Its easy for Google to tell if you've bought backlinks...

13 years ago

False, also you can just keep building links on a daily basis for it to look natural.

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Google update their algorithm to reflect what they count as "good" links every now and then but it's almost impossible to differentiate between paid and natural links.

Thanks
5 replies

Signature

Generate Unlimited Number of Micro Niche Keywords, Multi-threaded EMD Finder PLUS More!

50% OFF WSO.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612029].message }}

sam770

13 years ago

In order for backlinks to be natural you need to match 2 criteria:

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.
b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.
A person can't just pick several sites in the same area and decide that they are related to each other because Google has about 90 parameters to determine how much they truly belong to one another, based on internal linking and many other "hidden parameters"

So what you just said, match only the first criteria but not the second one and even this is if you work hard on a constant basis without taking any breaks - So that Google will not see a period with backlinks and a period with nothing.

Originally Posted by Clyde

False, also you can just keep building links on a daily basis for it to look natural.

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Google update their algorithm to reflect what they count as "good" links every now and then but it's almost impossible to differentiate between paid and natural links.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612048].message }}

John Romaine

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.

Wrong.

So when my press release is published and submitted and I receieve over 15,000 backlinks in less than 72 hours I should be penalised? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by sam770

b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.

My own personal experiences have proven otherwise. Backlinks are backlinks regardless of where they come from. Im pretty sure the guys over at BLF have busted this myth also.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612427].message }}

sam770

13 years ago

No, I am NOT wrong,
If you don't have backlinks at all (for a specific site) or you do have backlinks in a growing pace of a few backlinks a day and then within 1-2 days you get 15 000 backlinks it can definitely raise a red flag.

Also the other thing you said is not true, backlinks from areas that are not relevant are not so effective in the good case and can even harm a website in the worst case!

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Wrong.

So when my press release is published and submitted and I receieve over 15,000 backlinks in less than 72 hours I should be penalised? :rolleyes:

My own personal experiences have proven otherwise. Backlinks are backlinks regardless of where they come from. Im pretty sure the guys over at BLF have busted this myth also.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612756].message }}

John Romaine

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

No, I am NOT wrong

Yes you are.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612873].message }}

sam770

13 years ago

Trust me, I am not

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Yes you are.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612879].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

Trust me, I am not

So then you have the testimonials to prove that link baiting is more effective than purchasing backlinks?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612965].message }}

MikeFriedman

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

So then you have the testimonials to prove that link baiting is more effective than purchasing backlinks?

Testimonials do not prove which is more effective.

Both can be very effective for rankings.

The number of testimonials a product has is a poor barometer of its effectiveness. Testimonials can be bought, faked, and misleading.

There was a product a few years ago called The PC Edge. It had fantastic "testimonials" from customers. I know someone that bought $40,000 worth of their stock based on those testimonials, even though I advised him not to and told him cellphones were evolving in a way that would make it obsolete in less than a year. Their stuck plummeted to about $0.03. He lost it all.

If I were to believe testimonials, I would think that HydroxyCut is a great and healthy way to lose weight.

If I listened to people's testimonials, I would be convinced that Coors Light was a good beer.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613302].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Testimonials do not prove which is more effective.

Both can be very effective for rankings.

The number of testimonials a product has is a poor barometer of its effectiveness. Testimonials can be bought, faked, and misleading.

There was a product a few years ago called The PC Edge. It had fantastic "testimonials" from customers. I know someone that bought $40,000 worth of their stock based on those testimonials, even though I advised him not to and told him cellphones were evolving in a way that would make it obsolete in less than a year. Their stuck plummeted to about $0.03. He lost it all.

If I were to believe testimonials, I would think that HydroxyCut is a great and healthy way to lose weight.

If I listened to people's testimonials, I would be convinced that Coors Light was a good beer.

So if someone tells you I bought this widget and it worked you wouldn't believe them? What if 500 people told you the same thing? A 1000?

My point is there are enough vendors here selling links that we know by now whether backlinking to a site helps it or hurts it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613324].message }}

MikeFriedman

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

So if someone tells you I bought this widget and it worked you wouldn't believe them? What if 500 people told you the same thing? A 1000?

My point is there are enough vendors here selling links that we know by now whether backlinking to a site helps it or hurts it.

People who I knew and trusted, yes absolutely I would believe them.

A bunch of random people on a message forum... not so much.

I'm not saying that the backlink service providers are offering a bad service.

My point was just that if you want to compare buying backlinks versus link baiting, the number of testimonials one has versus the other is hardly a good way to show which is more effective.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613373].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

People who I knew and trusted, yes absolutely I would believe them.

A bunch of random people on a message forum... not so much.

I'm not saying that the backlink service providers are offering a bad service.

My point was just that if you want to compare buying backlinks versus link baiting, the number of testimonials one has versus the other is hardly a good way to show which is more effective.

I respectfully disagree with you of course. Google ranks sites according to social proof. The more sites that link to a site the better chance that site is relevant to their serps product. Pretty safe system really. In the same way the more testimonials one method has over the other would tell me everything I needed to know about which method was more effective.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613564].message }}

paulgl

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

The more sites that link to a site the better chance that site is relevant to their serps product. Pretty safe system really.

LOL! That's so friggin' true, it's funny! Google has a dang safe system!
You wouldn't know it by all the BS people do and spout off. Look at
the worriers, the google haters, the google fear mongers!!! The people
who have been banned, dropped, penalized, de-indexed! You'd think
google is unsafe!

99% of the people use google just fine and have no fear. In fact, they
have no clue they should fear google! The other 1% are here at the WF.

How does the all-knowing google know a paid link? Why is
it such a myth that google hates paid links? Their whole
empire is based on paid links.

Problem is, people take what google says and does
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context. They only
quote half.

I make more money off of paid links, and more adsense money on
the sites I have MORE paid links! Many of these sites carry
authority, appear in google instant, get bread crumbs, etc.

Go figure.

Why would google hate and care if you bought links? They
friggin' sell links!

So, they would love it if you got 100,000 spammed links, but
hate it if you bought 10 fantastic links? And their crack staff
could tell that those links were bought?

Get logical people.

Oh but here's a big tip. Don't offer any WSO that links to
any page you care about. You know. Those pages are
doomed. Paid links dontcha know.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

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

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613891].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

LOL! That's so friggin' true, it's funny! Google has a dang safe system!
You wouldn't know it by all the BS people do and spout off. Look at
the worriers, the google haters, the google fear mongers!!! The people
who have been banned, dropped, penalized, de-indexed! You'd think
google is unsafe!

99% of the people use google just fine and have no fear. In fact, they
have no clue they should fear google! The other 1% are here at the WF.

How does the all-knowing google know a paid link? Why is
it such a myth that google hates paid links? Their whole
empire is based on paid links.

Problem is, people take what google says and does
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context. They only
quote half.

I make more money off of paid links, and more adsense money on
the sites I have MORE paid links! Many of these sites carry
authority, appear in google instant, get bread crumbs, etc.

Go figure.

Why would google hate and care if you bought links? They
friggin' sell links!

So, they would love it if you got 100,000 spammed links, but
hate it if you bought 10 fantastic links? And their crack staff
could tell that those links were bought?

Get logical people.

Oh but here's a big tip. Don't offer any WSO that links to
any page you care about. You know. Those pages are
doomed. Paid links dontcha know.

Paul

Sometimes the folks most vocal about SEO really should be the most quiet about it. The more they talk the more they reveal their ignorance on the topic. Present company not included of course.

Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616523].message }}

John Romaine

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

Trust me, I am not

I've recently sold two large database driven sites that I owned for years. Since 2004 actually. Both with over 15,000 members each.

1 site has over 24,000 pages indexed, the other, just under 6,000 pages.

If I put a link in the footer of those two sites combined alone, I can literally have 20,000+ backlinks within a matter of days.

This method is PROVEN to work, time and time again, with great results. The same goes for press releases.

Let me ask you this, (and god knows this has been discussed on here time and time again) ....if your site was picked up by a large PR company and pushed out over thousands of sites within a few hours, do you think Google is going to penalise you for this????

Absolutely not.

Then again, perhaps you need to clarify your definition of what exactly RED FLAG means???????

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613029].message }}

dcristo

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

I've recently sold two large database driven sites that I owned for years. Since 2004 actually. Both with over 15,000 members each.

1 site has over 24,000 pages indexed, the other, just under 6,000 pages.

If I put a link in the footer of those two sites combined alone, I can literally have 20,000+ backlinks within a matter of days.

This method is PROVEN to work, time and time again, with great results. The same goes for press releases.

Let me ask you this, (and god knows this has been discussed on here time and time again) ....if your site was picked up by a large PR company and pushed out over thousands of sites within a few hours, do you think Google is going to penalise you for this????

Absolutely not.

Then again, perhaps you need to clarify your definition of what exactly RED FLAG means???????

That doesn't really disprove what he said.

Sitewide links don't count as individual links. So if you have a footer link on a 6,000 page site, its not the same as having a single link on 6,000 different sites.

Also what you said about getting syndicated on PR sites doesn't prove much either, since these outlets are respected sites, which can't be said when you blast links on a ton of spammy sites etc.

Thanks

Signature

Are you wanting to learn all the poker lingo?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613304].message }}

Talen

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

No, I am NOT wrong,
If you don't have backlinks at all (for a specific site) or you do have backlinks in a growing pace of a few backlinks a day and then within 1-2 days you get 15 000 backlinks it can definitely raise a red flag.

Also the other thing you said is not true, backlinks from areas that are not relevant are not so effective in the good case and can even harm a website in the worst case!

And your proof of this is?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4614173].message }}

paulgl 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Talen

And your proof of this is?

The so-called "proof" is actually opposite, as you well know.
That's why people fill this forum with sig links. Mostly unrelated.
And I can guarantee that a link here has authority like not
many other forums. A sig link here matters, niche irrelevant.

Funny how empires like go.com, zap2it, failblog, etc., use their
unrelated sites to hook up is quite telling.

If you got 100,000 great links, google would love it. It's
called going viral.

But just because google also loves freshness, people mistake
cause and effect.

I can see it now. The people who believe this stuff had better
start putting caveats on their websites:please don't link
to me! I don't want a lot of links fast, and I don't want to get
links from non-related sites! Please don't harm me!

When the veil of lunacy is stripped away, reality is left. But,
no wise man can reason away what a fool believes.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4614225].message }}

BIG Mike

Banned 13 years ago

Sam, no offense brother, but it's this kind of misguided information that confuses everyone - don't parrot what you've read elsewhere without understanding it first.

Originally Posted by sam770

In order for backlinks to be natural you need to match 2 criteria:

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.

No. No. No.

A gradual accumulation of back links is not "Natural" by any means. From experience with testing backlinks, I can say emphatically that Google doesn't care if you get one or a million all at once.

Years ago, this was a known flag, before Google's algos matured with more sophisticated technology.

Google cannot tell the difference unless the links are coming from what they consider "Bad Neighborhoods", i.e., link farms, known link aggregators (those that charge), etc.

b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.
A person can't just pick several sites in the same area and decide that they are related to each other because Google has about 90 parameters to determine how much they truly belong to one another, based on internal linking and many other "hidden parameters"

So what you just said, match only the first criteria but not the second one and even this is if you work hard on a constant basis without taking any breaks - So that Google will not see a period with backlinks and a period with nothing.

Yes and no - The best "Link Juice" is gained from related topics. Unless you're a linguistics genius, the "Relationship" between links and anchor text for a given site is based on LSA/I. This is their vector-based algo that in overly simplistic terms looks for relevance based on overall context.

For example, the WF, like most forums, is unrelated to the majority of sites people link to in their sigs on a topic level. Yet, Google includes backlinks from it, regardless.

And you failed to mention any outbound links to related sites, which is also important on an authority level.

Regardless, Google doesn't exactly know for certain a link is artificial or natural as you put it. They can identify when a link is from a bad place, but Google doesn't know if a bot created it, a paid person like a VA or linking service or you did it yourself.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612535].message }}

sam770

13 years ago

Hi Mike,
With all respect I must disagree with you,
According to my experience (over 9 years) a massive amount of backlinks in a very short time can definitely raise a red flag.
Believe me, I have several powerful tools that I can use to create REALLY big amounts of backlinks in a very short time, if it was good for my business I wouldn't think twice and do it. I am not doing so because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread.

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

Sam, no offense brother, but it's this kind of misguided information that confuses everyone - don't parrot what you've read elsewhere without understanding it first.

No. No. No.

A gradual accumulation of back links is not "Natural" by any means. From experience with testing backlinks, I can say emphatically that Google doesn't care if you get one or a million all at once.

Years ago, this was a known flag, before Google's algos matured with more sophisticated technology.

Google cannot tell the difference unless the links are coming from what they consider "Bad Neighborhoods", i.e., link farms, known link aggregators (those that charge), etc.

Yes and no - The best "Link Juice" is gained from related topics. Unless you're a linguistics genius, the "Relationship" between links and anchor text for a given site is based on LSA/I. This is their vector-based algo that in overly simplistic terms looks for relevance based on overall context.

For example, the WF, like most forums, is unrelated to the majority of sites people link to in their sigs on a topic level. Yet, Google includes backlinks from it, regardless.

And you failed to mention any outbound links to related sites, which is also important on an authority level.

Regardless, Google doesn't exactly know for certain a link is artificial or natural as you put it. They can identify when a link is from a bad place, but Google doesn't know if a bot created it, a paid person like a VA or linking service or you did it yourself.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612797].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

Hi Mike,
With all respect I must disagree with you,
According to my experience (over 9 years) a massive amount of backlinks in a very short time can definitely raise a red flag.
Believe me, I have several powerful tools that I can use to create REALLY big amounts of backlinks in a very short time, if it was good for my business I wouldn't think twice and do it. I am not doing so because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread.

Another post from a link bait writer slamming backlinking services. I guess the only thing to do is compare the number of testimonials you have gathered in your 9 years of experience. Surely you must have thousands of them. Then you can check out the testimonials of the backling vendors here on the forum.

Should be fairly easy litmus test to implement to see if backlinking is really indeed ineffective.

Game?

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612832].message }}

BIG Mike

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

Hi Mike,
With all respect I must disagree with you,
According to my experience (over 9 years) a massive amount of backlinks in a very short time can definitely raise a red flag.
Believe me, I have several powerful tools that I can use to create REALLY big amounts of backlinks in a very short time, if it was good for my business I wouldn't think twice and do it. I am not doing so because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread.

Well Rebecca, my experience in SEO goes back to it's beginnings in 1994. I have tested, tracked and analyzed virtually every SEO technique that has come along over those years.

The difference is that my analysis of said techniques was and continues to be objective and not based on promoting a link bait service like yours.

On your website, you claim, "We simply know to "speak" the "Google Language"! We know what Google likes and we know how it likes it.
", - really? Have you researched and analyzed Google's algorithms? Have you tested their core linguistics technology (LSA/I)?

What empirical data do you have backing up your OP? I can say emphatically that you have none. Want to know why I know that?

I checked out your site at loyalwriter dot com. It's among the most poorly optimized (SEO) sites I've seen. I did a quick search on your keywords and here are the results (kind of amusing):

1. Writer - you didn't rank for that one. Ironically, one of my sites, Incansoft.com ranks on page 1 in the 9th and 10th positions for that term.

2. Quality - not ranked.

3. SEO - not ranked.

4. Content - not ranked, but again my incansoft.com site is ranking on page 1 for that keyword in the 9th position.

5. Article - not ranked and guess what? Incansoft.com is on page one at positions 9 and 10.

NOTE: Not Ranking in this case means the domain was not listed on the first 3 pages (wasn't wasting more time than that, LOL).

Those are ridiculously broad keywords for anyone to tackle, let alone non-aggressively. I even tried a variety of phrases from your site and description with no luck. I had to enter the entire description to get your site to come up.

On your website you state, "If you own a website, you already know that the major way to increase the incoming traffic to your website and get more business is to rank high in the search results of Google™, MSN™ and Yahoo™."

I do not see your site ranking high at all without intentionally skewing the search criteria to find it. By skewing I mean long phrases copied from your site - phrases far longer than a typical searcher would enter.

That said, you also asked this question on your site, "But how will you get there?"

I'm kinda wondering that about how "You" expect to get there. Rebecca, your site is coming up on being one year old and you're just not "Walking the talk".

You can throw Matt Cutts name out there all you want - he doesn't impress me in the least, mainly because he often give intentionally misleading or uneducated advice.

I am not dissing your article writing capabilities because I do not know what they are, but I am calling you out on your claims to know Google and SEO. Your OP is a fallacy, an Internet or SEO myth, that you're simply parroting to promote your article writing service.

But one has to question the efficacy of your services when you are obviously unable to get your own website optimized for SEO and ranking well in SERPS.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4618823].message }}

SEOAffordable

13 years ago

I call BS on the whole :links grow gradually argument.

The fact is, for big companies, they don't grow gradually at all.

Major prescription drug companies don't gain many links at all for long periods, but if they receive approval on a new drug by the FDA, they would gain thousands of links in only a few days.

How does that fit?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616480].message }}

Aussie_Al

13 years ago

Originally Posted by SEOAffordable

I call BS on the whole :links grow gradually argument.

The fact is, for big companies, they don't grow gradually at all.

Imagine if you had a little sports blog and one day your site was the onyl one to feature some crazy fan doing something insane that was captured on a cell phone video?

Back links to your site would be in the millions in a day as people told their friends "OMG you have to see this video" Would Google then penalize this site? No they would not it would come up straight away.

I am sure and someone correct me if I am wrong - didn't something similar happen with the Huffington Post breaking some political news and that put them on the map?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Punk Lyrics
A-1 Survival

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4622888].message }}

michael scott

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Aussie_Al

Imagine if you had a little sports blog and one day your site was the onyl one to feature some crazy fan doing something insane that was captured on a cell phone video?

Back links to your site would be in the millions in a day as people told their friends "OMG you have to see this video" Would Google then penalize this site? No they would not it would come up straight away.

I am sure and someone correct me if I am wrong - didn't something similar happen with the Huffington Post breaking some political news and that put them on the map?

Everyone forgot the most important thing here and that's trust and authority.

A sudden influx of links from Huffington Post, NYtimes, WSJ, etc.

is alot different from

A sudden influx of links from comment blasts, profile blasts, article blasts, etc.

The latter approach will definitely get you caught in the filter for a while.

The key thing here is trust/authority. I'd rather take a spike of millions of authoritative links than some ****ty spam links that can be bought from fiverr. This is why big companies who start new domains hardly get filtered by Google because their links come from authority parent company sites and links coming from credible sources.

As far as sniper sites go, how many of these thin affiliate, MFA sites ever get high profile PR coverage that allows them to receive good links like that?

Also for those who say Google doesn't give a damn about your site (not naming any names) because they're such a huge billion dollar company - don't forget who made them such a huge billion dollar company, and that's us webmasters.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4623167].message }}

John Romaine 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Clyde

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Absolutely, I agree.
- Thanks
Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612445].message }}

david carr

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Clyde

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612520].message }}

John Romaine

13 years ago

Originally Posted by david carr

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

What exactly does this prove/disprove?

Your graph doesnt tell us anything.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612732].message }}

david carr

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

What exactly does this prove/disprove?

Your graph doesnt tell us anything.

Funny how the person under your comment got it straight away.

It is a graph from the Market Samurai rank tracker, I think it is pretty self explanatory.

"Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed."

So I respectfully proved to them it is not impossible.

Regards
Dave

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612948].message }}

John Romaine

13 years ago

Originally Posted by david carr

Funny how the person under your comment got it straight away.

It is a graph from the Market Samurai rank tracker, I think it is pretty self explanatory.

"Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed."

So I respectfully proved to them it is not impossible.

Regards
Dave

Whats funny about it?

I see two squiggly lines, nothing else.

It doesnt tell me...

1. Whos sites they are
2. What sites they are
3. What changes were done to those two sites
5. A million other factors that could have contributed towards the downward trend

I can throw together a quick screenshot in Market Samurai here too, but it doesnt exactly say much with a few squiggles and some MS Paint effects.

PS - And because they commented "Oh, this makes SEO even dirtier!" means they "got it" ????

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612982].message }}

david carr

13 years ago

I take it you dont track your ranks with market samurai, I'm sorry I should have explained.

My Bad!

The blue is google the red is bing, the two squiggly lines show the rank, obviously the bottom one is the date, you can tell this by the dates being accross the bottom so that leaves the rank on the left and I pointed out where a scrapebox blast occured so you could see what happened after!

Hope this clears up the mis-understanding.
Regards
Dave

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613038].message }}

John Romaine

13 years ago

Originally Posted by david carr

I take it you dont track your ranks with market samurai, I'm sorry I should have explained.

My Bad!

The blue is google the red is bing, the two squiggly lines show the rank, obviously the bottom one is the date, you can tell this by the dates being accross the bottom so that leaves the rank on the left and I pointed out where a scrapebox blast occured so you could see what happened after!

Hope this clears up the mis-understanding.
Regards
Dave

No misunderstanding, as I do monitor my own rankings within MS also.

Its just that throwing up such an uninformative image to prove a point doesnt really prove anything.

Ive got plenty of MS statistical data that shows similiar downward trends. Most of them could be due to any number of things...

a) algorithm updates
b) changes to seo onsite
c) changes to seo offsite
d) competitive activity and promotion

....the list goes on.

I can say with all certainty that when I blast links out to some of my sites also that they nosedive. They do it every time. But in just about every case - they come back stronger.

Sometimes it takes hours, sometimes it takes months. It depends on so many potentially unknown contributing factors that theres no way I could say with any certainty that it was "definitely because of this".

If what you say is true, Id like to see a case study performed, in a controlled environment. Even still ....thats probably a waste of time anyway, because again, theres no real way of knowing with 100% certainty.

Suggesting that you can simply blast someones site with a few scrapebox links and have them dissapear out of the rankings, goes against what almost every SEO professional on this planet would tell you otherwise.

Just something to think about.

Thanks

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613108].message }}

Liam Hamer

13 years ago

Originally Posted by david carr

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

What exactly does this prove/disprove?

Your graph doesnt tell us anything.

Originally Posted by david carr

Funny how the person under your comment got it straight away.

It is a graph from the Market Samurai rank tracker, I think it is pretty self explanatory.

"Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed."

So I respectfully proved to them it is not impossible.

Regards
Dave

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Whats funny about it?

I see two squiggly lines, nothing else.

It doesnt tell me...

1. Whos sites they are
2. What sites they are
3. What changes were done to those two sites
5. A million other factors that could have contributed towards the downward trend

I can throw together a quick screenshot in Market Samurai here too, but it doesnt exactly say much with a few squiggles and some MS Paint effects.

PS - And because they commented "Oh, this makes SEO even dirtier!" means they "got it" ????

From what I can understand, the downward trend started as a result of a Scrapebox blast - i.e blasting thousands of blog comments or similar. I know, because a similar thing happened to one of my sites recently

I stupidly(had never had anything to do with Scrapebox/Xrumer services before) ordered a Scrapebox blast on Fiverr and the seller ended up blasting more than double the amount of links that I wanted. The following day, my site dropped like a stone for EVERY keyword he blasted.

That was towards the end of July, and still my site is way down at the bottom of the listings for those keywords. I'm hoping it's just a really long Google Dance. Time will tell. My site is still indexed, and actually ranks in the top 10 for one of the keywords that WASN'T blasted. I have kept building quality/varied links for it and have ordered a link building WSO(nothing to do with Scrapebox this time!) to hopefully help get it back up again.

Generally speaking, I don't think there is anything wrong with buying links, as long as they are good quality - but buy massive amounts of 'blasts' with Scrapebox and the like, and you could well be drawing some negative attention to your sites from Google.

This is a very interesting, ongoing thread about this subject - and this guy makes some very good points in my opinion.

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...deindexed.html

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613110].message }}

eubertmo 13 years ago

Originally Posted by david carr

I respectfully disagree with your statement above, you can use backlinks as a weapon:

Regards
Dave

Oh, this makes SEO even dirtier!
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612738].message }}

Newbieee

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Clyde

False, also you can just keep building links on a daily basis for it to look natural.

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed.

Google update their algorithm to reflect what they count as "good" links every now and then but it's almost impossible to differentiate between paid and natural links.

yup i ever tot about that logic and i agree.

Thanks

Signature

Pain is a perception, so is defeat & happiness!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613301].message }}

Bulldozer 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Clyde

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed

I read that many black hat people do exactly that - they create tons of spammy back links to their competitor's sites and get those competing sites penalized / sandboxed.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4623309].message }}

Giani

13 years ago

It is true that Google will know if you buy bulk backlinks. It is better to build them manually slowly, like few everyday rather than buying 5,000 in 2 days.

.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612060].message }}

michalsemen

13 years ago

I have an example of blogger who has been just penalized from google because of spam link building. Regarding paid links I think natural ways are always good.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612199].message }}

ADHD Charlie

13 years ago

If Google can find paid links they hammer, but other links even from bad neighbourhoods are not normally considered. Matt Cutts said this explaining that if it were so competitors could sabotage your site. (Normally I take what Matt Cutts says with a spoonful of salt, but because he added the explanation I believe him this time.)

However Google might not count them if they are suspicious. Links that go from your own site can get you banned if they go to bad guys, as you have control as to whom you link to.

Google consider you responsible for paid links.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612267].message }}

onegoodman

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ADHD Charlie

If Google can find paid links they hammer, but other links even from bad neighbourhoods are not normally considered. Matt Cutts said this explaining that if it were so competitors could sabotage your site. (Normally I take what Matt Cutts says with a spoonful of salt, but because he added the explanation I believe him this time.)

However Google might not count them if they are suspicious. Links that go from your own site can get you banned if they go to bad guys, as you have control as to whom you link to.

Google consider you responsible for paid links.

I agree Google can find out of you bought links when you get 5000 link on one day (as long as you don't own amazon or eBay where 1000,000 a day).

However, google will not get you penalized just because you bought some links otherwise, it would be easy to get rid of all your competitors

Thanks

Signature

5 figure passive income

Hire Quality Virtual Assistants at affordable rate

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612365].message }}

Fraggler

13 years ago

Sam, you will get a better response to these sorts of topics (backlinks) in the SEO sub-forum.

Thanks

Signature

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

Connect with me on LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612297].message }}

Greg guitar

13 years ago

I think like in a lot of areas, moderation is the key. I bought about 460 links for a video I'd just posted about 2 months ago, and without doing anything else, it ranked page 1 in less than six hours, and has stayed there for 2 months, and now ranks page 2 for a variation.

I haven't done anything since buying that 1 package on day 1. Maybe I'll be punished, but for now, I'm being rewarded.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612460].message }}

trytolearnmore

13 years ago

If that were true, almost all SEO services here on WF would run out of business

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612742].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

How do you explain the success of all the backlink vendors here on the forum? You're telling us Warriors keep buying services that don't work???

You just indirectly called thousands of Warriors here on the forum ignorant.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612816].message }}

simonpieman

13 years ago

"How do you explain the success of all the back-link vendors here on the forum? You're telling us Warriors keep buying services that don't work???"

YES that's exactly right. People buy stuff that doesn't work- taken in by the lure of shortcuts and easy gains. Its human nature.. happens all the time in life ( especially in internet marketing). The people claiming they have fantastic long term results from buying back links?- if you look they're mostly selling back-links in their signature.

But first off lets just make sure we're 100% crystal clear on Google's position on buying links as some people seem to be fudging the issue a bit:

"Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such as excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank. If you see a site that is buying or selling links that pass PageRank, let us know. We'll use your information to improve our algorithmic detection of such links"
From Google webmaster Tools

So- putting aside all the attempts to crystal gaze into Google's secret ranking formula - lets just at least have the decency to admit it: Paid back-links to manipulate search engine PR results is 100% black hat and Google will never NEVER tire at smoking you out if you engage in it.

Lets also clear up the nonsense that there's no difference between a paid press release or Adwords advertising and buying backlinks to increase Page Rank. Buying links for traffic is not against Google rules. Buying to manipulate PR is. They clearly understand the difference between a press release and paid back link.

So that's right...let it sink in. Every advert you see on this forum selling back links that promise to improve your ranking is in violation of Google's 'guidelines' (i.e RULES). Forget morals. In purchasing back links like this you have just made yourself an enemy of Google. Long term that is a pretty stupid business decision.

A common way that purchased back links fool people is that those who buy them don't actually need them. For example they are trying to rank for a low competition/low search keyword phrase. The job could have been done by writing a couple of articles on Ezine and adding a few social bookmarks and making sure their on page SEO was accurate. But they've been told that back-links are vital and that they MUST have them at all costs. So they buy low grade links and blast them at the site. When...surprise surprise the site begins to rank they think its wonderful. The reality is they could have got the results for free but they paid someone instead- and they have put the site at risk. Great!

The big way that back link sellers fool people, though, is because the links work in the short term. You often get a burst of traffic and everything is wonderful. Then the links start to get devalued over time as Google continually revises their algorithms or the existing algorithm works out what you've been doing- And what you've been doing is purchasing back-links to manipulate rankings (however subtle you think you've been.)

The process of penalizing may take longer or shorter ... but it will usually happen.

Look for Mark Knowles on Hub pages. He provides a more honest account of how buying back links worked: "Inrease your pagerank with automatic software - don't kid yourself"
key quote "I had the page rank reduced on all the sites I was using this on and in one case had a -3 penalty applied". Short term all looks rosy- within a few months...not looking so good.
However, before the links start to turn sour people write all those glowing testimonials to the back-link companies telling them how wonderful they are.

Even if some back-links escape falling foul of Google right now- you will always be at risk of any Google updates in the future. Lets re-iterate it: Google will NEVER stop trying to smoke you out if you manipulate their search engine. I think its safe to say that it is NOT an idle threat from them.

So place your bets....Google and its multi million dollar outfit on one hand. You and your back link peddlers on the other. Who is going to win ultimately???

As I say- when people are offered shortcuts it can blind them to an obvious truth.

Of course if you're a committed black hat practitioner then you should already know that back link purchasing is a short term strategy: bump your sites up with artifical link juice, cloaking and keyword spam, grab the cash and then run before the site gets de-indexed. Rinse ad repeat. Getting harder to do though apparently and you do have to look yourself in the mirror every day.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4614836].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by simonpieman

"How do you explain the success of all the back-link vendors here on the forum? You're telling us Warriors keep buying services that don't work???"

YES that's exactly right. People buy stuff that doesn't work- taken in by the lure of shortcuts and easy gains. Its human nature.. happens all the time in life ( especially in internet marketing). The people claiming they have fantastic long term results from buying back links?- if you look they're mostly selling back-links in their signature.

But first off lets just make sure we're 100% crystal clear on Google's position on buying links as some people seem to be fudging the issue a bit:

"Google works hard to ensure that it fully discounts links intended to manipulate search engine results, such as excessive link exchanges and purchased links that pass PageRank. If you see a site that is buying or selling links that pass PageRank, let us know. We'll use your information to improve our algorithmic detection of such links"
From Google webmaster Tools

So- putting aside all the attempts to crystal gaze into Google's secret ranking formula - lets just at least have the decency to admit it: Paid back-links to manipulate search engine PR results is 100% black hat and Google will never NEVER tire at smoking you out if you engage in it.

Lets also clear up the nonsense that there's no difference between a paid press release or Adwords advertising and buying backlinks to increase Page Rank. Buying links for traffic is not against Google rules. Buying to manipulate PR is. They clearly understand the difference between a press release and paid back link.

So that's right...let it sink in. Every advert you see on this forum selling back links that promise to improve your ranking is in violation of Google's 'guidelines' (i.e RULES). Forget morals. In purchasing back links like this you have just made yourself an enemy of Google. Long term that is a pretty stupid business decision.

A common way that purchased back links fool people is that those who buy them don't actually need them. For example they are trying to rank for a low competition/low search keyword phrase. The job could have been done by writing a couple of articles on Ezine and adding a few social bookmarks and making sure their on page SEO was accurate. But they've been told that back-links are vital and that they MUST have them at all costs. So they buy low grade links and blast them at the site. When...surprise surprise the site begins to rank they think its wonderful. The reality is they could have got the results for free but they paid someone instead- and they have put the site at risk. Great!

The big way that back link sellers fool people, though, is because the links work in the short term. You often get a burst of traffic and everything is wonderful. Then the links start to get devalued over time as Google continually revises their algorithms or the existing algorithm works out what you've been doing- And what you've been doing is purchasing back-links to manipulate rankings (however subtle you think you've been.)

The process of penalizing may take longer or shorter ... but it will usually happen.

Look for Mark Knowles on Hub pages. He provides a more honest account of how buying back links worked: "Inrease your pagerank with automatic software - don't kid yourself"
key quote "I had the page rank reduced on all the sites I was using this on and in one case had a -3 penalty applied". Short term all looks rosy- within a few months...not looking so good.
However, before the links start to turn sour people write all those glowing testimonials to the back-link companies telling them how wonderful they are.

Even if some back-links escape falling foul of Google right now- you will always be at risk of any Google updates in the future. Lets re-iterate it: Google will NEVER stop trying to smoke you out if you manipulate their search engine. I think its safe to say that it is NOT an idle threat from them.

So place your bets....Google and its multi million dollar outfit on one hand. You and your back link peddlers on the other. Who is going to win ultimately???

As I say- when people are offered shortcuts it can blind them to an obvious truth.

Of course if you're a committed black hat practitioner then you should already know that back link purchasing is a short term strategy: bump your sites up with artifical link juice, cloaking and keyword spam, grab the cash and then run before the site gets de-indexed. Rinse ad repeat. Getting harder to do though apparently and you do have to look yourself in the mirror every day.

We have enough testimonials to choke a horse and you have the audacity to say all the Warriors who left them were incorrect in the fact they really did not get to page one?

Our thread in which we sell ouyr service is over a year old. Not sure how you would think we were cut and running.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616491].message }}

simonpieman

13 years ago

- I don't care much for reading testimonials. They send me to sleep...especially when they're on sales pages.

- I happily admit I don't know much: But fact of the mater is you may have found some very clever ways to make the purchased backlinks look 'natural' for now - maybe they'll even last for a cople of years. But you're still putting yourself in opposition to Google. They DON'T want you doing it - they're crystal clear about that.

Pitching yourself against Google (one of the biggest organizations on the planet) is in no way a sensible or long term business strategy whichever way you cut it.

Reliable marketers with many years of experience and no reason to lie all advise against manipulating page rank through purchased links. When i'm able to post links I would happily include a dozen or more high trust sources all giving thorough explanations of why paid links of this kind are mostly useless.

In choosing which direction to place my efforts I follow their guidance over someone trying to sell back-links ...every time.

Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616932].message }}

Greg guitar 13 years ago

Originally Posted by simonpieman

- I happily admit I don't know much:

Props for saying so, but the admission begs the question; why do you argue so vociferously with those that do?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4617061].message }}

LiamP

13 years ago

Originally Posted by simonpieman

Pitching yourself against Google (one of the biggest organizations on the planet) is in no way a sensible or long term business strategy whichever way you cut it.

I think this is a failure of imagination on your part.

Strategy A
Build a site. Follow Google all guidelines to the letter.
Chances of short term success - low.
You're just hoping.
Chances of long term success - low.
You're still hoping.
Essentially it's a crap shoot. The internet is full of wonderful, wonderful websites which don't rank for anything. Having never 'link baited successfully" .

Strategy B
Build a site. Follow Google guidelines for onpage factors (under your control) but ignore them for offpage factors (out of your control).
Chances for short term success - medium
All you have to do is keep building backlinks. You'll probably get there.
Money earned in the short term reinvested in website quality and continuous link building
Chances for long term success - medium->high.
All you have to do is keep building backlinks. You'll probably get there.
So long as your on-page is good Google will only ever devalue your links. That's ok 'cos you can just get more. Invested funds form early success (which Strategy A rarely gives) means you'll get more and more "natural" (whatever that means) links anyway, thus shoring up your site further.

Overall Strategy B has much, much better odds of long term success.

I also don't hold any truck with "buying links is bad for the internet". The great majority of bought links are never, ever seen by humans. So what are we left with? Businesses willing to invest resources to promote their business.
In general terms businesses that are investing in their businesses will provide a better result for their clients as they are investing more in themselves.
So buying links actually provides (in general terms, there are of course many examples where this is not true - but many more where it is) BETTER search results for everyone.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Robert A. Heinlein

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4617392].message }}

BIG Mike

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by simonpieman

But you're still putting yourself in opposition to Google. They DON'T want you doing it - they're crystal clear about that.

Tough ****...it's my site and I'll do what I want with it. It's none of Google's business how I obtain my back links.

Pitching yourself against Google (one of the biggest organizations on the planet) is in no way a sensible or long term business strategy whichever way you cut it.

Reliable marketers with many years of experience and no reason to lie all advise against manipulating page rank through purchased links. When i'm able to post links I would happily include a dozen or more high trust sources all giving thorough explanations of why paid links of this kind are mostly useless.

Not the least bit interested in what people I don't know are saying. I go with what I've tested and know works over the long-term. This is why I tend to ignore matt Cutts too.

The point you're missing is that Google created the situation by factoring the number of back links as a ranking criteria. Poor quality sites wash out of SERPS regardless of back links anyways. There are a couple hundred elements to Google's algorithm, most of which cannot be directly manipulated that still impact poorly optimized sites, like the OP's.

But we live in the age of automation, so getting paid or automated back links is not only smart business sense, it's an excellent use of the available technology.

The key point all the naysayers seem to be missing on this topic is the residual traffic that comes from those back links. You get 50K decent back links out on the net and you don't even need Google. That's what they really don't like - you're bypassing them altogether by gaining traffic directly, the old school way.

It's also the point the OP missed and for a self-proclaimed SEO expert, that's astounding to me.

I'll say again that there is a right way and a wrong way to do this - but I guarantee you, it's not the OP's way - I'd suggest you stop and listen to Matt laClear....

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4618927].message }}

Black Hat Cat

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by simonpieman

- I
Pitching yourself against Google (one of the biggest organizations on the planet) is in no way a sensible or long term business strategy whichever way you cut it.

Relying on Google period isn't a sensible strategy. You can do everything by the book, and they can still put you out of business.

Reliable marketers with many years of experience and no reason to lie all advise against manipulating page rank through purchased links.

How do you know they have no reason to lie? Because they told you so? That point aside, just because they aren't lying doesn't mean they aren't wrong. But if you prefer being a blind follower instead of thinking for yourself, more power to you.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4626206].message }}

Danny Cutts

13 years ago

negative SEO , that's quite funny!

if that was true, would you spend more time doing good SEO on your website or would you spend the time trying to damage your competition?

With SEO . Just remember make sure you build sites for the user. No one else!!!

However, there are ways in which you can do both. :-)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Come and See me on Facebook... Come and See me at my blog...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612831].message }}

Fraggler

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Danny Cutts

negative SEO , that's quite funny!

if that was true, would you spend more time doing good SEO on your website or would you spend the time trying to damage your competition?

Corporate SEOs don't spend time analysing their competition and reporting them for paid links to try and knock them down?

No company has been penalised for buying or selling links in the past?

JC Penney, Forbes, 1800 Flowers, Overstock, BMW are just some examples of companies that I know of that have been penalised.

We are just talking about crappy affiliate sites though, aren't we?

Thanks

Signature

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

Connect with me on LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616373].message }}

savvybizbuilder

13 years ago

It is obvious natural backlinks has more quality than artificial or from automated. But most of SEO nowadays are using software to build links. One should utilize both (manual & automated) in building backlinks.

Thanks

Signature

SAVVYONLINE BUSINESS BUILDER | 101 FREE TOOLS | TWITTER QUICK-START ACADEMY

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612868].message }}

LiftMyRank

13 years ago

I think way too many people are way too paranoid about what google does, do you really think a multi billion dollar company is worried about what a little ole warrior does? Oh that, and 20 million other websites with products/services online, pretty sure they aren't combing over everyone's link profiles looking for anomalies. Like I said before I don't think google has an issue with created links so long as they're embedded in unique quality content, as they always want more to categorize for the end user. It's link farms they have an issue with and why things like profile links don't work as well, no surrounding content. Play the game right and you can do very well.

Thanks

Signature

The #1 SEO Service on the Warrior Forum

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4612935].message }}

MoreTricks

13 years ago

guest blogging ,commenting and forum posting are the easy way to get backlinks .Do it and get pagerank high.I got page rank 2

Thanks

Signature

Arvixe Coupon
Justhost coupons

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613003].message }}

KevinBolty

13 years ago

Maybe in 5+ years Google will do better job recognizing natural backlinks, but now, well, after all big G is still easy to 'trick'

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613045].message }}

lordkensal

13 years ago

Now I am just terrible confused! Ultimately I guess that the levels I work, getting just a few back links a day will fly any "Google radar". Has anyone had success buying Paul's and Angela's links (i.e. from oDesk)?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just trying to wade through the Internet Marketing hype, find the good stuff and keep it simple - with the Internet Marketing Bootcamp

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613122].message }}

david carr

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Suggesting that you can simply blast someones site with a few scrapebox links and have them dissapear out of the rankings, goes against what almost every SEO professional on this planet would tell you otherwise.

Just something to think about.

I'm not interested in what other people say, If I did that then I would never have got into IM in the first place because obviously everything is a scam.

I've tested it and the results are shown in the image I posted.

You can build links to effect someones rankings in a bad way.

Regards
Dave

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613298].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

I see OP has enlisted the help of Matt Cutts on this topic. Anyone else see the the title to the thread change?

Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613332].message }}

sovon

13 years ago

Google ranking is a very important for SEO market. So need to carry on your web site to top in google rank.
Many of affiliate marketers use the Google PageRank as a reliable source to measure the popularity of the website. But many of them, in fact, many of internet users do not know how Google PageRank is actually evolved and what the notion behind it is. Ten years ago, the ranking was not the same as that of today, they were quite predictable. The search algorithm was more manually-driven than programmatically and so the search results from Google often showed the same websites over longer period of time. As a result of this, users were dependent on Google more as a site browsing tool. This is one of the facts about Google PageRanking

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613335].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Looks like OP just changed the thread title back again. I guess Matt Cutts wasn't as good of a witness as he hoped.

Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613343].message }}

tagged

13 years ago

I think google will notice it. cause google is very particular of the nature of the backlinks.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613385].message }}

guzpra

13 years ago

whoa! really interesting discussion and debate.. but I think I'm gonna try the method mentioned above such as purchasing links etc...

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4613531].message }}

Steadyon

13 years ago

The best way to avoid any google penalties, imagined or real, is to curl up inside a box like a dormouse, go to sleep and never do any backlinking ;-)

But don't moan and groan if you make zero income and you starve!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4614904].message }}

simonpieman

13 years ago

No, the best way is to do back-linking in a way that doesn't violate Googles' RULES. If you are interested in building long term gains over short term satisfaction. As I say- most back-linking services will do your sites considerable harm after a few months.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4615435].message }}

Steadyon

13 years ago

Originally Posted by simonpieman

No, the best way is to do back-linking in a way that doesn't violate Googles' RULES. If you are interested in building long term gains over short term satisfaction. As I say- most back-linking services will do your sites considerable harm after a few months.

Utter nonsense.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4615656].message }}

simonpieman 13 years ago

I'm a beginner and, after researching hard on this topic the sources I trust advise a beginer NOT to try purchased back links and certainly not to try it on any site you have long term ambitions for. At this point I have no reason to distrust these sources and every reason to distrust the various shady back-link hucksters that populate this site and others.

If its working for you then well done. Question is will it still be working for you in a year's time? Maybe you're more expert than me. Again well done but I still maintain that for most people it seems buying back-links that pass page rank is extremely inadvisable- resulting in, at best, wasted effort and, at worst, devaluing of your sites.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616303].message }}

yukon

Banned 13 years ago

What in the world is natural backlinking, LMAO (doesn't even make sense)!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4615666].message }}

LiamP

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

I think that artificial backlinks aren't very helpful to the site and it is also not very responsible to use them since a site can get penalized for them....The more "natural grids" you have, the better the reward from Google will be. .... backlinks are important but they must be created the right way....

Really? Then why did BeatThatQuote.com build a ton of artificial backlinks and get bought by Google themselves for 60 million? The artificial backlinks had to be pointed out to Google after they'd bought it.

If Google don't even spot the artificial backlinks on a site they are buying (and presumably doing due diligence on), why do you think they care about your site?
I'll take an unhelpful $60 million dollar penalty any day of the week

Google Bans Itself Again By Banning BeatThatQuote.com

Thanks

Signature

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Robert A. Heinlein

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616673].message }}

Izaya

Banned 13 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616683].message }}

Fraggler

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Izaya

I love warrior forum, so much bad information here sometimes it's remarkable. For the people saying build links slowly and don't buy links have fun in position 400+ or position 1 for your obscure term. I would love to see you try to rank for a CPC 40+ term with 40k+ searches doing that. I regularly hit my sites with 1k+ links at a time with ZERO side effects.

There's no denying that buying and blasting links work but that's not to say it isn't building your house on the sand.

I am very happy with the results I get from buying and blasting backlinks but I also know that isn't a service I could offer a 'real' business with a reputation to uphold and with a desire for a low risk approach. If I wanted to be a real SEO provider then I know I would have to focus on search engine marketing rather than how to acquire mass backlinks. I would have to focus on viral content creation; selective and discrete link buying opportunities; create a resource that others want to talk about without being paid.

I go the easy route with my affiliate sites because at the end of the day I don't have much to lose. If one site drops I will put up 3 more in its place. Mass article network submissions, forum profiles, blog comments, all that crap still works but I don't think it will always work. That's risky but a risk I'm willing to take.

(There are 3rd party tools that already profile a URL/domain's backlink history so I can't see why Google can't soon cull the crap).

Thanks

Signature

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

Connect with me on LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4616864].message }}

mesmerist

13 years ago

sam770, you are wrong. Totally.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4617556].message }}

rochan

13 years ago

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed. In the same way the more testimonials one method has over the other would tell me everything I needed to know about which method was more effective.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4619022].message }}

cooler1

13 years ago

Originally Posted by rochan

Negative SEO is impossible, otherwise people would just build "bad" links to competitors so their sites get sandboxed. In the same way the more testimonials one method has over the other would tell me everything I needed to know about which method was more effective.

Not true. People have been knocked down the SERP's for months for getting a sudden influx of backlinks. If that isn't negative SEO, what is?

Using your logic, that's like saying that sending dodgy traffic to a competitors site which automates clicks, couldn't get their adsense account banned. Which is definatly not true.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4622779].message }}

michael scott

13 years ago

BIG Mike,

Are you sure you rank 9/10th of page 1 for "writer"? I just checked and can't seem to find you anywhere.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4622351].message }}

BIG Mike Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by michael scott

BIG Mike,

Are you sure you rank 9/10th of page 1 for "writer"? I just checked and can't seem to find you anywhere.

Could be a difference in data centers? Saw them in there a couple of minutes ago...
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4622702].message }}
yukon Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by michael scott

BIG Mike,

Are you sure you rank 9/10th of page 1 for "writer"? I just checked and can't seem to find you anywhere.

Not even top 100, when I search.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4622746].message }}
- BIG Mike Banned 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by yukon
  
  Not even top 100, when I search.
  
  DoH! My bad - they were add on links from Google+ that friends had liked!
  
  When I saw them, I thought it was ironic, because they were keywords we weren't targeting in the first place.
  
  To see them in those positions, you would need to be one of my Google+ followers and sharing your +1 choices.
  
  Although off topic, that makes for an interesting twist on SEO as well. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before +1 links displace those at the top of the page rather than the bottom.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4625893].message }}

michael scott

13 years ago

could be that or something else. But I doubt it's anywhere in the top 3 pages for that keyword since that particular page isn't even optimized for the phrase and the majority of your backlink anchors are branded terms

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4622803].message }}

JamesGw

13 years ago

People are running some tests in this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...backlinks.html

I don't know why everyone has to turn this topic into some big argument. There's anecdotal evidence from both sides. For the most part, I feel like backlinks will not negatively affect a website's ranking, but I believe there are cases where they might.

Just spewing the whole correlation=/=causation thing isn't really a solid argument for backlinks not causing a penalty. The whole point of that statement is to look at the whole picture - not to automatically discount the part of it that contradicts your theories. I'm sure there have been several instances where backlinks were built and a site's ranking increased, but the backlinks actually had little or no effect. Hell, you can see that in the thread I posted above. Most of the sites haven't moved at all despite being hit with a fair number of links.

Anyway. My request is to stop slinging mud and to band together to do some real testing. I think I'm going to start an SEO Tests thread, actually. Maybe we can do something productive with this forum.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Techniques | Precision SEO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4623335].message }}

Caleb12 13 years ago

I never do or recommend buying links, but as long as you don't buy a lot of links in a short period of time you will be fine. For example if you buy 30 links that are very good and they are put up at the same time you will be fine, but if you buy 300 links at the same time then there is no links after that then that may look suspicious. I would just recommend a continual and natural type of link-building so you have a very low chance of getting penalized now or in the future.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4623409].message }}

trishseo

13 years ago

Originally Posted by sam770

I think that in many cases, Google WILL know if the backlinks to your site are real (natural) or "artificial."
I think that artificial backlinks aren't very helpful to the site and it is also not very responsible to use them since a site can get penalized for them.

When a backlink is real it will usually get reproduced on similar sites in the same area till there will be a grid of sites related to each other, linking to you site. The more "natural grids" you have, the better the reward from Google will be. It is also important to know that in this natural way the amount of backlinks will increase gradually and not through a "backlinking explosion"

Just my 2 cents to you guys - backlinks are important but they must be created the right way....

No offense but sometimes it's funny to me how people think that no matter what you do, Google will somehow find out. It's an algorithm that scans billions of pages online. It's not a guy who walks around with the eye of Sauron knowing you have broken the rules.

Sorry don't mean to be abrasive, just respectfully disagree.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4623783].message }}

blogworker

13 years ago

a. The amount of backlinks to your site needs to grow constantly and gradually.
b. They need to be related to each other in a natural way which is something that Google's alogrithm can determine.

yes, i also stand on the side of sam770.
i do not understand, why some guys have question on backlink quantity, i think it's easy, the more,the better. if not, why we pay much attention on backlinks? if not, what online marketing focus on?
besides, make backlins related with each other is much better than stand alone, isn't it ?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4625022].message }}

Its easy for Google to tell if you've bought backlinks...

Trending Topics

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?