Can inbound links really hurt you?

[AVC]

I give links out without payment Terry, I link to WPW from my Webmaster forum directory, but those sorts of links are not what Google is talking about.

No Follow tags are for links that are not approved by editors, this is why many forums are going to no follow by default for links within posts and signatures, many well known blogs are no follow by default also, a lot of webmasters are going this way for user generated content to protect their own status.

[crankydave]

AVC... It's not really a matter of how "we" choose to define paid. It's really more of a matter of how the links are going to be percieved and treated.

For example... Some paid reviews, such as the Yahoo directory are just fine, while many others are not. If someone compensates me for my time to do a thorough review/evaluation of their site I cannot post or blog about it without preventing ANY links from being followed unless I wish to risk a problem with Google. The links are not paid, my review and consultation would be. This is okay for Yahoo but not others? If it's okay for some what's the criteria and is it applied equitably?

What if you decide to link editorially to a site of your own accord, they find the link and in return start linking back to you? Now what? It's all a matter of perception. Is it a reciprocal link? A 3 way link scheme? A paid link?

It's rather easy to come up with a definition of "paid". It's basically impossible to come up with a definition that takes into account perception and any other factors that can influence that perception.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

From where I sit, it looks as though Google has simply removed toolbar PR from any page where it sees anything that might resemble a link scheme, whether it's trading or selling ...

[AVC]

Dave, most spammers are blatantly posting the same links all over the web, that is what Google is looking for, high percentages of reciprocal links in your total link profile or thousands of the same anchor text links (showing that they were placed via automated systems-directory submission services or software/posting agent scripts), these are signs of abuse and search engine spamming.

A few natural reciprocal links will not make you a target for the Google web spam team.

These tactics (buying or selling text links without using no-follow tags or blatant spamming) will get your websites de-indexed in the end.

The reason Google can catch folks for selling links is the fact that they can put 2 + 2 together, they can see the link buyers other paid links pointing to their sites with similar anchor text while the link seller in many cases does not know that their buyer is already known by Google.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by AVC

Dave, most spammers are blatantly posting the same links all over the web, that is what Google is looking for, high percentages of reciprocal links in your total link profile or thousands of the same anchor text links (showing that they were placed via automated systems-directory submission services or software/posting agent scripts), these are signs of abuse and search engine spamming.

I don't neccessarily disagree. Some instances are blatant and easy to spot and others are not.

Originally Posted by AVC

A few natural reciprocal links will not make you a target for the Google web spam team.

These tactics (buying or selling text links without using no-follow tags or blatant spamming) will get your websites de-indexed in the end.

Precisely my point. We can't quantify a "few". It's also not a matter of whether or not a link is actually "paid" or "bought" it's a matter of how it's percieved including intent. A review that is "paid" for and results in a link may be OK it may not.

Originally Posted by AVC

The reason Google can catch folks for selling links is the fact that they can put 2 + 2 together, they can see the link buyers other paid links pointing to their sites with similar anchor text while the link seller in many cases does not know that their buyer is already known by Google.

Sometimes it is easy. Many times it's not. Some people can "sell" without problems, even with Googles OK, others cannot. It's not cut and dry.

What's to prevent anyone from "buying" or placing a "paid" link for you or I? Or one that could be percieved as such? Now what?

Dave

[AVC]

Look at your backlinks, if you see a pattern emerging that is something odd or malicious, report it to Google yourself, fighting spammers or negative SEO is becoming part of your job I guess.

Why do hackers attack sites non-stop, why do referral log automated bots exist, how do you stop them?

Hell there are guys that want to hijack your traffic, take over your server and so on, it is up to you to watch everything, links, IP's hitting your sites, bots hitting your server and so on.

[cz]

I skimmed over some of this thread - the parts where discussion of "bad inbound links" hurting or not hurting a site. There was repeated requests for "show an example".

I haven't read much past that and I apologize if this is not relevant to the thread any longer (or at all) but here is an experiment that I watched unfold at another forum and in the end - tons of links directed toward the site - did hurt it. It took time but it did hurt - badly. There are charts and facts & figures withing the thread but I thought I'd share it in case anuone was interested.

17.000 coop weight to (dis)proof Google Bowling - SEO Chat

It's not "bad links" but lots of links in this test (kinda similar in regard to IBL's hurting a site though)

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by crankydave

It's rather easy to come up with a definition of "paid". It's basically impossible to come up with a definition that takes into account perception and any other factors that can influence that perception.

Dave, I agree and that's why I've been posting on this topic. IMO, there is a lot of misleading information being spread by a few who have been posting here and in the Google webmaster blog discussion as well. IMO, Google does everyone a big favor by just saying "the W3C nofollow definition is the best guide". One sentence and then it's not about paid but whether authors' are "voting" or selling ads or both. I have mixed feelings because I can take either side of the "Google is killing competition" or trying to protect relevancy. If they took the W3C path then much of this discussion is moot. It's all pretty straight forward and the guidelines are IMO, crystal clear!

[AVC]

Originally Posted by cz

I skimmed over some of this thread - the parts where discussion of "bad inbound links" hurting or not hurting a site. There was repeated requests for "show an example".

I haven't read much past that and I apologize if this is not relevant to the thread any longer (or at all) but here is an experiment that I watched unfold at another forum and in the end - tons of links directed toward the site - did hurt it. It took time but it did hurt - badly. There are charts and facts & figures withing the thread but I thought I'd share it in case anyone was interested.

17.000 coop weight to (dis)proof Google Bowling - SEO Chat

It's not "bad links" but lots of links in this test (kinda similar in regard to IBL's hurting a site though)

Quite an old topic going back years now, that being Google bowling and pointing a lot of links at a site in a short period of time, that is why I told Dave to report any fishy activity to Google if you feel someone is conducting negative SEO on your sites.

This is why unattended sites that take comments from the public should use "no follow" by default also, because your outgoing links that are not approved (endorsed) by editors are a risk.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by cz

I skimmed over some of this thread - the parts where discussion of "bad inbound links" hurting or not hurting a site. There was repeated requests for "show an example".

I haven't read much past that and I apologize if this is not relevant to the thread any longer (or at all) but here is an experiment that I watched unfold at another forum and in the end - tons of links directed toward the site - did hurt it. It took time but it did hurt - badly. There are charts and facts & figures withing the thread but I thought I'd share it in case anuone was interested.

17.000 coop weight to (dis)proof Google Bowling - SEO Chat

It's not "bad links" but lots of links in this test (kinda similar in regard to IBL's hurting a site though)

fascinating. so you have to build them fast then swap anchor text by the look of it.

[AVC]

Google is hip to the Digital Point Co-op, read Matt Cutt's comments on it.

[crankydave]

Terry... I'm going to move this side discussion to it's own thread...

Links-Do they have too much weight?

Dave

[galide]

There are charts and facts & figures withing the thread but I thought I'd share it in case anuone was interested.

17.000 coop weight to (dis)proof Google Bowling - SEO Chat

the experiment described there is as follow:
1) take a site which is poorly designed for SEO
2) look at your analytics to find a series of keywords it currently rank for
3) stare at it everyday for 2h
4) keep an eye on its ranking for the series of keywords you have found
5) wait until next google algo update (remember, the thread above is dated 2005..)
6) cross fingers, your site may have lost its ranking for your chosen keywords

Thanks to this drill, you can demonstrate that by staring at a site for 2h everey day, you can make it loose ranking!

[kevsta]

hahaha how i've missed you

Originally Posted by galide

the experiment described there is as follow:
1) take a site which is poorly designed for SEO
2) look at your analytics to find a series of keywords it currently rank for
3) stare at it everyday for 2h
4) keep an eye on its ranking for the series of keywords you have found
5) wait until next google algo update (remember, the thread above is dated 2005..)
6) cross fingers, your site may have lost its ranking for your chosen keywords

Thanks to this drill, you can demonstrate that by staring at a site for 2h everey day, you can make it loose ranking!

[full house]

if its a bad links it will definite hurt but if its a good links, I mean links that are related to your site. Don't link to gambling, porn and any other illegal sites.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC

Look at your backlinks, if you see a pattern emerging that is something odd or malicious, report it to Google yourself, fighting spammers or negative SEO is becoming part of your job I guess.

Nope! Google let the genie out of the bottle, it's up to them to deal with it! Perhaps by acting like responsible netizens instead of treating the web like it's their own cash cow. That is starting to really get under my skin.

Originally Posted by AVC

Why do hackers attack sites non-stop, why do referral log automated bots exist, how do you stop them?

Hell there are guys that want to hijack your traffic, take over your server and so on, it is up to you to watch everything, links, IP's hitting your sites, bots hitting your server and so on.

Yeup but those are under the control of the webmasters and they are in total control of those things whereas the webmaster has no way to control the hole Google opened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the change to IBL being able to damage you would lead to negative SEO. That should be a no brainer for anyone in the game longer than a day!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

if its a bad links it will definite hurt but if its a good links, I mean links that are related to your site. Don't link to gambling, porn and any other illegal sites.

While you are correct regarding out-bound links, the subject here under discussion is in-bound links, about which you are mistaken; worthless IBLs are simply discounted by the search engines.

[full house]

well, I read in google guidelines . . . we should limit it to 100.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

well, I read in google guidelines . . . we should limit it to 100.

Limit what?

You cannot limit IBLs, which is the subject at hand.

[full house]

this is what I'm talking too

Design and content guidelines

back to top

• Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link.
• Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the site map is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the site map into separate pages.
• Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.
• Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.
• Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content, or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in images.
• Make sure that your <title> elements and alt attributes are descriptive and accurate.
• Check for broken links and correct HTML.
• If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few.
• Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100).

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

this is what I'm talking too

Which has nothing to do with In-Bound Links!

[furnitureboy]

Unfortunately i was told some time ago that paying for lots of one way inbound links would be useful to my SEO.

I subscribed to directory maximizer and directory submitter and initially this helped my google search ranking, however 2 weeks ago I completely dropped of googles page ranking for my main search terms, nothing had changed on my site.

Despair has now kicked in and now I am looking for answers and possible remedies.

Any suggestions anybody?

[inertia]

From first impressions it sounds like your links were discounted or had their PR dropped. This is an example of how in-bound links can hurt you. The links that you buy get you some nice positions but something happens, such as Google dropping the PR of a dodgy network, and all the sites down the line that were feeding off that PR are suddenly screwed. And who says PR isnt important?!
My advice... drop the site somewhere on here for a review, if there are no problems with the site then link build (quality links) like mad.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

From first impressions it sounds like your links were discounted or had their PR dropped. This is an example of how in-bound links can hurt you.

What you're saying is that they are no longer helping. That is not the same as hurting.

If you have a car stuck in the mud and have 4 people helping to push it out and 4 people watching, the 4 people watching are not hurting you.

If the 4 people watching decide to push the car from the front while the 4 people helping are pushing the car from the back then they are now hurting you.

[kgun]

Nothing new. Only noise.

[crankydave]

Here's what Google had to say recently...

Do backlinks from bad sites negatively affect my PageRank?

Those links might be positively affecting your PageRank (PageRank does not go down from "bad" links like those from adult sites). In general, you don't have to worry about bad links like that which point to your site that aren't under your control.

Google Answers Some Tricky Questions | WebProNews

My bolding.

Read into that what you like.

Dave

[kgun]

Thanks Dave for the update. That is what I have said from the beginning of this thread.

[uberanimal]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Here's what Google had to say recently...



My bolding.

Read into that what you like.

Dave

you don't have to worry about them. So really, that means they wont hurt you in anyway as far as google is concerned? hmm.. interesting!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kgun

Thanks Dave for the update. That is what I have said from the beginning of this thread.

Likewise. Can we now put this issue behind us?

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Likewise. Can we now put this issue behind us?

No one's forcing anyone to keep kicking a dead horse...

Unless this is a "last word" competition? lol

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

No one's forcing anyone to keep kicking a dead horse...

Unless this is a "last word" competition? lol

Yet, there are those who persist in raising the issue, arguing contrary to that which has been settled.

It is these to whom my query was addressed.

[kgun]

Yes, and I think there is a reward for squaring the circle with ruler and compass. Especially, doctors with a high ego still come to the mathematical institute at the university of Oslo and tell that they have found a solution. Lawyers should also be candidates.

[deepsand]

Let us not forget trisecting the angle, using only a straight edge & divider.

[Terry Van Horne]

Generally... meaning that should be the case, but... there are cases where it's true. That's the same kind of opaque answer Matt gave on this subject on Google's blog. The fact they dance around it tells me... generally... could mean certain types of link profiles might make it possible for IBLs to negatively impact you. However, if you've been buying links and using other linking schemes then you might want to be alert. IMO, generally you're OK if you haven't been screwing around yourself. It could also mean that as long as you aren't placing well generally they leave you alone. If you place well then you might be hand edited

[full house]

well, this is about paid links that could hurt your site.To be safe don't do such a thing but if you're really looking forward to get good backlinks its up to you just make sure google won't think that the link its paid.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

well, this is about paid links that could hurt your site.To be safe don't do such a thing but if you're really looking forward to get good backlinks its up to you just make sure google won't think that the link its paid.

You continue to fail to make the very important distinction between "hurt" and "not help."

Known paid links are discounted by Google; at the extreme, they are given a zero weight, not a negative weight. Therefore, they do not "hurt," but simply do "not help."

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

What you're saying is that they are no longer helping. That is not the same as hurting.

If you have a car stuck in the mud and have 4 people helping to push it out and 4 people watching, the 4 people watching are not hurting you.

If the 4 people watching decide to push the car from the front while the 4 people helping are pushing the car from the back then they are now hurting you.

Janeth you could argue with a sign post!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by deepsand

You continue to fail to make the very important distinction between "hurt" and "not help."

Known paid links are discounted by Google; at the extreme, they are given a zero weight, not a negative weight. Therefore, they do not "hurt," but simply do "not help."

True, but there have been discussions about IBLs possibly having negative impact on a site, IMO, that negative impact is to the trust factors. The paid link discussion on the Google blog also mentioned the negative impact of a paid IBL. I agree there is no negative PR passed but... there are indications in both a few discussions here, and on Googles Webmaster Blog that paid links can affect buyer and seller negatively. PR is a lesser factor in the ranklings of sites then it was a few years ago. I would be more worried about trust factors than PR.

[kgun]

So the circle squaring is going on. At least, don't reduce this thread to a discussion about link selling / buying, since that have been discussed extensively already:

The Ongoing PageRank Massacre Hits Big Players

Link Selling - Unethical or Just Unwise?

The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?

[full house]

thanks for the links. . . I just want ti point out that there are link that can hurt and help on the other hand. Like link from link farm site or pages and paid links.

[kgun]

Have you read the full thread? No, they will not hurt. You only get what you deserve and in the worst case you are deleted from Google's index, what I personally called completely zeroed out, because you deserved it. Googles filters identified an undeserved position. That is in a nutshell what I mean.

You may find it interesting to continue your discussion in this

Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

thread that discusses different link schemes and ad models in a broader and may be new context.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

thanks for the links. . . I just want ti point out that there are link that can hurt and help on the other hand. Like link from link farm site or pages and paid links.

Why do you keep repeating that which has already been determined to be incorrect?

See Can inbound links really hurt you?

[activeco]

Hello guys, finally found seven minutes free to check the news here.

Originally Posted by deepsand

Why do you keep repeating that which has already been determined to be incorrect?

Well, that's how the world turns.
If we are to compress all the Q&A's into the uniques, there will be no many threads left.


P.S. Unfortunately, gotta zip away. Cheers everyone.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

Janeth you could argue with a sign post!

Do you feel like any topic that is debated is arguing?

Arguing and debating are too different things, and when you say something like inbound links hurt you and use how they no longer help as an example it’s hard for me to understand how you could see it wrong for me to point out that they are not hurting, just no longer helping.

Or maybe you just feel that your statements should not be questioned?

[inertia]

You know what I meant janeth, that was my point... I think the word is...

pedantic: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

You know what I meant janeth, that was my point... I think the word is...

pedantic: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms.

That was not a minute detail. You made a stamen that incoming links can hurt you and showed an example of them not helping.

Someone not paying attention could have left thinking you had proven that incoming links hurt. What you see has a minute thing I see as bad information.

[Mel]

Balderdash! how many times does Google and Matt Cutts have to tell you the common sense fact that things which are beyond your control will not hurt you?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Mel

Balderdash! how many times does Google and Matt Cutts have to tell you the common sense fact that things which are beyond your control will not hurt you?

I don't believe they have ever definitively said "will not" as in "can't happen". If they have, I've not seen nor heard it.

Dave

[Mel]

Well Dave you know that getting a straight answer out of Google is almost impossible though Matt Cutts is a bit more open>

But from an interview Danny Sullivan did with Matt Cutts:

# Can you hurt other sites by pointing dirty links to them?

Matt says they have worked very hard so that it will not happen...

Now that is not spot on target I know but when you read a few dozen similar posts you start to get the idea.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Mel

Well Dave you know that getting a straight answer out of Google is almost impossible though Matt Cutts is a bit more open>

But from an interview Danny Sullivan did with Matt Cutts:

# Can you hurt other sites by pointing dirty links to them?

Matt says they have worked very hard so that it will not happen...

Now that is not spot on target I know but when you read a few dozen similar posts you start to get the idea.

Agree completely Mel. I've little doubt they work hard to prevent it from happening. When it comes to the "likelyhood" of it happening, that's one thing. When it come to "can" or "can't", that's another.

Dave