Are BAD backlinks worse than NO Backlinks?

44 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hi there,

I am really curious to hear your oppinion on this subject.

Are totally irelevant backlinks better or worse than 0 backlinks at all.

I am not saying that the page doesnt have any backlinks to start out with.

Example :

Main page has 15 Ezine articles with unique quality content pointing to it. Social bookmarking is done the propper way and there are some forum posts and blog comments from relevant properties.

Lets say 30 quality backlinks.

I am just saying WHAT IF ( I do not intend to stray from my path of relevance backlinking only ) I would link from the other 300 Ezine articles that have no relation whatsoever with the main pages subject?

Lets say I am in #4 on Google for the main keyword targeted in the main page and the top 5 have roughly about the same number of backlinks, except that the top 3 are much older.

Whats your view on this. Will Google be inclined to the high PR link or will it see it as pure spam, due to no relevance nad just slap it .

As I said ( I believe 2 times ) already, I will not use this and would just like to hear your comments.

Sincerely, Buyseech
#backlinks #bad #worse
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Q
    Banned
    We're talking about numbers here! Of course zero backlinks is much worse than bad backlinks.

    No backlinks = no traffic
    Bad backlinks = bad traffic (but at least you have numbers)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2792963].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Buyseech
      Originally Posted by lamposproject View Post

      We're talking about numbers here! Of course zero backlinks is much worse than bad backlinks.

      No backlinks = no traffic
      Bad backlinks = bad traffic (but at least you have numbers)
      Hi there,

      I am not saying 0 backlinks.

      I am saying 30 quality or 30 quality + 300 totaly irelevant yet High PR.


      Googles view on the above.

      I am not speaking directly about traffic.

      Sincerely, Buyseech
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2792981].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bonusdays
        Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post


        I am saying 30 quality or 30 quality + 300 totaly irelevant yet High PR.
        Yes, "bad" (as you call it) backlinks add value. Sometime much more than you would ever image!

        So... 30 + 300 "totally irrelevant" is WAY better than 30 quality links by themselves.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2794986].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
    Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

    Hi there,

    I am really curious to hear your oppinion on this subject.

    Are totally irelevant backlinks better or worse than 0 backlinks at all.
    Hi there,

    First, even if one could classify backlinks as good or bad, "totally irrelevant" backlinks wouldn't be bad backlinks. Your title of the thread was pretty confusing to me on that basis. "bad" backlinks would be things like linking in to your site from porn sites, or with the anchor text "cheap cialis".

    I never ever go after "relevant" backlinks (of course, some will end up being relevant due to sheer randomness), and it has always served me well. A PR5 link from a hamster page will help your IM site tremendously. In any event, i'm not even sure how one would define relevancy here. Your time will be better spent going after quality links, no matter the topic of the linking site.

    Second, no bad backlinks will not hurt you, or be worse than zero backlinks. If backlinks could hurt you like that, you could simply be #1 in Google by sending "bad" backlinks to your competitiors' sites and you would be #1 by default.

    Tom
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2792992].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      If people really thought about irrelevant backlinks, they would stop
      putting sigs in their posts. I don't think there's anything remotely
      called an irrelevant backlink. You are assuming google and you are
      in agreement as to what the page is about. And that they care.

      I'd say 99% of backlinks that people get are irrelevant. It has to be.

      I'll tell you what the best kept secret here is. Backlinking on your own
      sites to your other sites.

      However, PR, now that's a different story. Go for as high PR as possible.
      I'd rather get 1-2 PR4 and above, than 100 PR1.

      But in the end, a backlink is a backlink is a backlink.

      Paul
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2793236].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 0b1
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

      Hi there,
      Second, no bad backlinks will not hurt you, or be worse than zero backlinks. If backlinks could hurt you like that, you could simply be #1 in Google by sending "bad" backlinks to your competitiors' sites and you would be #1 by default.
      Tom
      I wanted to say the same thing, but Tom said it better

      Anyways I read a long time ago that Google wont penalize your website just because that website received links from Badsites, because this sort of things are beyond the control of the webmaster, HOWEVER if your site links to this bad sites you may be penalized
      -Brandon
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2793339].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ehsan_am
    As Tom said there is no such thing as a bad backlink. Worst case scenario your backlink doesn't count but that is as bad as it gets. So it is always better to have a backlink than 0 backlink.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2793207].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author alextuder
      Originally Posted by Ehsan_am View Post

      As Tom said there is no such thing as a bad backlink. Worst case scenario your backlink doesn't count but that is as bad as it gets. So it is always better to have a backlink than 0 backlink.
      I second that. Its they (Baclinks) who are linking to you.

      If they r relevant = You are happy
      If they r relevant + Good PR = You are happier
      If they are irrelevant= Don't give a damn

      "Make sure you don't link to them". That's all
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800394].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jhonsean
    Many of us differentiate and classified those badlinks as a purpose of conversations they had been must overlooked at and i think that good backlinks & bad backlinks is always a backlinks no matter what.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2793315].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve Murphy
    Hi there,

    I have some difficulty in figuring out what you mean by a "bad" backlink.

    Does not compute!

    We all realise that the "ideal" back link would be from a high PR authority site/blog/forum with direct relevance to our anchor text and our own site.

    However, this "ideal" backlink can be difficult to find and to secure so we have to compromise. Maybe we can find a PR9 site but with no direct relevance; maybe we can also find several PR0 site with direct relevance. Which would you choose?

    I tend to go for a mix.

    I find it difficult to refuse a PR9 link (relevant or not) even if I only build a sig

    As far as Google are concerned, I reckon that any link is better than no link. The old favourites, of course, always apply: have a balanced strategy which includes nofollow links too; never spam.

    Cheers,

    Steve
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2793376].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Buyseech
      Hi guys,

      by BAD backlink I meant IRRELEVANT linking.

      If I have a site about dishwashers, there is no point in linking it to a punching bag stand related site now is there? Google knows this, because it is its primary function to group RELEVANT pages together, therefor giving much more "power" to relevant backlinks.

      The purpose of the thread was to figure out, if anyone knows or has been involved in Google penalizing him ( drop in serps... ) for adding irrelevant backlinks.

      Sincerely, Buyseech
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2794757].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
        Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

        Hi guys,

        by BAD backlink I meant IRRELEVANT linking.

        If I have a site about dishwashers, there is no point in linking it to a punching bag stand related site now is there? Google knows this, because it is its primary function to group RELEVANT pages together, therefor giving much more "power" to relevant backlinks.

        The purpose of the thread was to figure out, if anyone knows or has been involved in Google penalizing him ( drop in serps... ) for adding irrelevant backlinks.

        Sincerely, Buyseech
        There have been a number of experiments done proving that backlinks from "irrelevant sites" are still very powerful. Think about it. Will you take a backlink from the New York Times to your punching bag stand site? Of course you will.

        Here's a great article from one of my favorite SEO's:
        You’re All Wrong!-> Buying Text Links From Offtopic, Irrelevant Sites Can Boost Rankings

        Point is, backlinks are just as powerful from off-topic sites as they are from on-topic sites. You're right, that Google is good at grouping relevant pages together. But it would be impossible for them to deem a backlink relevant or not because they cannot think.

        For example, if I get a backlink to my backpacking site from a website about trekking, it could be considered irrelevant because there are no backpacking keywords on the site. Yet, trekking and backpacking are very similar, so in human eyes it would be relevant, yet from Google's algorithmic standpoint it would be irrelevant.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2794929].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Buyseech
          Hi Jacob,

          I agree to a certain extent. Google has LSI keywords which you are most likely farmiliar with, so its knows what words ( although not similar in the writing itself ) are related.

          I agree it is hard for Google to "batch" the Kws together but it does form a pattern on multiple linkings and usage of the common words in the same text, from its history.

          Saying that it doesnt matter if its relevant or not is just being silly, if you ask me. Whats the point then. I could write only BLA BLA BLA 1 gazzilion times and send it to Ezine and voila. ( Ok I know it woulndt be accepted but still ).

          All comments appreciated.

          Sincerely, Buyseech
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2794971].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
            Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post


            Saying that it doesnt matter if its relevant or not is just being silly, if you ask me. Whats the point then. I could write only BLA BLA BLA 1 gazzilion times and send it to Ezine and voila. ( Ok I know it woulndt be accepted but still ).
            I think the problem is that you are thinking Google values relevancy like you would as a human reader. In theory, Google shouldn't value "unnatural" backlinks, but the fact is they very much do give high value to them. Same goes for "irrelevant" backlinks. Google's algo just doesn't work like a lot of you think it should.

            If I get a link (with the right anchor text) on a page PR5 page about hamsters, it is going to help ANY of my sites rank, whether that site is about IM, baseball or fly fishing. That is just the way it works in practice. If it didn't work, I wouldn't be selling high PR links from "irrelevant" topics and these links wouldn't be helping my clients rank extremely well. In fact, we have tested having pretty much nonsense text and guess what? It still works great.

            Tom
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2795035].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
            Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

            Hi Jacob,

            I agree to a certain extent. Google has LSI keywords which you are most likely farmiliar with, so its knows what words ( although not similar in the writing itself ) are related.

            I agree it is hard for Google to "batch" the Kws together but it does form a pattern on multiple linkings and usage of the common words in the same text, from its history.

            Saying that it doesnt matter if its relevant or not is just being silly, if you ask me. Whats the point then. I could write only BLA BLA BLA 1 gazzilion times and send it to Ezine and voila. ( Ok I know it woulndt be accepted but still ).

            All comments appreciated.

            Sincerely, Buyseech
            Well, you might think it is being silly, but it works. There are published experiments out there proving it. Here is one:
            http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...xperiment.html

            The point is, "irrelevant backlinks" work and work very well. You can debate it if you like, but you're not going to convince me or anyone else with any experience.

            Go out and try it for yourself. You'll see that it is not silly. It works. Everytime.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2795058].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mr Squeeze
          Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

          For example, if I get a backlink to my backpacking site from a website about trekking, it could be considered irrelevant because there are no backpacking keywords on the site. Yet, trekking and backpacking are very similar, so in human eyes it would be relevant, yet from Google's algorithmic standpoint it would be irrelevant.
          Excellent information, never thought of it like that before thankyou.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2966799].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lucid
        Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

        If I have a site about dishwashers, there is no point in linking it to a punching bag stand related site now is there? Google knows this, because it is its primary function to group RELEVANT pages together, therefor giving much more "power" to relevant backlinks.
        To me, you basically answered your own question here.

        A backlink to me is neither good or bad. Relevant is a better word but I think the way Google looks at it is the link's VALUE. So a link from a punching bag site to one about dishwashers has less value than one from another dishwasher site. It's not just getting a high number of links.

        How much more value is debatable. I sometimes play a game called "how would I do this"? If it was me, a lesser relevance link would get 100 times less value. I would want someone to work 100 times more for irrelevant links.

        So I agree, there is less point (although not totally no point for the SEO) to link that way. Always best to put your time into quality links which is to say more relevant ones.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2795917].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

        Hi guys,

        by BAD backlink I meant IRRELEVANT linking.

        If I have a site about dishwashers, there is no point in linking it to a punching bag stand related site now is there? Google knows this, because it is its primary function to group RELEVANT pages together, therefor giving much more "power" to relevant backlinks.
        Again, you are applying how you would do a ranking by hand. Don't confuse how you would do a ranking with how Google's algo actually works. They are not the same. Google shouldn't reward a site for having 100% targeted anchor texts (as that would be "unnatural"), yet Google does indeed reward such unnatural linking. I can tell you first hand that this whole irrelevant links lack power BS is false in actual practice. Again, I don't really care if you believe me or not. I"m just telling you of my experiences selling high PR links from irrelevant sites and watching the Google SERP rankings of the linked to sites on completely different subjects. Stop trying to think about how you would set up a ranking ideal in your utopia.

        Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

        The purpose of the thread was to figure out, if anyone knows or has been involved in Google penalizing him ( drop in serps... ) for adding irrelevant backlinks.
        Not to beat a dead horse, but why would you think Google would penalize for incoming links when you could simply send "bad" links to your competitors? You can control the outgoing links from your site. You can't control incoming links to your site.

        Tom
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2796163].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 32paul52
    Tom hit the nail on the head- I use links from PR blogs for my clients (irrelevent subjects) - the results speak from themselves - before ranking Number 12 -after Number 4. It was the only work done. If you think about, the web is really a mass of mixed links.

    another way to see this if you do a search for "web design" - Any webdesigner, with a few brains, would link every client back to them in the footer of the sites- sites not relevent to webdesign correct?

    I rest my case.............
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2795074].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author daviddeschaine
      The way I understood the Google, Yahoo model was that any links are good for ranking - More Links More Numbers - :-)
      Signature
      Thanks,
      David

      Contractor OS

      "Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning".
      -Benjamin Franklin-
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2795674].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author maddydp
    Mass backlinks is good, as they show diversification. Having only high quality backlinks might get your website sandboxed. Just be very very careful.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2796152].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Buyseech
    Thanks for all your comments guys.

    Huh...It seems I have been "decieved" then Working hard to get relevant content and searching for relevant forums and blog to post was actually not neccessary.

    Although noone can quantify anything of course, we will have to use the good old "test it yourself and see" method.

    If irrelevant links work just as well, this will be a walk in the park.

    I still have a lot of doubt doh

    Lets wait and see...

    Sincerely, Buyseech
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2798259].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
      Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

      Thanks for all your comments guys.

      Huh...It seems I have been "decieved" then Working hard to get relevant content and searching for relevant forums and blog to post was actually not neccessary.

      Although noone can quantify anything of course, we will have to use the good old "test it yourself and see" method.

      If irrelevant links work just as well, this will be a walk in the park.

      I still have a lot of doubt doh

      Lets wait and see...

      Sincerely, Buyseech
      I provided you with a link to an experiment proving this. Check it out:

      http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...xperiment.html
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2799910].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mayorlan
    I was saying ha! When I saw this.Is there a anything like "bad backlinks".I doubt it.A backlink is a backlink because a web page without backlinks to it is like a lighted candle covered with a bucket,nobody would see it light.And also,can anyone knows Google's mind on this and how if one can?
    Signature

    Ever wonder why the big bloggers like Neil Patel,Chris Brogan,Derek Siver,Chris Guillebeau etc are making it big and you aren't? Here is why as 34 Top Bloggers Shares Their Greatest Success Secrets

    And This Is How To Pursue Your Dream When You Don't Have Money

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2798351].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stellaremar
    Irrelevant links are not totally bad backlinks they just have lower value. At least it have value than o backlinks. But I think as time go on and SEs continue improving their also and rankings site, these irrelevant links will decrease and decrease its value.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800155].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
      Originally Posted by stellaremar View Post

      Irrelevant links are not totally bad backlinks they just have lower value. At least it have value than o backlinks. But I think as time go on and SEs continue improving their also and rankings site, these irrelevant links will decrease and decrease its value.
      Or not. 9 posts! Congrats.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FranciscoDancon
    Irrelevant back linking works to bring rankings. If you want evidence, log into your wordpress blog and go to the comment moderation queue. Notice the hundreds and hundreds of irrelevant spam comment there for porn and viagra. If that tactic didn't work, people wouldn't be using it.


    Also, Xrumer is very popular. It wouldn't be popular if it were anything other than effective.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800281].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fanatic123
    That depends on how bad the backlink is. If they are poor, then they are still better than not having any backlinks!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800446].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Suka
    I have not once written an article about the subject matter of my website. ALL of my articles are written about "dogs" linking to a site about "womens jewelry" LOL

    Im number 1 for the anchor text from all those "irrelevant" "bad" links.. :p

    A link is a link, the only benefit you get from linking to the same content is if you want people who actually read the article to click through, if you just want the link juice. It does NOT matter..

    When i find a dud site, i simply edit the articles pointing to that site, and point them to a different site.. it takes a few weeks to update, but it works just fine
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2803039].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author joetheseo
      Originally Posted by Suka View Post

      I have not once written an article about the subject matter of my website. ALL of my articles are written about "dogs" linking to a site about "womens jewelry" LOL

      Im number 1 for the anchor text from all those "irrelevant" "bad" links.. :p

      A link is a link, the only benefit you get from linking to the same content is if you want people who actually read the article to click through, if you just want the link juice. It does NOT matter..

      When i find a dud site, i simply edit the articles pointing to that site, and point them to a different site.. it takes a few weeks to update, but it works just fine
      Links that contain relevant content are more valuable, but it also depends on the PR of the link. I mean, of course a non-relevant PR3 is going to out weigh a relevant PR0, etc. But If I'm getting article links, I always publish relevant content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2803274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author joetheseo
    i'm too lazy to explain, but the short answer is no. :rolleyes:

    Of course, "bad backlinks" can mean many things... If you're talking about Adult / porn links... probably not a good idea.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2803269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author entrepreneurjay
    I would definitely say so if your site is related to Internet marketing and your getting backlinks from Porn sites I am sure that would hurt you more than benefit you.
    Signature

    Free Internet Marketing Learning @ Resource Center P.D.F. Ebook Download Center http://jaysonlinereviews.com/free-in...ook-downloads/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2803776].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
      Originally Posted by entrepreneurjay View Post

      I would definitely say so if your site is related to Internet marketing and your getting backlinks from Porn sites I am sure that would hurt you more than benefit you.
      You can control who you link TO ... not who links TO YOU.

      How can a news site be "relevant" to any one "niche" or topic?

      Would you take a permalink from this irrelevant page?

      DRUDGE REPORT 2011®
      Signature
      Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2803806].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

        You can control who you link TO ... not who links TO YOU.

        How can a news site be "relevant" to any one "niche" or topic?

        Would you take a permalink from this irrelevant page?

        DRUDGE REPORT 2011®
        It would be painful to decline, but for political reasons no i would not:rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2803854].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bg-011
    Google changed code...
    BAD LINKS ARE BAD LINKS, stay away from them
    Signature
    http://www.MpowerWebStore.com low cost domains, hosting, WordPress
    http://www.Twicat.com your free classifieds better than Craigslist, Kijiji, Gumtree
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2965148].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by bg-011 View Post

      Google changed code...
      BAD LINKS ARE BAD LINKS, stay away from them
      OHH NOOOO.. the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

      I call BS. I guess I better just send "bad" links to my competitors' sites and i'll be #1 by next week.:rolleyes: Give me an f'in break.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2969377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialbookmark
    I am almost sure that no backlinks is better that bad backlinks. No backlinks doesn't promote your website but it doesn't hurt it too. But bad backlinks doesn't promote it and hurts it too.
    Signature

    I love warriorforum.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2966774].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author va_mom
    Bad links are still links and still counts... Just my opinion :-)
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967209].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rukshan
    No Backlinks = Same stage
    Bad Backlinks = Negative result
    Quality Backlinks = Improvement of Targeted Traffic

    That's the formula. Before making any backlinks, Browse the forum and check feedback of that method. At least you can find whether it's a working one or not.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967232].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author creativekone
    Its no. Bad Backlinks are sill better than not having any Backlinks.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967255].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author geegel
    Irrelevant linking is just that: irrelevant. Basically, even if they attract traffic it will be the kind that doesn't convert very well. You're better off if you focus on getting fewer but quality links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967263].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JackPowers
    Relevant backlinks are, all else being equal, better than irrellevant backlinks. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

    It's just that relevant backlinks are not that much better than irrellevant backlinks. Not enough to justify not getting irrellevant links.

    There are other concerns as well. In the long run, the links you get from related sites will probably stay longer and grow in value compared to the cheap links you can get elsewhere.

    That being said, my personal opinion is to use everything I possibly can. There's a place for all kinds of methods and linkbuilding in my opinion.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967354].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by geegel View Post

      Irrelevant linking is just that: irrelevant. Basically, even if they attract traffic it will be the kind that doesn't convert very well. You're better off if you focus on getting fewer but quality links.
      Are we talking about traffic, or backlinks for SEO? If you are talking about SEO, you sir are incorrect.

      Originally Posted by JackPowers View Post

      Relevant backlinks are, all else being equal, better than irrellevant backlinks. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.
      I'm still waiting on evidence or indication of this, other than someone just saying "well, that just makes sense.":rolleyes: My linking has indicated to me that this is not true. Of course, one could always define relevancy like Don, so as to make the use of the term irrelevant.

      In addition...
      whenever you get backlinks, there is either (1) a time cost, (2) $$$ cost, or (3) both a time and a $$$ cost. As a link seller myself, I can certainly attest that links coming from irrelevant sites do in fact help Google SERP ranking a lot. Now, even if we assumed that (1) relevant links were more "powerful" than irrelevant links, and (2) one can ascertain whether a given page was irrelevant or relevant (which I don't think you can), in almost all cases the opportunity cost of going the extra mile to go after "relevant" vs. "irrelevant" links just would not be worth it.


      Tom
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2969370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Williamson
    Originally Posted by Buyseech View Post

    Hi there,

    I am really curious to hear your oppinion on this subject.

    Are totally irelevant backlinks better or worse than 0 backlinks at all.

    I am not saying that the page doesnt have any backlinks to start out with.

    Example :

    Main page has 15 Ezine articles with unique quality content pointing to it. Social bookmarking is done the propper way and there are some forum posts and blog comments from relevant properties.

    Lets say 30 quality backlinks.

    I am just saying WHAT IF ( I do not intend to stray from my path of relevance backlinking only ) I would link from the other 300 Ezine articles that have no relation whatsoever with the main pages subject?

    Lets say I am in #4 on Google for the main keyword targeted in the main page and the top 5 have roughly about the same number of backlinks, except that the top 3 are much older.

    Whats your view on this. Will Google be inclined to the high PR link or will it see it as pure spam, due to no relevance nad just slap it .

    As I said ( I believe 2 times ) already, I will not use this and would just like to hear your comments.

    Sincerely, Buyseech
    The simple answer is no. I would think links from adult or illegal sites may hurt you, but that's obvious. But everything I've read from reputable marketers and SEOs says any backlink helps. In my experience backlinks from non-relevant sources are just as valuable as ones from 'relevant' content.
    Signature
    The Google Adwords Keyword Tool is hiding your valuable keywords!
    OFFLINERS, Start using this simple technique and these 6 "weapons" today to get more clients and skyrocket your conversions! - FREE, no opt-in.
    Make some money by helping me market this idea.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2970103].message }}

Trending Topics