A lot of people still talk about backlinking campaigns even though Google has been targeting manufactured backlinks for a long while.
Anyone tempted to take the 'success through backlinks' route might like to read this: http://www.neilshearing.com/2011/08/26/ … s-at-risk/
A quote: 'So much for the Google Golden Rule that links from external websites couldn’t hurt your rankings. Perhaps that was true in the past, but it’s not true now.'
Woooooooo!!! I am off to spam link my competitors. According to the article spam links get you wiped.
Imma start with Squidoo. They're a HP competitor.
Yeah perhaps Will could just clarify eXACTLY what a spammy backlink is - I want to make sure I'm sending my competitors the right (or is that wrong) sort...
Also why does the post on my site with the most backlinks still rank #1 for its keywords
It is worth keeping an eye on your backlinks these days. If you suddenly get a lot of dodgy backlinks, you should report it to Google quick.
Yes please Will.
Please give us some URL's of some spammy backlink sites so that anyone who uses them can get rid of them.
I'll get the ball rolling with the first one:
Oh yeah, just a thought. A spammy link is? People need specifics Will, especially those that rely on you for your SEO knowledge.
" Dr Andy controlled the source of the spammy links and deleted them as a further test."
I'm assuming then he linked through his own sites, which had his adsense on. I always thought that was a big no-no anyway.
It does say too " and if you don’t OWN the sites you put the links on, (which could be because you use services providing anonymous links), you won’t be able to remove them like Dr Andy did…"
I love the monicker: "Dr Andy", it manages to sound both professional and casual at the same time, or maybe neither! :-)
Trust is always an issue with this stuff. SEO commentators are inherently unreliable.
For one thing they often pretend to be experts but are always working in the dark. Google plays its cards close to the chest for fear of blackhat exploitation.
At the same time the spammy backlinks penalty is obviously real if you read the howls of pain on Google webmaster forum.
This post interested me because The Niel Shearings and Dr Andys-marketer 'experts'- of the internet world would have been telling you to backlink like crazy twelve months ago.
Now they can say things like:
" >It seems to me that ANY link building is now BAD.<
For new sites, it certainly seems so… if those links have optimised anchor text such as ones from article directories..."
This also rings true for me. My last site took off without any backlinks. The one before that I used maybe a dozen anchored backlinks (thinking that was 'reasonable promotion' within Google's parameters). It bombed.
You think? I imagine that you do, seen as though you appear to do a lot of that.
I pointed out (to you) that you hadn't defined what spammy links are. Some way down the article, in and among the content/comments, you could pick up what they are, if you half know what SEO is all about.
However there are many hubbers that don't possess your SEO knowledge and of course they may well look to you (seen as though you keep posting your opinion about SEO related issues) as some kind of knowledgeable fount.
I don't happen to be one of them Will but then ... I'm not everyone else.
I think there may be some validity in it .. I haven't noticed any improvement in ranking through backlinking and have noticed one or two diving. Given the techniques to get backlinks available now, these don't add any relevance to the quality of a page so I can see google devaluing the value of links ... but like many have said .. who knows!
September 2, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I think the answer to a lot of this is link diversity. SEO Link Robot will give you that, but as with any tool, it can be used to build spammy links.
Shane’s Backlink Battleplan is also about link diversity, and is the best guide to building backlinks I have seen.
Is there an element of black hat to link building? Absolutely. As Neil pointed out, Google want links to be naturally acquired. Problem is, if you wait for others simply to link to you, you’ll wait a long time.
Yes Charlie - who knows. The above is part of a comment from Dr Andy himself. This underneath Will's linked article.
To link or not to link - is that the question? Or is it 'how and where and at what rate'?
"SEO Link Robot" "Shane’s Backlink Battleplan"
The people who have relied on this kind of SEO to make money instead of providing worthwhile content are an endangered species.
Hmmm...I dunno, Will. I had a couple of sites that I couldn't even find on Google, but after making some backlinks, I got them to page one, and they stayed there.
Everything is changing online, this year more than any other. I reckon you need to keep an eye on this stuff.
Yep. sure Do.
And it's good to see that you keep your hand on it as well!
Thanks again for the entertainment!
I couldn't help noticing this post on your site, Eric: 'Is Backlinking Dead?'
A little exerp: 'The backlinking method has been totally bastardised by a deluge of dodgy backlinking schemes, methods, and tactics. For the last few years, people have been rewarded for building huge networks of backlinks instead of for creating good content.'
Hard to disagree.
If you create a backlink simply for the sake of boosting your rankings, you are certainly trying to undermine the integrity of Google's search.
But if you are simply linking from one of your pieces to another to benefit your visitors that has to be good.
So, I suppose it is a fine line.
And the meaning "dodgy" is very different, depending on who you listen to.
When presented with an opinion or course of action, you have 3 choices.
Most people won't evaluate anything because they can't be bothered to think.
They'll spend hundreds of hours writing stuff about which they know nothing, and spend thousands of dollars on stuff that is useless.
They blindly accept anything that is offered up to them in a manner they find pleasing.
That's why con men and scammers can exist and flourish.
If you want to do something to improve your future, read a book called "Influence - the Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini.
It will open your eyes.
I wrote something about commonsense being the most important internet skill you can develop. I'd post a link to that article - except round these parts it would be considered as spam.
Yep. That's exactly what I believe.
But that's in the future - when Google is able to determine the elusive factor of "quality".
In the meantime, the evidence indicates that backlinks still play a major part.
I reckon the future has already arrived. When internet marketers like Neal Shearing start saying all backlinks for new sites are bad, something has changed.
And of course, he was also talking about aged sites suffering from backlinking campaigns.
"In (the) test, the website was five years old, PageRank 2 with 80+ phrases in the top 100 at Google and within a month of building “spammy links”, all the rankings were lost."
I don't see how links to quality sites can hurt. I don't use spam. All my backlink articles are original content and are either informative or interesting, or both. For example, let's say I have a site about Great Danes that I want to point to, so I write a 300-500 article about the origin of the breed as a backlink on another site (let's say a PR5 site) and include a link back to my site in the article. You're saying this is going to hurt my site??
And like Froggie said, why couldn't we just add a lot of links to our competitors' sites in order to make them tank in the search engines?
And there lies the fundamental flaw in dear Will's argument.
But I don't think that he's thought it through that far.
If he wanted to do a bit of real research, he may find that incoming links from sites that are considered dodgy are just ignored.
But I like to encourage people, so
I hereby dub Will "The SEO Sheriff of HubPages"
I don't remember you acquiring dubbing rights Eric.
You sure you can appoint at will?
Pardon the pun.
Stopped taking the Altzheimers medication again have you Froggy?
re the pun: groan!
Yup ... bowling. A downright miserable practice. No matter - if it happens to you, just do as Will advised and contact Google. I'm sure they'd be ever so helpful, not to mention understanding.
All I know is that whatever I do . . . .seems to be the wrong thing. But then again I only write about what I want to write about that day. . .
Okay, and I read that article, and to be honest it seems to be mostly bull.
To start with "five years old, PageRank 2 with 80+ phrases in the top 100 at Google" Does he actually think that is good?
Even more worrying, does he think that is reliable The Google dance sub 30 is insane. Especially when that test seems to have occured during all the Google Panda mess.
Both Neil Shearing are affiliate marketers by the way, they make money selling products to wanna be IM'ers.
As to Google Bombing - people try to bring this up again every few months, but extensive testing has been regularly done by SEO analytics companies such as Raven Tools and SEO Moz and both have confirmed that spam links will not hurt a site.
*Edit* Also if you want to see how spammy backlinsk still work, wait until you do some competitor analysis for clients lol.
However - I have always suggested people do not bother with low quality spammy links, because while they do not penalize, they barely provide any value either. You should always look for the highest quality backlinks possible. One guest blog post (genuine guest blog posting, not article directory under another name) is worth infinitely more than an eZine article.
*nods* I don't spamlink. I do the research first, then put a lot of time and effort into producing factual, readable content. And I'm not joking when I say I put the legwork in.
So - quality on, quality out (by way of linking to substantial, trusted and related sites), then I have eventually backlinked a bit here and there as a means of creating quality links ... quality in.
by Earl Noah Bernsby2 years ago
Hey gang! *'Leave it to Beaver' music playing in background*As per melbel's advice on this Hub:http://melbel.hubpages.com/hub/Backlinks-HubsI decided to implement some of my new-fangled SEO learnin' by writing for...
by Brett A Rogers2 years ago
This is how I understand backlinks. Linking to a webpage that links back to you is more valuable to SEO than not having it link back to you. The more removed this website is from your own the better. ...
by Wesman Todd Shaw5 years ago
It's almost embarrassing to me; but I have no idea how to know what backlinks are DoFollow, and No Follow. Someone please simplify this for me, and tell me how I can know the difference.I can research things and...
by LondonGirl7 years ago
I've read over and over the "get quality backlinks with Qassia" line.Is it true? Do links from this site help?How do you do it? I know you write the "intel", but where does the backlink link to? Your...
by Dorian Bodnariuc12 months ago
"Paranoia" must think some of you, and honestly, I used to think the same. I didn't even believe that this was possible, even though Google mentioned that they have ways to detect link spamming. But the...
by easyspeak6 years ago
I know it fluctuates depending on a billion variables...but for you hubbers here who are making decent money, how many backlinks do you create for each hub. Please specify between social bookmarkting, article...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.