Be Careful in Link Building!

[InternetMarketer]

I want to remind everyone that after the latest update in Google's search algorithm (called Penguin), you must be very careful with link building for SEO.

Many sites in US are already penalised because they got lot of easy and spam links. I have a couple of clients from US, suffering from huge drops in rankings due to their old bad link building activity. This is happening now in the UK too.

---> Never get very easy links such as simple directories, comment, forum, spam links.
---> Never buy link building packages; don't forget anyone offering you 50 links guarantee for a low price is gonna do this in an automated way and add your links to the spam sites which are easily caught by Google

In short, stay away from these kinds of links:

• Spammy blog-roll links
• Link exchange networks – private and public network
• Comment spam
• Classified spam
• Forum signature spam
• Article marketing links with signature spam at the bottom of articles
• Free for all directories
• Too many links with same anchor text
• Sitewide backlinks
• "X number of links for $10" kind of links.

 

[simon field]

Would another method be to just not do it full stop?

Then you don't need to keep worrying about it do you?

 

[zigojacko]

Old news.

Anyone that doesn't understand that buying links is manipulative or spamming websites will get you penalised eventually, shouldn't be in charge of a website in my opinion.

Google launched the Penguin algorithm update in April 2012 and have been coming down hard on spammy, low quality links constantly since so I don't know where you've been for the past two years.

 

[Ninja Commerce]

Simon. Yes it would be easier just not doing any link building. The problem is that in reality most new websites will really struggle to get any traction without putting some work into getting links.

Although in all honesty, the most effective link building is, ironically the stuff that you do for the traffic, networking and brand recognition - as opposed to doing it for the links.

Really of course, that type of link building is closer to what used to be called PR...

 

[arold10]

Simon. Yes it would be easier just not doing any link building. The problem is that in reality most new websites will really struggle to get any traction without putting some work into getting links.

Although in all honesty, the most effective link building is, ironically the stuff that you do for the traffic, networking and brand recognition - as opposed to doing it for the links.

Really of course, that type of link building is closer to what used to be called PR...

You are right by saying that. But, the point that's been made here through the post does not have to do with not building links at all. Instead it's telling webmasters to stay away from spammy or manipulative tactics that will eventually get their sites into trouble sooner or later.

If you have a brand new site, you pretty much have no choice as far as promoting it is concerned. Because at the end of the day you will have to do some link building in order to get some traction as mentioned in your post. But, it has to be done in a way that will look natural in the eyes of Google.

 

[ZeroDouble]

I think that sometimes we give Google and their algos WAY too much credit.

http://www.linkresearchtools.com/case-studies/expedia-google-unnatural-link-penalty/

Note that for years they appear to have been using pretty much every blackhat trick in the book (short of hacking etc.), and how it took someone to publicly out them in order for them to get penalised in the SERPs.

 

[InternetMarketer]

Arold10 and zerodouble, I agree with both of u...

First of all, it doesn't mean that we should not do any link building. We should do, but possibly more with content marketing etc... For example, are you one of the rare producers a product? say it loud, make PR, write to associations, etc...

And yes, we worry too much about Google's algo... There are still gray hat methods that can work, such as buying links carefully...

 

[sirearl]

Old news.

Anyone that doesn't understand that buying links is manipulative or spamming websites will get you penalised eventually, shouldn't be in charge of a website in my opinion.

.

Disagree about getting penalised only people who advertise they are buying links are at risk.Google can only guess at who may be buying links a la link farms.e.t.c.

Another myth getting spammy links from other sites can never harm your site as far as google is concerned.

 

[InternetMarketer]

If we were to listen every rule told by Google 100%, we wouldn't need any SEOs there... Big brands which rank well, they have the budget to do PR, influence journalists, etc, so that they get huge number of authority linkds. So, they indirectly pay for those links.

Even becoming a member to an association and hence getting a link from their authority site requires annual membership payment...

If you discover a couple of websites who are happy to get paid for posting about you and adding your link, but not so blatantly, it is fine... As long as nobody knows you are paying him to do that, it is fine.

I would recommend buying links carefully via an experienced link builder. Don't buy links from sites which blatantly sells the links or guest posting, and never buy links from blogs which post about everything...

 

[CB1878]

Yo have to build links but Google just do not want you to 'game the system' Matt Cutts has said that you should ensure your links are 'no follow' and this will not be considered spam.

I run a few insurance sites and we concentrate on our own site content. We link back through our own 'authority blogs' (no follow), and post links on Twitter, Facebook and Google plus (all 'no follow' links). We may nit get much link juice through this but our content is indexed very quickly, and we currently reside P1 in our niche in a competitive market (ahead of the likes of Which?, Moneysupermarket etc).

We have gone though a phase of creating content based on answering questions (Who, what, why etc) around our target products.

It seems to work for us, but who knows how things will pan out in the future. We have been tempted to buy links in the past but I am glad to say we control most of the links into our sites.

Of course Google are very happy for you to use their Adwords 'paid links'

 

[OxfordCS]

Of course Google are very happy for you to use their Adwords 'paid links'

This is the crux of the matter: if Google's search results weren't so damn right crappy, people wouldn't have to resort to Adwords. Google thus has a vested interest in keeping the search results a lottery in which only the heaviest linked sites stand a good chance.

One could envisage several ways to make the search results fairer but it isn't about fairness, now is it? By making the ocean of unfortunates who don't make it to P1 (or P2) bid against each other, they make a ton of money from an inherently flawed product. Some guys have all the fun!

 

[InternetMarketer]

if Google's search results weren't so damn right crappy, people wouldn't have to resort to Adwords.

Absolutely! Actually, Google has very relevant adwords ads nowadays that more people click on them than natural results. I believe, one day P1 will be full of adwords ads!

Google introduced this tough quality score system at adwords several years ago to make paid ads God damn so good that I am sure the ratio of clicks on natural results fell down sharply!

I am getting surprised sometimes to get less traffic than I think even when I rank a site on top position for a keyword. AdWords ads are now stealing most of the traffic!

 

[bhagabati]

A lot of links within a small span of time is dangerous from SEO point of view.Always build backlinks so that it will not be looked as spam to search engine.Directory submission is good for seo but it should be done very slowly,not more than 100 directories in a single month.

 

[OxfordCS]

Absolutely! Actually, Google has very relevant adwords ads nowadays that more people click on them than natural results.

I've heard this said quite a few times but is there concrete evidence for it?

I've tried in the past very niche search terms, only to be told time after time [by Google] that they are 'low search volume'. Yet the organic pages return plenty of results on these terms!

 

[WebMeUp]

@InternetMarketer

right, the Penguin update finally delivered on Google's long running promise to punish all websites engaged in manipulative link schemes.

But frankly speaking, the techniques you have mentioned in your post ceased into existence 4-5 years ago. Even then Google didn't favorite spammy comments, paid links or link exchange networks.

What the search engine has always encouraged is getting/earning high-quality links from authoritative relevant websites. That's not an easy task and there are tons of factors you should take into consideration when planning your building campaign. But the result is definitely worth all efforts.

And of course you should avoid any manipulative black-hat link building techniques that can be so tempting to use.

 

[TODonnell]

1. Get links which potential customers will click on. That narrows down your list of backlinking sites considerably.
2. A authority site can get away with having many more bad backlinks than a mom-and-pop operation. It has much more link 'weight'. Don't use them as an excuse.

 

[william04]

Link building become very complex task for webmasters so you need to research before making links for website , the key-factor is contextual strategy it will lead you to organic link build.

 

[LocalGuy]

You do need some kind of random links like this, it helps with creating a diverse link profile which helps keep the link profile looking natural.

As long as you focus on authroity and relevance in your link building strategy you should be good to go.

 

[OxfordCS]

right, the Penguin update finally delivered on Google's long running promise to punish all websites engaged in manipulative link schemes.

Really? I doubt that very much.

For years now G. has simply ignored poor quality links but it can't punish a webmaster for having poor quality inbound links. Otherwise it would be all too easy to sabotage someone's rankings by inserting their website into stupid farms like 'I love hits' and the rest of that plethora of other link farming BS.

Much easier and fairer for G. to ignore links it doesn't deem of any value. Links from specific link pages e.g. have no value but there's no point in 'punishing' those who want to run such pages. Penguin doesn't change that.

 

[ZeroDouble]

Really? I doubt that very much.

For years now G. has simply ignored poor quality links but it can't punish a webmaster for having poor quality inbound links.

I agree, and disagree.

I agree that (from my experience) links on spammy sites won't actually hurt your rankings per se, but having too many (of certain types of) spammy links can.

I won't go into details for obvious reasons, but I've managed to spam several of my (newly registered) test sites out of the index when testing out how much you can push the limits with Google and your link building.

The trust/authority that the site that is being linked to has, will also obviously make a difference though.

 

[OxfordCS]

Obviously too much of a bad thing is an, erm... bad thing!

In general though it makes sense for G. to simply ignore links of little value rather than punish possibly innocent victims of spam sites. It would be hard to detect and open to 'reverse manipulation'.

We often credit The Evil One's Mind with too much I think.

Interesting that you run test sites, at least someone sees merit in evidence-based SEO testing. The rest mostly just reiterate what the other soothsayers have already cackled/tweeted and newslettered about. Evidence is in very short supply in the SEO 'knowledge base'.

 

[ZeroDouble]

It's a fair point, and i guess that it ties in with the recent new notifications that people have been getting in WMT (Not that I use it), saying that links are being discounted, but no further action is being taken against the site, etc.

Yep, always testing things here, it's the only real way to see through all the BS.

 

[thomascole]

Kinda old news as previously said.

Get links that are relevant and you as a visitor wouldn't mind seeing. Also try and target for links that will send traffic rather than just as a backlink.

 

[webstore]

Why are the majority in this thread seemingly just talking about links and not mentioning site metrics and social networks (and in particular Google+) which are surely all important elements to a website being found in search engines etc ?

 

[fisicx]

Shum, do you even know what Hummingbird was about? One thing it wasn't about was linking. And the latest update happened while you were writing your post. And there will probably be another one later today. Google is constanly updating.

 

[zigojacko]

Why are the majority in this thread seemingly just talking about links and not mentioning site metrics and social networks (and in particular Google+) which are surely all important elements to a website being found in search engines etc ?

Most probably because the OP was specifically about building links and not about the onsite of a website or social media........

 

[fisicx]

Why are the majority in this thread seemingly just talking about links and not mentioning site metrics and social networks (and in particular Google+) which are surely all important elements to a website being found in search engines etc ?

Probably because they aren't all that important. A thousand facebook posts isn't going have the slightest effect on your ranking. There are some secondary effects which help by retweets and sharing and so on but they are miniscule compare to the main ranking factors.

As to site metrics, if the number of visitors was important then buying traffic would mean I could rank any site for anything.

 

[OxfordCS]

[...] and not mentioning site metrics and social networks (and in particular Google+) which are surely all important elements to a website being found in search engines etc ?

What on Earth makes you think that? Because you read it on a site that sells 'social network strategies'?

So far there's isn't a shred of evidence that social networking impacts on site rankings. 'Networking traffic', perhaps but site rankings?

 

[webstore]

What on Earth makes you think that? Because you read it on a site that sells 'social network strategies'?

So far there's isn't a shred of evidence that social networking impacts on site rankings. 'Networking traffic', perhaps but site rankings?

The bottom line is that it's all about getting more traffic to one's website and both search engines and social network sites can help with this.

 

[fisicx]

It's not about getting more traffic. It's about getting more conversions. Most social media visitors won't convert so they aren't much use to you.

People bleat on about branding and internet presence but this doesn't pay the bills.