Link farms effect the legitimate participants too.

[Ali-v-8]

As some of you are aware I have got a piece of software that spiders the web. By accident the software filter had a very good side effect. It correctly identified link farms.

Here is the question or sort of opinion search.

It is my opinion and with some experience, that being part of a link farm is bad.
Being part of a link farm and not knowing about it what is the best course of action?
If you are not part of a link farm but the person you link to is, how does that effect you.

I made call to a claims guy who was in this exact situation and found himself stripped of page rank, cache and position. I asked him how long it took to get back. He said he just restarted on a new website after spending 5 months trying to get back.
He also pointed out that his brothers Car hire company had also been effected even though it was not directly link to the farm like he was.
Is this unfair?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Google tell you not to link out to bad neighbourhoods. This is indeed fair, and is one reason why people MUSt be watchful for link exchanges. This is going to be really difficult, no actually it is impossible for me to explain fully, without giving a beginners guide to black hat linking strategy.

Safe to say that when you link out to someone yuou are recommending them, and if they turn out to be untrustworthy, then it is YOU who will suffer for recommending them in the fist place.

 

[SEO Lady]

He also pointed out that his brothers Car hire company had also been effected even though it was not directly link to the farm like he was.

Is this because they were from the same IP address?

 

[Ali-v-8]

No, Its because the claim company had linked to his brothers car hire company.
He got caught in the same net.
Link farms tend to have the same URL in all the websites.

Is this because they were from the same IP address?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Google uses technology known as clustering. It builds a link footprint of the web, and it clusters sites, based on topicology and also link footprint. OK, so in short, google knows who you hang out with, and if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd, you get beaten.

I have always compared it to dolphin swimming with the tuna. Nets can't differentiate well, so sometimes, the dolphins end up in the net, even though they can not be processed, so they are left for dead.

Outbound linking is a real big part of overall SEO.

 

[Ali-v-8]

This is where I get mixed up.
I always say that if you link TO a bad site, thats just as bad as linking FROM a bad website.
But others say that this is wrong.
I feel its best to avoid the bad because as the saying goes mud sticks.

Google uses technology known as clustering. It builds a link footprint of the web, and it clusters sites, based on topicology and also link footprint. OK, so in short, google knows who you hang out with, and if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd, you get beaten.

I have always compared it to dolphin swimming with the tuna. Nets can't differentiate well, so sometimes, the dolphins end up in the net, even though they can not be processed, so they are left for dead.

Outbound linking is a real big part of overall SEO.

 

[I, Brian]

Frankly, if someone claims he and his brother have "accidentally" ended up on a link farm, I'm going to be necessarily cynical.

Google tend to be pretty fair, and it takes pretty concerted action on the part of the webmaster to get kicked out IMO.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I think what has happened (assuming here), is that they have fallen victim to the old infamous 'resource layer link farm' method.

 

[webgeek]

There is ABSOLUTELY no harm in getting links FROM 'bad' sites. If there was a penalty, all I would have to do to knock you off the #1 spot is burn you with thousands of 'bad' links.

Your outbound links are a key part of your credibility.

FFA/Link-farms are not where I'd spend any money, but topically organised free directories can give a NICE boost. Xrumer blasts to those iffy sites can make some phenomenal gains on Google - this is one I know first-hand on a LOT of sites.

 

[I, Brian]

FFA/Link-farms are not where I'd spend any money, but topically organised free directories can give a NICE boost. Xrumer blasts to those iffy sites can make some phenomenal gains on Google - this is one I know first-hand on a LOT of sites.

I sincerely hope that every single person who uses Xrumer burns in hell. It's a piece of software that is designed to do nothing but damage, graffiti, and deface websites. The people who use it have no interest in what damage they cause and who they hurt.

It's also pointless - once Xrumer hits is a site successfully, that site becomes filled with pills, pron, and casino links and gives a huge flag to Google that this website should be devalued or simply killed. Google do this even to big company websites (the NME website forums have apparently been treated this way very recently because of this problem - About.com forums are also dead from this).

 

[webgeek]

Guns don't kill, people do. Take away guns, they use knives. Compare Glasgow and Kansas City murder rates per capita. Off topic? Hardly!

Xrumer is an automation tool, just like bots that do blog commenting, article and press release submission, directory submits, social bookmarking, and post pinging. In the wrong hands, yes it is a tool that can cause forums which are not managed properly to become FFA sites.

I'd seen some nasty blasts people have put out and they're not 'after the watershed' kind of nasty, but rather just a splattering of spam. I'm sure we've all seen irrelevant blog comments, Yahoo answers which have no purpose but to promote a site, and so on.

By the same token, proper automation tools are designed to save labour hours and NOT designed to erode the moral fibre of the internet.

People are responsible for email spam thanks to the CAN-SPAM Act, or similar. Perhaps it's time people were held responsible for their other spam actions....

I do not condone abusing any sites, but I am a big believer in better living through automation. Marketing responsibly is what separates those coloured hats (I think).

 

[I, Brian]

Xrumer is only a mass automation tool in that it automates the damaging of websites.

It specifically and aggressively tries to combat any existing anti-spam protection procedures and it is indiscriminate in how it tries to hit sites.

There's no defence for Xrumer - it does not automate any legitimate process - it merely allows people who have no souls or conscience to vandalise the web.

 

[Ali-v-8]

Then the will get arrested locked up and in some countries executed.
What we are saying is simply don't do it.
don't use a gun, don't use a knife, don't use a candle stick in fact dont play Cluedo or move onto Albert square.

Yes there will still be people who kill or use black hat but they deserve what they get.
People who unknowingly commit to these link farms should get a chance to redeem themselves. Ask Michelle_hd on hereshe had no idea about her involvement in a link farm.

Guns don't kill, people do. Take away guns, they use knives.

 

[DoLally]

Apologies if this has been discussed before - however my understanding of link building was Google would ignore the inbound link if it could not see any relevance, however you got kicked in the cahooners if you linked out to what turned out to be a link farm?

Therefore inbound links only had at worst a neutral effect on your site as Google simply ignored them anyway?

However my understanding of Google caffeine is that irrelevant inbound links will get kicked in the cahooners instead of the previous neutral stance.

Which will probably see the people who have paid £1000's for inbound link building (from irrelevant websites) getting caned by Google.

 

[Ali-v-8]

Google is taking the LAW stance on the matter now.
Ignorance is not a defence .
"I didnt know" no longer is an excuse.

Apologies if this has been discussed before - however my understanding of link building was Google would ignore the inbound link if it could not see any relevance, however you got kicked in the cahooners if you linked out to what turned out to be a link farm?

Therefore inbound links only had at worst a neutral effect on your site as Google simply ignored them anyway?

However my understanding of Google caffeine is that irrelevant inbound links will get kicked in the cahooners instead of the previous neutral stance.

Which will probably see the people who have paid £1000's for inbound link building (from irrelevant websites) getting caned by Google.

 

[Ali-v-8]

I think this is a good read for people who doubt link farms are bad its found on here Info

 

[webgeek]

Though the example referenced is unverified, the claim is that their OUTbound links were hidden and that's what got them in trouble.

There is no way that Google is going to penalise people for the actions of other sites. You won't be able to get a Google ban just because someone link-bombed you from spammy sites.

However, you surely can get penalised for what you do on your own site. Heck, I've had one site on their bad list for over a year, I believe due to over-optimised internal linking and keyword usage. There's a fine line between enough and too much, and if you're on a cheap .info domain, that line is very fuzzy

It's too bad that some people get taken advantage of and relying on the wrong person costs them money, or gets them into trouble, but it is the way of the world, and goes to prove Darwin had a point.

I do have to agree that link-farms are bad, and wouldn't lose any sleep if Google de-indexed all of them and even if they were taken offline.

 

[AaronB]

There is ABSOLUTELY no harm in getting links FROM 'bad' sites. If there was a penalty, all I would have to do to knock you off the #1 spot is burn you with thousands of 'bad' links.

Your outbound links are a key part of your credibility.

FFA/Link-farms are not where I'd spend any money, but topically organised free directories can give a NICE boost. Xrumer blasts to those iffy sites can make some phenomenal gains on Google - this is one I know first-hand on a LOT of sites.

I dont understand this? You say your outbound links are a key part of your credibility?

In that case you could just add url's to lots of highly rates sites, anyone can do that in their website, why would it make you credible?

 

[webgeek]

There is a finite amount of link-love that Google is going to give you for outbound links. They are just one tiny piece in that ubersecret algorithm.

You're not going to hit #1 for a competitive phrase just by filling your site with good outbound links, but every little helps.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I wrote this on Highrankings 5 years ago. At the time I was ridiculed for suggesting that outbound links helped your rankings.

how things change

OldWelshGuy Sep 29 2005, 06:13 PM Post #11

I have said for a long time that outbound links can help if done properly. I have certainly seen it help, but you have to do LOADS of work to make it work. You can make your page be seen as a hub page. To do this you have to make sure your pages are super focused on a subject, and that you are linking out to other high quality pages that are also super focused on the same subject.
I have certainly seen huge jumps when doing this.
BUT & here we go again, is it the link? Is it the site your linking to? or is it the fact that anchor text is seen as very important, and the fact that you have anchor text linking out from a focused page optimised for the anchor text anyhow.
I have said before that outbound links are one of the hardest elements to spam. You can spam inbound links, but if you are speaking about a subject, then there really is no way to spam. Think about it, how can you spam outbound links?
You settle down to try to spam and spend a load of time searching for pages that are very high quality and on topic that you can link to. Eventually you get the required volume of outbound links of a high enough quality, and WALLOP, your spamming attempt has just created a fantastic resource hub this is my logic anyhow, no real scientific proof, just some loose tests and the gut feeling (plus the above logic thought trail).

 

[tpowell]

I would avoid link farms at all costs, they are an outdated technique that could lead to you being sandboxed.