Is paid for backlinks worth it?

[eventdomain]

Google has always pushed for relevancy, they prefer sites to be housed in one group eg: caterers linking to caterers, which is making search easier for all - ahhh, the good ole days of the web.

 

[drcaz]

Google apparently has a policy of finding and giving negative SEO points paid-for backlinks.

 

[Alan]

Not exactly new news, although the backlink building industry don't want you to know this.

There are two types of 'paying' for backlinks
1. paying money to a site solely for the purpose of having your link their to gain link juice
2. paying for a service that builds links on other sites

Over the last few years, type 1 has become pointless. Type 2 still has value, if and only if, it is done properly.

 

[eventdomain]

2. paying for a service that builds links on other sites

Point 2 is the pointless activity - eg: the intro of Wordpress systems puts paid to link spamming.

 

[Alan]

Thank you for quoting me out of context !

As I said "Type 2 still has value, if and only if, it is done properly."

Spamming wordpress coments or indeed any manual or automated link blasting activity is not 'properly', it is blackhat and at best a pointless waste of money.

However, paying someone else to do the hard and tedious graft of identifying suitable relevant sites, composing unique articles, and negotiating with the site owners to publish these links, and the hard graft of joining and participating in forums, and the hard graft of finding reputable directories and submitting submission and checking status, is a task that you can outsource to someone (just like you can pay someone to stock your shelves in a shop - you don't have to do boring work yourself). The problem is finding someone you trust to do your work for you.

 

[eventdomain]

Thank you for quoting me out of context !

Sorry, thought you were putting down paid links - as the billions in ad spend would suggest otherwise. BUT, you should have been more precise in your post

Ye, I agree that comment spam isnt cool, but this form of SEO goes on big time, and the comment sites will be on to it fast. A lot of the time, the client is unaware of what the SEO has done, the SEO's client gets invoiced by the website owner and all hell breaks loose - it wastes time on all sides and the SEO agent's client ends up paying twice for the links.

There's too many charlatan SEO agencies/freelancers, who regularly put their clients through this, and its wrong. Heck, I deal with hundreds of these buggers on a yearly basis, and it really peeves me off.

paying someone else to do the hard and tedious graft of identifying suitable relevant sites, composing unique articles, and negotiating with the site owners to publish these links

Negotiation? that's funny - what negotiation lol. Honestly, I've never, ever in 8 years, had any detailed biz contact, meeting or anything that suggests such. SEO agencies dont ask permission before spamming their clients and thats all there is to it.

 

[Alan]

You are right, I was not precise

As Googles anti-spam guru Matt Cutts was saying back in 2007 - "there’s absolutely no problem with selling links for traffic (as opposed to PageRank)"

After all Google AdWords are paid links, and that is how Google make their money.

 

[I, Brian]

Google has always pushed for relevancy, they prefer sites to be housed in one group eg: caterers linking to caterers, which is making search easier for all - ahhh, the good ole days of the web.

Um, no they haven't - their original PageRank algorithm was based on strength of numbers only, and many of the algorithm tweaks since then have been about trying to weed out the short cuts.

Why do you think SEO's talk about issues such as "trust" and "authority"? This has nothing to do with semantic relevancy.

In fact, it's only the current big update that Google have announced they are rolling out over this year which actually tries to focus more on semantic relationships.

 

[eventdomain]

The web has always been about matching the user and products, bringing them together for that perfect experience, so why do forum dudes/dudettes pretend the search game is not about relevant linking

I just pulled this from Google's site and it clearly says:

The quantity, quality, and relevance of links count towards your rating.

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356


Authority sites are relevant to industries, hubs do well link-wise and build up thousands of links over time, so why is this suddenly denied? Google has always been about relevancy since sites like Totaljobs went live... TJ sold for £110m to Axel Springer - yep, I think that site alone is full of relevant job links somehow, and Google won't reward it - oh no, ofcourse not.. Its the No'1 jobs website in the UK

 

[I, Brian]

The web has always been about matching the user and products, bringing them together for that perfect experience, so why do forum dudes/dudettes pretend the search game is not about relevant linking

You're mixing up intentions with actualities. Both are very different.

I just pulled this from Google's site and it clearly says:

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356

And? Google do not provide information on what features their ranking algorithm actually uses. This has to be inferred from patents. Everything else is for public relations purposes, not SEO.

Authority sites are relevant to industries, hubs do well link-wise and build up thousands of links over time, so why is this suddenly denied?

If you've ever ready Google's patents for identifying authorities, they often start with university and government website pages as the key authorities to follow, *not* commercial websites.

I think overall you're just mixing up what you think Google should be doing with what we see Google actually does.

 

[Curious]

Negotiation? that's funny - what negotiation lol. Honestly, I've never, ever in 8 years, had any detailed biz contact, meeting or anything that suggests such. SEO agencies dont ask permission before spamming their clients and thats all there is to it.

Maybe you don't have a site that anyone wants a placement on? I worked with someone at the end of last year to negotiate placements of articles for me on good sites. Impossible to place an article on a good site without permission or contact beforehand.

If you're talking about comment spam then that isn't the same thing that roibot was talking about.

 

[eventdomain]

they often start with university and government website pages as the key authorities to follow, *not* commercial websites.

University websites are NOT content authorities, their actually 'Course lists' by category/A to Z - In other words their sales-window sites for the Uni's for the purposes of selling to students and not link-dropping tools.

You could take every uni site in the world and it wouldnt come close to the hundreds of business authority sites that exist, so why shouldn't business authorities be rewarded for services to the web.

Trouble is, doesnt matter how great these sites are, you'll never see a link on any of them as their God basically Small biz websites aren't what their focussing on info-wise for their audience - its called power they have it, you don't..... and its pointless why so many beat themselves up over it, desperately begging for links they'll never get.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

University websites are NOT content authorities, their actually 'Course lists' by category/A to Z - In other words their sales-window sites for the Uni's for the purposes of selling to students and not link-dropping tools.

You could take every uni site in the world and it wouldnt come close to the hundreds of business authority sites that exist, so why shouldn't business authorities be rewarded for services to the web.

Trouble is, doesnt matter how great these sites are, you'll never see a link on any of them as their God basically Small biz websites aren't what their focussing on info-wise for their audience - its called power they have it, you don't..... and its pointless why so many beat themselves up over it, desperately begging for links they'll never get.

Honestly Ed this is completely and utterly wrong. Universities publish their findings on a regular basis. maybe you should read this to better understand search engines (joke) it is a PR6 university page http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

 

[eventdomain]

Maybe you don't have a site that anyone wants a placement on? I worked with someone at the end of last year to negotiate placements of articles for me on good sites. Impossible to place an article on a good site without permission or contact beforehand.

I own one of the largest sites in the UK (7600 content pages), and so many tried to get in, and I used to let them too. Unfortunately, it got so crazy I had no choice but to go paid, er, to stop people taking advantage of what I built up. I also owned an article website, but that got a bit crazy with being swamped with articles all the time, and had to remove that section totally.

Impossible to place an article on a good site without permission or contact beforehand

There you go, you just gave the key answer of why some sites are worth what their worth! The difficulty of obtaining great links is about pride and ownership, and its a huge factor that cannot be ignored. Lesser links is about money though

 

[Curious]

I own one of the largest sites in the UK (7600 content pages), and so many tried to get in, and I used to let them too. Unfortunately, it got so crazy I had no choice but to go paid, er, to stop people taking advantage of what I built up. I also owned an article website, but that got a bit crazy with being swamped with articles all the time, and had to remove that section totally.

Impossible to place an article on a good site without permission or contact beforehand

There you go, you just gave the key answer of why some sites are worth what their worth! The difficulty of obtaining great links is about pride and ownership, and its a huge factor that cannot be ignored. Lesser links is about money though

Um, you said originally you've never been contacted by people wanting to place links on your site, and now you've had so many you had to stop? At least that's how it reads to me?

And I'm sorry but I don't buy that 7600 pages makes you one of the biggest sites in the UK, no offense.

 

[eventdomain]

Honestly Ed this is completely and utterly wrong.

Nope, because Uni-sites aren't big enough to call themselves resources.

I can in a heart-beat pull a list up so vast, of business content resource sites that will swamp any Uni website, but you know I can, so why do you bother telling me I'm wrong.

BTW, I checked that Stanford page - its just one page on a limited website of a couple of hundred pages. Come-on, its only 200 pages worth of content - its alright, but nothing major.

 

[eventdomain]

Um, you said originally you've never been contacted by people wanting to place links on your site, and now you've had so many you had to stop? At least that's how it reads to me?

And I'm sorry but I don't buy that 7600 pages makes you one of the biggest sites in the UK, no offense.

That's correct - I've never been contacted for worthless 'content-based partnerships' and with technology the spammers don't need to, they just use whatever data-capture form is available on whatever site...

(No offense taken, but it does though... and that's not including my other 2 websites either - so combined it does )

 

[Curious]

Nope, because Uni-sites aren't big enough to call themselves resources.

I can in a heart-beat pull a list up so vast, of business content resource sites that will swamp any Uni website, but you know I can, so why do you bother telling me I'm wrong.

BTW, I checked that Stanford page - its just one page on a limited website of a couple of hundred pages. Come-on, its only 200 pages worth of content - its alright, but nothing major.

You're joking right? That page on its own has over 1500 linking root domains according to majestics fresh index. More than likely the bulk of those would be pretty tidy links too.

Didn't g start crawling from pages like those because if you had a link from one then you must be a decent site? Then the more hops away from one of those sites you were, the less trustworthy your site was? So it would be decent pages like that uni page that they would be interested in links from.

Edit: Just because a site can swamp a uni sites content doesn't mean they're better sites to get links from.

 

[Chunkford]

Nope, because Uni-sites aren't big enough to call themselves resources.

That's funny, I almost thought you were being serious then.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Nope, because Uni-sites aren't big enough to call themselves resources.

I can in a heart-beat pull a list up so vast, of business content resource sites that will swamp any Uni website, but you know I can, so why do you bother telling me I'm wrong.

BTW, I checked that Stanford page - its just one page on a limited website of a couple of hundred pages. Come-on, its only 200 pages worth of content - its alright, but nothing major.

in red: Nope I do not know you can, just because you claim it, doens't make it so.

in bold black: I tell you you are wrong because you are wrong.

YOU have 7,600 page, Stanford uni site (a site so small it can't be called a resourse site) has 15.3 MILLION pages indexed in Google.

So to put it simply ED, that is why i said i considered you to be wrong. But don't take my word for it, ask google
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstanford.edu%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Added I posted "I tell you you are wrong because you are wrong." I meant to say that I tell you you are wrong because I believe you to be wrong, it is my opinion

 

[Curious]

That's correct - I've never been contacted for worthless 'content-based partnerships' and with technology the spammers don't need to, they just use whatever data-capture form is available on whatever site...

(No offense taken, but it does though... and that's not including my other 2 websites either - so combined it does )

How big are the other two? Perhaps we're talking about different things but to me one of the bigger sites in the uk is something like the Guardian (around 108 million pages on a G site: search)

And I'm sorry this doesn't make sense. So you have had to stop people from giving you content but you've never been involved in a 'content-based partnership'?! And I'm not talking about spamming, nor was roibot in the post that started this discussion. Which takes me back to my original point that perhaps you don't have a site that people want links from if you havn't been approached by anyone. I get approached and I have crap sites, I'd fully expect to get approached by somebody with good content if I had a good site.

 

[bdw]

7,600 pages is a drop in the ocean compared to the actual big sites.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

How big are the other two? Perhaps we're talking about different things but to me one of the bigger sites in the uk is something like the Guardian (around 108 million pages on a G site: search)

And I'm sorry this doesn't make sense. So you have had to stop people from giving you content but you've never been involved in a 'content-based partnership'?! And I'm not talking about spamming, nor was roibot in the post that started this discussion. Which takes me back to my original point that perhaps you don't have a site that people want links from if you havn't been approached by anyone. I get approached and I have crap sites, I'd fully expect to get approached by somebody with good content if I had a good site.

My sports forum got a link from them, it was in the top 10 xxxsport forums in the world

 

[eventdomain]

I get approached and I have crap sites, I'd fully expect to get approached by somebody with good content if I had a good site.

It's just not like it was 5 years ago when folk just got links like it was raining or something. Many sites have good content, but dont get approached, and depends on the visitor type that uses the site as to what you'll get content-wise. Some sites just dont get content offered in the same way, for the sites work/deal with content differently, some very automated and some totally manual. Mine is automated, and people know this, thus I dont get email request approaches wanting to add this and that. But my sites do get a ton of sign-ups/registrations, so its that kind of site,

But others will get content offers via email - there are no rules to this, its like everyone thinks websites must be designed a certain way to get in the game, and its nonsense. A website is designed how the owner feels serves them best and that's it.

But getting back to links or even content - a website does need to attract or it won't grow. I'm fortunate that my link-hunting days are over as I've automated the entire process, and now just select and approach to get links, which I'll be doing hopefully this year.

 

[I, Brian]

University websites are NOT content authorities, their actually 'Course lists' by category/A to Z - In other words their sales-window sites for the Uni's for the purposes of selling to students and not link-dropping tools.

According to Google in the past, they were considered among the most authoritative places on the internet - because, in theory, their resources are not driven primarily by commercial concerns. That's why the viagra spammers tried to spam the hell out of them.

I own one of the largest sites in the UK (7600 content pages),

I don't mean to seem cruel, but that doesn't sound like a particularly large website.

 

[bdw]

According to Google in the past, they were considered among the most authoritative places on the internet - because, in theory, their resources are not driven primarily by commercial concerns.

You mean like google?

.

 

[mindhunter]

If that backlink is on a site/page that get thousands of visitors per day then yes it may well be worth it.

An example of this type of link is on most of google pages. They are adverts and can be very lucrative.

SEO isn't the only solution....

Hi Fisicx,

backlink is on a nofollow page that get thousands of visitors per day, is worth it?

 

[eventdomain]

Didn't g start crawling from pages like those because if you had a link from one then you must be a decent site?

That doesnt make sense - as the vast majority of websites are small biz efforts, with perhaps 30 pages tops to their name (not including retail/product sites in that guesswork). These small/med biz sites aint resources, aren't quality to be considered worthy enough for inclusion to a University link page, never mind labelled as 'resources'. There are levels of acceptance at play here folks, leagues, and it has real bearing on who is allowed those free majestic links - the Uni's won't hand those out to any old bod with a website/content page The way folk talk, its like they believe their shop window site has a right to a Uni or Top portal link - come-on, it aint going to happen people..

But this Google judgement, is how old, how accurate is this now..... its a nonsense rule to have as the Uni's have this habit of only including topical website links in their Resource pages anyway, and the rest aren't invited - know what I'm saying. So few sites get included on Uni pages (compared to biz resource websites), that so few will get anything from a Uni link anyway.

So it would be decent pages like that uni page that they would be interested in links from.

So what - not in anyway that applies to the majority unfortunately. Mainly as the trouble/effort it takes would be crazy for what gain, a couple of Uni links, for what - ego purposes? It just isnt worth it, and the SEO value is pointless as the wrong traffic would be hitting the wrong websites Eg: Students hitting non-edu heavy content based business websites.

 

[Hire Centre]

My opinion would be it would entirely depend if the paid back link is of relevance to your business. Some niche directories offer a paid listing with do follow tags and I would think this would ok if it suited your business. Also the anchor text would the very important so make sure u get that right.
Pete

 

[Curious]

What are you on about? Of course it makes sense to crawl from sites that would be deemed as trustworthy.

Who said anyone has a right to a good link from a uni? My sites don't, I don't have any content related enough, or good enough, for a link. Your site doesn't for the same reasons. It isn't just Uni's that would have been chosen as the seed sites, that wouldn't make sense, but they would be similar sites in that they would be sites of curated links which were editorially given.

So you wouldn't like a link from a similar page to the one discussed on an old trusted uni domain? Because the SEO value is pointless?? I don't do this for a living, only on my own sites, but I'd definitely argue that link would have SEO value!!

 

[eventdomain]

So you wouldn't like a link from a similar page to the one discussed on an old trusted uni domain? Because the SEO value is pointless??

Would I turn a Uni link down? - Ofcourse not, but will it help my site that has nothing to do with education - probably not. Even if some value in the link, it will be untargeted, minimal, non-converting traffic, which is no good to me.

On the rare occassions I seek-out links, I need certain assurances from the placement website, and thats the traffic delivered is the right sort - don't want a bunch of visitors who won't add value.

 

[MASSEY]

"i own one of the largest websites in the UK"

"7000 pages"





Oh dear, someone is having some serious delusions of grandeur

 

[Prestige-SEO]

I've heard it all now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[SteveHippel]

If I have understood you correctly I'm guessing that your wifes wants to rank for some local keywords. This should be fairly easy. If your on page SEO is good, it probably won't take to many links to rank the site.
As someone above said, your money would be better spent on hiring someone or even a crash course to bring you up to speed.
Google penalises paid links and you could ultimately find that buying links does more harm than good.

 

[Curious]

Would I turn a Uni link down? - Ofcourse not, but will it help my site that has nothing to do with education - probably not. Even if some value in the link, it will be untargeted, minimal, non-converting traffic, which is no good to me.

On the rare occassions I seek-out links, I need certain assurances from the placement website, and thats the traffic delivered is the right sort - don't want a bunch of visitors who won't add value.

I see what you mean, but what if that tasty link helps you rank a page for a commercial keyword that brings you more converting visitors and therefore more profit every month? Then it would be good for you.

Imo there's links for traffic and conversions, and links for ranking; obviously one that does both is perfect, but in some industries they're pretty hard to come by imo for us mere mortals.