Is it worth buying backlinks? if so where would you recommend?
- Thread starter Multi-store
- Start date
Yes, it is worth to buy backlinks but make sure to your seller that those must be decent links and not "spammy"... it must look natural so that it will last on the website. Another key here is to not to do so much backlinks (100+) at once.. it is more proper if you will diverse the links everyday, and be consistent in linking.
If I were you, I would ask the seller to diverse the links into several days if possible.
Recommendation? hmm.. personally I don't buy backlinks, I create them by myself. So, I wouldn't recommend you some reliable seller at the moment.
But I do buy blogroll backlinks at fiverr.com for $5, simply because they are cheap lol... Note: blogroll backlinks are links posted on the sidebar of a blog site with permission of the owner. Some of them are also selling ordinary backlinks but not so sure of the quality of their service.
Because for me, blogroll links are golden.. but if just ordinary backlinking.. I could do it by myself, sometimes manually.. and sometimes with the help of some semi-automated tools.
If I were you, I would ask the seller to diverse the links into several days if possible.
Recommendation? hmm.. personally I don't buy backlinks, I create them by myself. So, I wouldn't recommend you some reliable seller at the moment.
But I do buy blogroll backlinks at fiverr.com for $5, simply because they are cheap lol... Note: blogroll backlinks are links posted on the sidebar of a blog site with permission of the owner. Some of them are also selling ordinary backlinks but not so sure of the quality of their service.
Because for me, blogroll links are golden.. but if just ordinary backlinking.. I could do it by myself, sometimes manually.. and sometimes with the help of some semi-automated tools.
Upvote
0
oh joy, another person spouting absolute rubbish.
If people follow that advice they will be wasting their money and/or harming their site depending on what they are doing.
Upvote
0
Surely no-one outside of Google knows whether it is rubbish.
The only argument I've ever seen to suggest it's wrong is "google has a patent" - as though having a patent means they must have incorporated it into the algorithm.
Steve
Upvote
0
How can you say that in a public forum?
I have witnessed sites bomb in Google when a linkbuilding programme by an agency was only 3 months in. The Directors were clueless about SEO and believed every word that the agency told them. They didn't have time or knowledge to check their work, so left them to it.
Linkbuilding should be done manually, with thought and consideration. Good links are not easy. Irrelevant links and links with no value are really easy to find and buy.
Fiverr.com is a great example, 3,000 links for $5. Scraped / Xrumer profiles and blog comments. Save yourself $5 and go and have a pint to celebrate your good business judgment.
If you have a couple of hours a week, even if it's half an hour a day, take time to research relevant sites online that are themed with the industry and site you wish to promote.
Having said all that, backlinks are not SEO, they are a portion of the whole SEO pie and should not be focussed on soley thinking that's how sites rank in search engines.
Upvote
0
well its been tested many times by many people.
Try a link for viagra from a porn site.
Then try one from ther NHS.
And yes many people outside google have a pretty good idea of what google is up to or SEO's would not consistently get top rankings.
Earl
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ou're either missing the point completely or giving a silly example.
I might as well say, "If you had a driving instruction website and you had a link from the homepage of the NHS it would be a more valuable link than if you had a link from an internal page of a PR 0 blog on driving instruction".
And that would probably be true... but so what? What does it prove?
Steve
Upvote
0
Do you really think that something titled "Predictions and Opinions" is the refutation of my point that "no-one knows"?
I never said that people didn't have opinions. This thread alone has 2 contradictory set of opinions - before I even posted.
It's actual knowledge that seems to be missing. Which is why I think nitro23456's comment was unjustified.
Steve
Upvote
0
Sorry steve, its not unjustified, relevancy is a very important factor when link building and for the other guy to post it is "irrelevant" is rubbish....... but dont take it out of context from the rest of my initial post. It is only part of it.
Your NHS example proves it is only part of it as that would be the better link in your analogy, but if you were comparing like with like, the relevant site (or even one semantically related) would be the better link and carry much more clout, fact.
It is one of the basics of link building and you will find a plethora of studies/information on it from various sources. However it is true to say the only people that really know strictly speaking are google but you could say the only people that really know anything are the people that created whatever you are talking about...... it doesn't stop studies into things and it is how things are proven in many industries astrophysics/science/medicine etc etc
Upvote
0
I've never used a relevant backlink yet. I've never had a site bomb either.
My main client is doing sales of £300k per month.
A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Relevancy, for me at least, is still irrelevant.
Upvote
0
I don't think porn sites come into the equation for most SEO companies - certainly not in mine.
I see your point but it wouldn't be relevant in my case.
Upvote
0
Given the rest of your post was:
"If people follow that advice they will be wasting their money and/or harming their site depending on what they are doing."
I don't see how I could possibly be accused of taking that sentence "out of context".
OK, tell me, how did someone measure - thus conclusively proving - whether site relevancy is part of the algorithm?
Steve
Upvote
0
Firstly, I'm not accusing you of anything and secondly I said my initial post when I explained a balance of whats needed i.e. the bit before I posted 'relevant links'.
Relevant links are better than irrelevant links. If you had 50 decent PR irrelevant links then obviously its going to be better than not having any links whatsoever (depending on the quality of the linking site and the other links outgoing etc), however if those links are from 100% relevant sites or even 50/50 it will have better results........ from my experience and from more or less any other person in the industry, obviously give or take a few people
The whole original google ethic of link buiding was built on the premis that sites would link out to relevant content on others..... I am talking about way before people cottoned onto the fact that it could be fiddled.
This is something that still applies today, albeit arguably flawed today.
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
perhaps that answers it conclusively for you.
Relevant links are better than irrelevant links. If you had 50 decent PR irrelevant links then obviously its going to be better than not having any links whatsoever (depending on the quality of the linking site and the other links outgoing etc), however if those links are from 100% relevant sites or even 50/50 it will have better results........ from my experience and from more or less any other person in the industry, obviously give or take a few people
The whole original google ethic of link buiding was built on the premis that sites would link out to relevant content on others..... I am talking about way before people cottoned onto the fact that it could be fiddled.
This is something that still applies today, albeit arguably flawed today.
from the horses mouth:Google said:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
perhaps that answers it conclusively for you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, that's what you were saying: that whether a link is "relevant" (i.e. from a page/site with content that relates to the page/site being linked to) adds value to that link.
And I'm saying you're just guessing.
And how did you measure that?
Where's the test you ran where you had "relevant" links for one site and "non-relevant" links of exactly the same quality for another site - for the same keyword - and you saw the first site ranks higher?
That's what saying "from my experience" would mean.
i.e. That you had actually experienced doing it both ways - and eliminated other factors that would skew the results - and one way was better.
Anything else is, as I said, guessing.
So?
Google ethos is also about links being natural, rather than bought. So, by using your logic - with says that what's "Google's ethics" is how things work - are you stating for a fact that bought links can have no impact on rankings?
Of course not.
Leaving aside the very fuzzy explanation of "relevant", can we assume that what google says is important is important?
I've heard plenty of SEOs saying you can't believe anything Matt Cutts says.
Whether they're right or wrong, doesn't matter. The views of these people - in the absence of evidence to show they're wrong - means that "Google said it, so it must be how things work" is, again, just a guess.
There's only one way to know for sure - and that's to test it.
And, if you haven't run such a test, then you've no business flaming other posters with statements that they're talking "rubbish" and accusing them of making "harmful" comments.
Given the question was:
"how did someone measure - thus conclusively proving - whether site relevancy is part of the algorithm?"
and your answer was "in your experience" - and you almost certainly don't have the experience - I'd have to say "no".
Steve
Upvote
0
C
cyberdesignz
I think doing anything artificial is not good for you, because you can't check quality of each link even if you are buying 300 links. Most of the seller providing thousands of links at once that also look artificial.It is rare you could find any quality seller. Better for you is to improve quality of your content,and get backlinks naturally that is a slow procedure but dream to come first over night can ruin your whole effort.
Upvote
0
MORE TRUTH: I have been in a room with Google employees when they told lies about the algorithm, and they KNEW they were lying.
Upvote
0
Google are as two faced as it comes. They actively promote adwords and adsense which are nothing more than bought links all wrapped up in Googles pretty packaging, but they want to penalise anyone else who sells or buys links.
Google want to monopolise the internet. A stop should be put to it.
Google want to monopolise the internet. A stop should be put to it.
Upvote
0
Go ahead, then. Don't use google to search, don't pay for adwords and exclude your site from the google index.
Steve
Upvote
0
T
trebor8
MORE TRUTH: I have been in a room with Google employees when they told lies about the algorithm, and they KNEW they were lying.
Go on, we want to know more!
Upvote
0
S
Steve Sellers
MORE TRUTH: I have been in a room with Google employees when they told lies about the algorithm, and they KNEW they were lying.
Was you tied to a table with a slowly moving laser moving towards you manhood, whilst a man sat in the corner stroking a white hat?
Upvote
0
No names but one of the questions was "can a competitor harm your site", the reply was no. Another question was about a certain linking practice. again the anwer was 'no that won't work'. Both lies. Afterwards over a beer a couple us pointed out that he was wrong, and he said "yep I know, I know you lot know, but as long as everyone doesn't know we are good, and who are they going to believe
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
