Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > Search Engine Marketing Strategies > Search Engine Optimization > Link Building
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-29-2005   #1
irank
30+ #1 rankings, 227 first page results and growing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5
irank is on a distinguished road
Is buying text links valuable?

Anyone had any success buying text links and seeing their site improve?
How many did you buy before you noticed a difference?
irank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2005   #2
Relevancy
Relevancy Brings Results
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 225
Relevancy is on a distinguished road
buying text links is not a good idea. Most of the links you buy are not on relevant sites. So the link will have little value. It is all about relevant one-way links. <snip>

You could also find other good free directories here:http://www.strongestlinks.com/directories.php

Make sure you look for seo friendly one that give striaght text links.

Last edited by Marcia : 03-29-2005 at 08:20 PM. Reason: No self-promotion, please.
Relevancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2005   #3
irank
30+ #1 rankings, 227 first page results and growing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5
irank is on a distinguished road
?

I appreciate your feedback, but I think you're wrong. You're lumping everything under the same category.

What if you can get a text link from a news site like dallasnews.com? To google, it would have to just look like a news article. How can it tell the difference? Plus there's .edu sites and what if I bought a link from an on target site? Why should I be punished or ignored and again, how could they tell the difference? What if I'm buddies with the webmaster of newsweek.com and he adds me onto one of his pages some place?

I attended the last SEM conference in NY. One of the speakers there recommended it.

Let's see what others have to say about this. Anyone one know of any definite reason why buying or selling text link ads cannot work?
irank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2005   #4
Marcia
 
Marcia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,476
Marcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond repute
irank, there has been some rumbling about sitewides not always being the greatest idea, so obtaining some a little more judiciously would probably be wiser and safer. A lot can depend on the site itself. If it's part of a hard-core SEO operation with a network of sites, that may not be the best route to go.
Marcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2005   #5
randfish
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 436
randfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to all
If those links will send you traffic, I cannot think of a good reason why you shouldn't buy them. Links are advertising, and spending money on advertising is as natural as hogs and mud.
randfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2005   #6
seobook
I'm blogging this
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: we are Penn State!
Posts: 1,943
seobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relevancy
buying text links is not a good idea. Most of the links you buy are not on relevant sites. So the link will have little value. It is all about relevant one-way links.
1.) some good resources naturally co cite one another
2.) what makes links irrelevant just because they are rented? I rent a good # of links as relevant ads. I dont buy that because it is rented it is irrelevant. that is like saying something is a truck because it has 4 wheels.
3.) it appears some search algorithms may still give solid boosts to "irrelevant" links

I do like the idea of getting directory links as you mentioned, but what makes a link relevant just because it is from a general directory?
__________________
The SEO Book
seobook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2005   #7
randfish
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 436
randfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to all
A quick amend to my previous post - sitewides, as many have pointed out, can actually actively hurt your site. I'd hate to think that you could kill your competitor's rankings by linking to them on every page of a big site, but it CAN happen and I have seen evidence suggesting it. So, if there was a type of link to be paranoid about buying - it's sitewides...
randfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2005   #8
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 52
Mike is on a distinguished road
that's surprising to me. it would be completely foolish of any engine to allow a sitewide link (or any link) to have a negative effect on a site. The first thing that'll happen is competitors will start doing sitewide links to your and nail you..

about buying links -- I've never done it, but I'm not against it and would like to try it for a client one day. You can pick what category your buying the link from, how much you're gonna spend, what your link text is EXACTLY, etc... assuming you do it with relevant sites, then it sounds great to me. it'll drive traffic to your site if it's on a homepage, which often times they are, so even if there were no search engines it could end up being worth it. and I don't see any way for the engines to decide what is a paid link and what isn't..

the big question is does the benefit justify the cost? I haven't done it so I don't know this
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2005   #9
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
Quote:
buying text links is not a good idea. Most of the links you buy are not on relevant sites. So the link will have little value. It is all about relevant one-way links.
So please tell me why Google bombs still work. Tell me why blogspam works? (and it does!)

This is a typical example of how search engines have managed to scare SEOs into thinking that they know the contextual relationship between domains and pages - they don't! They probably will improve thei ability to undrstand such relationships but right now they know close to nothing - and that is in Englih. If you optimize in other languages (as I often do) they DO know nothing
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #10
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
I'd be very interested in seeing the evidence that suggests sitewides can actually hurt a site, randfish. Also, I'd like to know in what way the site was thought to be hurt.

All IBLs are good. It's possible that some, such as sitewides, are of less value than others, but I've yet to see any evidence for it. To the best of my knowledge, the idea that sitewides are of less value than others is one of those rumours that get started when there's been a change in the serps. Another such rumour is that too many links with the same link text triggers something or other. Good ideas, but just rumours I believe.

My answer to the subject of the thread is is yes, buying text links is valuable. (I don't sell them, btw )

One thing to bear in mind is that it is thought that the appearance of too many links too quickly can cause them to be put in sandbox (if it exists) for quite a long time. Whether it's true or not, it is probably advisable to bring the links in in smallish quantities at a time - and vary the link texts a bit just to err on the side of caution
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #11
randfish
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 436
randfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to all
Phil,

I believe Marcia may be able to provide a specific example, I personally don't have one I can share. I can say honestly that I've seen what I presumed to be a sitewide link hurting a site's rankings - i.e. sitewide added, rankings down, sitewide removed, 1.5 weeks later, rankings up. It could be co-incidence, but I'd be wary - I wouldn't go so far as to say they're always bad, just that it is "a risk". And I'm the kind of guy who likes to avoid risks where possible.
randfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #12
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
G does warn against buying/selling links for the purposes of improving PR values, and site-wides are just too obvious, IMO.

First post in this thread
h**p://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1955

and this one
h**p://forums.seochat.com/showthread.php?t=22663
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #13
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
I'd be interested to see any evidence of sitewides actually hurting rankings. I know that it would be difficult to show a single case because there can be other things that caused the effect, and we're all prone to thinking that something we just did was the cause of something that just happened.

For instance, the effects that you saw might have been due to the (presumably) identical links text on the new sitewides, which might have caused the percentage of IBLs with that particular text to excede the threshold, if there is such a thing, and to drop beneath the threshold when they were removed.

It really needs the effect to be seen consistantly, and preferably to the same page - add them, rankings down, remove them, rankings up, add them, rankings down, etc. etc. etc., with varying delays between each alteration, until the effect can only be seen as being the result of the change, and not just coincidence. And even then, consideration should be given as to what it is about the change that causes the effect. It may not be the change itself.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #14
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by glengara
G does warn against buying/selling links for the purposes of improving PR values, and site-wides are just too obvious, IMO.

First post in this thread
h**p://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1955

and this one
h**p://forums.seochat.com/showthread.php?t=22663
Neither of those posts suggested that sitewides were either against Google's guidelines or the cause of any problem. As you mentioned, what they showed is that Google is against the "buying or selling links to increase a site's PageRank value", which is completely different.

I don't agree that sitewides are obvious - as in obviously acquired for the wrong purpose. Sitewides are perectly normal and would still be common if search engines didn't exist.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #15
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
In any examples I've seen of sites dropping after receiving site-wide links, there were always other potential links schemes in play, IMO it's how they decide the "intent".

If we accept G may be prowling around trying to ID bought/sold links "for the purposes of improving PR values", two areas I'd look at first would be site-wides and home-page links.
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #16
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
The first thing they would have to do is identify the sites of link vendors - not their main sites - the sites they have where the links are placed. And that would only account for some bought links, but only if the links are not on decent sites that get traffic.

I don't think there's any way to reliably find 'bought for the PageRank' or 'bought for link text' links. For instance, how could a program know that the sitewides in this site are there only for the traffic? Actually, I don't think that some of them are there just for traffic, but it's just a guess
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #17
glengara
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Done Leery
Posts: 1,118
glengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud ofglengara has much to be proud of
Trying to ID the vendor's intent would be harder (unless they're rotating links), going after the buyers first would make sense.

Anyway my point was less about site-wides and more on the original post, in that buying text links is valuable, but has some potential risk attached, as in most things SEO ;-)

Last edited by glengara : 03-31-2005 at 08:46 AM.
glengara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #18
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
Quote:
Anyway my point was less about site-wides and more on the original post, in that buying text links is valuable, but has some potential risk attached.
In general, I don't think you can say that buying links is more risky than any other active link building can be. If done well both leves no specific traces as of how they got there. If the engines don't like them, for whatever reason, they will punish you no matter how you got them. I don't think they'd even bother to find out.

Quote:
Trying to ID the vendor's intent would be harder
Actually, I think it will become easier and easier as more sites disclose advertising links, such as "sponsorlinks", but I don't think they will be punished for that. It's called "advertising". The only difference between the linkbuying we have now and the online advertising of the past is that webmasters now require that the links are direct. That goes for advertising as well as affiliate software. We want direct links because we know it will add to our likelyhood of getting well ranked as a bonus on top of whatever the advertising in itself is worth.

However, this might force the engines to change the way they interpret the web and thats fine. Thats colled "evolution"
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #19
projectphp
What The World, Needs Now, Is Love, Sweet Love
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 449
projectphp is a splendid one to beholdprojectphp is a splendid one to beholdprojectphp is a splendid one to beholdprojectphp is a splendid one to beholdprojectphp is a splendid one to beholdprojectphp is a splendid one to beholdprojectphp is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
buying text links is not a good idea. Most of the links you buy are not on relevant sites.
These two sentences don't make sense together, IMHO. Buying text links can be a good idea, it isn't always. Forget rankings, it is a bad idea if it costs more than it delivers. Spend $600 for a months worth of links, and how do you measure ROI? Surely that money would be better spent on PPC in the vast majority of cases.

The trick with buying links is the same as any advertising: research, understand what you hope to get out of it, measure and track. If you are after just rankings, then IMHO you are taking a big risk, but that doesn't mean it won't pay off.
projectphp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2005   #20
Marcia
 
Marcia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,476
Marcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond repute
I've seen reports of sites getting hit and it being attributed to huge numbers of sitewides. Whether or not it can be automatically detected is a different story. I tend to doubt it - more than likely it's a hand job based on a site being narced out by a competitor who got pushed down in the rankings.

Added:

BTW, I just bought my first link. No, not sitewide and it's a small banner ad, not a text link. It cost $1.50 a month (yes, you read that right) and it's on a PR3 site that is very relevant to the target audience.

A link is a link is a link - IMHO if any additional factors add to the scoring value of a link (which is possible), it may be just adding on to the raw numerical value. Anyway we can cut it, having 20 links is better than having 2 links, if only to balance out the percentages of anchor text in IBLs.

Last edited by Marcia : 03-31-2005 at 09:21 AM.
Marcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off