell people they need to optimize anchor text in their links for relevancy.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175789].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dburk
          Hi Kurt,

          My answer is 3, It won't affect the rankings for "dog training". A page will usually rank for a number of keywords.

          One of the things that makes Google such a great search engine, IMO, is that they have always had the ability to determine relevance in a highly granular fashion. Many web pages cover numerous topics and Google has always had the ability to find and rank these pages for many of the various keywords that triggers relevance signals somewhere on the page.

          So, in your example the page will score higher in relevance for those keywords targeted in the anchortext and have no direct effect on the other keywords. Adding more links with different keywords takes nothing away from the existing relevant backlinks. It just increases the number of different keywords that are being targeted for that same page.

          Relevance isn't an absolute value, it is a relative value; it's not keyword(A) OR keyword(B), it is keyword(A and B). The page could rank for both "dog training" and "hot dog". One might even see a blog home page with a post about "dog training" immediately following a post about "hot dogs" with mustard and "relish", and that page might well rank for for all of the keywords in your example, why wouldn't it?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175963].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by dburk View Post

            Hi Kurt,

            My answer is 3, It won't affect the rankings for "dog training". A page will usually rank for a number of keywords.

            One of the things that makes Google such a great search engine, IMO, is that they have always had the ability to determine relevance in a highly granular fashion. Many web pages cover numerous topics and Google has always had the ability to find and rank these pages for many of the various keywords that triggers relevance signals somewhere on the page.

            So, in your example the page will score higher in relevance for those keywords targeted in the anchortext and have no direct effect on the other keywords. Adding more links with different keywords takes nothing away from the existing relevant backlinks. It just increases the number of different keywords that are being targeted for that same page.

            Relevance isn't an absolute value, it is a relative value; it's not keyword(A) OR keyword(B), it is keyword(A and B). The page could rank for both "dog training" and "hot dog". One might even see a blog home page with a post about "dog training" immediately following a post about "hot dogs" with mustard and "relish", and that page might well rank for for all of the keywords in your example, why wouldn't it?
            Hey Don,

            I tend to agree with this, but it isn't fact and I haven't even seen it discussed until now.

            As you wrote, relevance isn't absolute and Google could factor in a "keyword weight" in anchor text to help determine relevancy for a site, with the theory that "one page" is easily manipulated.

            So they add extrenal anchor text "keyword weight" into the algo. Not a lot, but enough that other sites can counter-act some of the SEO being done by letting other sites describe what a page on another site is about.

            Of course I can't say this is how they do it and I'm only giving one of an infinite number of possiblities. But I did answer the question "why wouldn't they".

            One thing I do assume is if you could hurt another site through linking, it would be the last thing Google would ever admit to, so we shouldn't pay attention to what they say on the matter.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2177714].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CIKMarketing
              I think that the anchor text of your link found on other sites is important. At the same time, I also agree with you that linking by other sites doesn't necessarily "hurt" another site.

              If linking could potentially hurt a site, then it is the job of the webmaster to delete or monitor these spammy outgoing links being placed on their site.

              To the original question, you always hear about not linking to "bad neighborhoods." In a sense, I agree with this as well. If you are a reputable business, you don't want your link surrounded by xxx websites or other such information. Finding relevant categories in a directory, blogs, forums, and related websites to be linked to should be a goal.

              I don't think a link "hurts" you, but one quality link is likely worth more than several poor links.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2177844].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author efwebm
      Looks like some of you are absolutely convinced that questionable linking will hurt you, and some of you are absolutely convinced that there's no penalty for questionable links.

      I think Google is smarter than all of us. If you are producing junk, it's going to come back to bite you sooner or later. Sounds like it was sooner than later for this guy's site after he paid someone for some bad seo.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2407590].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author geegel
    If I keep quoting, I might as well finish the evening in style.

    But it's written in the starlight
    And every line on your palm
    We're fools to make war
    On our brothers in arms
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175483].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricky Dawn
    Anchor Text is not the only thing that decides what keyword the link is targeting..

    In fact its more to do with the content around the link itself not the anchor text.(again watch some of matt cutts videos, he works for Google)

    When Google crawls a page it will judge what the keywords are for that page, if there is just a standard www(dot)google(dot)com link inside that page, it will also associate the link, with the keyword that is frequently seen on the page itself.

    Of course Google takes this into account and if a link is on a totally irrelevant page, then It will not benefit your rank for your targeted keyword, anchor text or not.
    It could however increase your rankings for a totally irrelevant keyword.

    Ricky

    (having a link on a totally irrelevant page will not damage your rankings for your main keyword it will just not benefit it)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2177538].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chini
    No, if it did then you can get rid of competition instantly. Instead google just discounts those links
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2177672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Groovystar
    Because of the danger of Google bowling there may not be true penalties for spammed sites unless it's really obvious the site's just a load of crap like made for adsense or something, or anything with auto generated written content which is usually yanked off other, better sites.

    Build your site with quality in mind and don't spam links and you should be fine.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2179303].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aira Bongco
    What I am thinking about is if this is possible, competitor sites can simply do bad linking to their competitors.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2407632].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by dburk View Post

      Hi Kurt,

      My answer is 3, It won't affect the rankings for "dog training". A page will usually rank for a number of keywords.

      One of the things that makes Google such a great search engine, IMO, is that they have always had the ability to determine relevance in a highly granular fashion. Many web pages cover numerous topics and Google has always had the ability to find and rank these pages for many of the various keywords that triggers relevance signals somewhere on the page.

      So, in your example the page will score higher in relevance for those keywords targeted in the anchortext and have no direct effect on the other keywords. Adding more links with different keywords takes nothing away from the existing relevant backlinks. It just increases the number of different keywords that are being targeted for that same page.

      Relevance isn't an absolute value, it is a relative value; it's not keyword(A) OR keyword(B), it is keyword(A and B). The page could rank for both "dog training" and "hot dog". One might even see a blog home page with a post about "dog training" immediately following a post about "hot dogs" with mustard and "relish", and that page might well rank for for all of the keywords in your example, why wouldn't it?
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      Hey Don,

      I tend to agree with this, but it isn't fact and I haven't even seen it discussed until now.

      As you wrote, relevance isn't absolute and Google could factor in a "keyword weight" in anchor text to help determine relevancy for a site, with the theory that "one page" is easily manipulated.

      So they add extrenal anchor text "keyword weight" into the algo. Not a lot, but enough that other sites can counter-act some of the SEO being done by letting other sites describe what a page on another site is about.

      Of course I can't say this is how they do it and I'm only giving one of an infinite number of possiblities. But I did answer the question "why wouldn't they".

      One thing I do assume is if you could hurt another site through linking, it would be the last thing Google would ever admit to, so we shouldn't pay attention to what they say on the matter.
      Actually, after giving this some more thought, there is some evidence that Google does indeed "classify" sites by topics.

      Using the "related" search operated, Google will reveal other sites it feels are on the same topic:

      related:www.anysite.com ~anysite.com

      Can this be manipulated by anchor text on external sites? I have actually tested this, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that external anchor text does play a role in this...Probably a lot.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2408141].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author babywarrior
        Hi Guys,

        I was thinking back to this video by matt at a google conference where few hundreds site were sent to him for critique on their SEO and how they can improve it. The message i gathered from him is that ultimately your content is still king. Cant quite remember but i do recall him saying that they have guys sitting behind screen whom will clamp down on links that built obviously by using spinner and software. I also do think that they (google spam catching team or whatever) do look at the site with the links too.

        My humble take on this is you can have "proper links" built to your site and if your content is trash. there is a chance your site will get delisted. if you have good content and the links built back are trash, the trash link would probably discounted.

        Another thing you may want to note is the spam report on google webmaster. Hidden text or links

        Misleading or repeated words
        Page does not match Google's description
        Cloaked page
        Deceptive redirects
        Doorway pages
        Duplicate site or pages
        Other (specify)

        If trash link is such a huge role would it not be on the list instead of others?

        2 cents worth of thoughts...

        ps: hope no one posted the same as what i had for i posted this without reading all post...kinda late here in Singapore and am tired after a day of work.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2408478].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Actually, after giving this some more thought, there is some evidence that Google does indeed "classify" sites by topics.

        Using the "related" search operated, Google will reveal other sites it feels are on the same topic:

        related:www.anysite.com ~anysite.com
        Hi Kurt,

        Sorry, I must disagree with your insight.

        Google indexes individual documents, not websites. The "related:" operator returns similar documents, not websites.

        The tilde operator returns results based on synonyms, and is also known as the synonym operator.
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Can this be manipulated by anchor text on external sites? I have actually tested this, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that external anchor text does play a role in this...Probably a lot.
        Yes, anchortext is one of the signals that Google uses to determine the relevance of a web document. This is not speculative as Google cites this as a prominent and primary feature within their founding research documents.

        Sources:
        Search Features
        Google Search Operators - Google Guide
        The Anatomy of a Search Engine
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2408889].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by dburk View Post

          Hi Kurt,

          Sorry, I must disagree with your insight.

          Google indexes individual documents, not websites. The "related:" operator returns similar documents, not websites.

          The tilde operator returns results based on synonyms, and is also known as the synonym operator.

          Yes, anchortext is one of the signals that Google uses to determine the relevance of a web document. This is not speculative as Google cites this as a prominent and primary feature within their founding research documents.

          Sources:
          Search Features
          Google Search Operators - Google Guide
          The Anatomy of a Search Engine


          And I disagree with the statement in red. Pages are part of websites, therefore they index sites.

          I did a few quick checks of the SERPs. I didn't cherry pick, here the SERPs I checked:

          About.com - Notice the results. They are themed and the SERPs virtually all link to the homepages of the sites:
          http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS274US274&q=re lated%3Awww.about.com+%7Eabout.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=& oq=&gs_rfai=

          CNN.com - Again, related sites, virtually all links to homepages.
          http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS274US274&q=re lated%3Awww.cnn.com+%7Ecnn.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=& gs_rfai=

          Jokes.com - Same thing
          http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS274US274&q=re lated%3Awww.jokes.com+%7Ejokes.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=& oq=&gs_rfai=

          My own site that I've done no serious linking to, it's about pets and animals. Same results.
          Lizardz.com
          http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS274US274&q=re lated%3Awww.lizardz.com+%7Elizardz.com&btnG=Search &aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

          You may be correct if the query was performed in an individual page, but that isn't the context of this discussion.

          From my short survey, it's pretty obvious Google does attempt to group related sites together, at least for the "related" search. I can't think of any reason to have a related search if Google doesn't use it in some other way, but they may have a reason. Until we come up with one, I'll tend to believe this does have some influence in how they rank sites and pages within those sites.

          I could go deeper into how Google sees the web as a universe full of stars and considers linking patterns to be similar to "constellations", and it's important to be in the correct constellation, but I can't remember the tech term....Been too many years.

          But this is just theory...A practical use is to use this to find sites related to the "main authority" in a niche, and use those sites as starting points to find back links...Find where they get their links.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2409217].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            You may be correct if the query was performed in an individual page, but that isn't the context of this discussion.

            From my short survey, it's pretty obvious Google does attempt to group related sites together, at least for the "related" search. I can't think of any reason to have a related search if Google doesn't use it in some other way, but they may have a reason. Until we come up with one, I'll tend to believe this does have some influence in how they rank sites and pages within those sites.
            Hi Kurt,

            Again if you replace the word "sites" with the word "documents" you statements become more accurate.

            This is not speculative, Google's own published documentation goes into some detail about how large scale search engines work as does every other whitepaper on the subject. Once you understand how search engines work, you will understand why the notion of website ranking would be detrimental to their performance and a huge step backwards for the technology.

            Sure web pages are part of a website, so if we used your logic as a principal, then we could say that Google indexes and ranks websites, and since websites are part of the earth, Google indexes the earth, and since the earth is part of the universe, Google indexes the universe. While all of these might be somewhat true, which is more accurate, more precise and therefore the best answer? It is technically more accurate to say that Google indexes part of the universe, part of the earth, part of a website, and ALL of a web page.

            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            I could go deeper into how Google sees the web as a universe full of stars and considers linking patterns to be similar to "constellations", and it's important to be in the correct constellation, but I can't remember the tech term....Been too many years.
            Interesting theory, "Google sees the web as a universe full of stars and considers linking patterns to be similar to constellations". So I guess Google gives us astrology readings in the form of search results. Does that mean asking someone for their Pagerank is a little like asking "What is your sign?" Seems a bit too mystical for my tastes.

            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            But this is just theory...A practical use is to use this to find sites related to the "main authority" in a niche, and use those sites as starting points to find back links...Find where they get their links.
            This sounds like Bharat's Hilltop paper which applies to Google News more than Google Search. I believe this is where the whole notion of Domain Authority comes from and it does fit nicely into Google News, but not so much for search.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2411340].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Profit123
    Yes, bad link building can hurt you. Do it the old fashioned way, with quality uppermost, Google respects this.
    Signature

    One of the Best Resources for making money online. http://bit.ly/dnsOjO

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2410599].message }}

Trending Topics