View Single Post
Old 04-16-2007   #16
beu's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA U.S.A.
Posts: 2,197
beu is a name known to allbeu is a name known to allbeu is a name known to allbeu is a name known to allbeu is a name known to allbeu is a name known to all
Originally Posted by Greggorio
My problem with this disclosure and/or crackdown on Link Buying is because some of us have seen "dramasitic" improvements in the rankings for some clients, me in particular. When I proposed link buying to a particular client as part of an SEO Strategy, I make it very clear to the client that in order to benefit for this, we need to be very strategic in how we do it. We chose highly relevant sites, look for "no follows", identify everything surrounding the "on page" position of the link (content, anchor text, number of links, etc...) as well as the construct of the url strings, anchor text, reffering landing pages, etc...

I don't really see why Matt Cutts is getting so hot and heavy over this, especially when we continue to more and more people using Widgets as a catalyst to drive link building. I feel that as long as Link Buying is done in pure "relevance" and planning, how can we or should we be punished for doing it.
"Relevance" is for the search engines to determine. Buying links for SEO is simply search engine manipulation a.k.a. search engine spam.

If you really are looking out for sites using "no follow" tags to buy links, then you may not actually be increasing search engine visibility at all. Either way, that is another topic!

I don't think they are saying that all link buying is bad. I think the problem is buying links totally for SEO and then manipulating those links so that search engines see them as natural links and/or links visible to other users. I don't think there would be any issue as long as you make it clear that links are ads (like Google), use "no follow", and javascript.
beu is offline   Reply With Quote