New way to buy links or scam?

[amxfan]

For some reason I was not able to sleep and found myself bored. In so I decided to check out what was going on in the "internet underground" So I fired up MIRC and started to poke around. I pop into a SEO channel and after awhile a topic caught my eye of someone selling one way links in blocks of 25, 50 and 100. What they where actually doing is selling accounts. In short they would go on "I think related" forums / Blogs and post threads. Once they have gotten X amount of threads they would put a keyworded link in a sig file then sell that account and start all over again. I found this fascinating that someone would actually do this. But it also got me asking myself

Is this the new wave of link buying? or just a scam.

Now I know IRC is not the place that most companies go to get SEO help and most of the people in that channel I would bet where running some what questionable sites but the fact is there where people there and if it gets out could this become the new wave?

[amxfan]

Update

Ok this isn't anything new as I have found out. But come on is this where getting links has taken some people? I would hate to see any type of thread such as this one here on WPW.

http://www.chatlife.co.uk/clforum/f40/bid-im-selling-one-sig-link-t1977/

I mean it is bad enough people spam there site across forums and blogs just to get links. Or as Spiderbait has recently started a thread on "cut and pasting" questions from other forums.
This has to be a new low. I hate to see what comes next.....

[chowell]

Purchasing forum signatures is just another avenue of attempting to get past Google's "paid link" issues. It's really a shame that people go to this level.

Hopefully, the forum links will disappear after time, since the profiles will no longer be actively posting.

I've heard of much larger signature sponsorships, where people will contact the most frequent posters in forums and offer them an amount to get a link in their sig. The only folks who could properly know about these types of sponsorships are Moderators and othe forum members who see frequent sig changes and/or links unrelated to what the forum member has been known to be involved in previously.

[crankydave]

This is really nothing new.

As long as something has value, or percieved to have value, there will always be folks willing to buy and sell it.

Dave

[amxfan]

Originally Posted by crankydave

As long as something has value, or perceived to have value, there will always be folks willing to buy and sell it.

Yes you are correct in that. But like always who is going to pay for this. SE's in general are reactive and once this method hits the mainstream "if it has not already" they will do what they have always done and that's counter it. This I would guess would either devalue the links or penalize one if one has too many links from one source. When does it stop? Even lawyers have morals "although they may be few" as they will not defend some clients. But it seems as more and more web masters do not have any and will do just about anything to try and get their site to the top. Most of the time these sites are not worth a damn to begin with, sadly enough. But the real sad thing is there isn't anything we can do about it. We can preach all day long about black hat SEO, buying and selling links, PR manipulation, etc. and it seems to do no good.

Sorry, but yes this kind of has my feathers ruffled.

I have been asked why am I blaming the webmasters for doing it, when I should be blaming Google for bringing it to the table to begin with, by requiring IBL's and the weight they have. I actually had to stop and think about this for a quick second and the only way I can reply is by stating your boss requires you to be at work on time, but are you going to blame him when the cop gives you the speeding ticket? Or are you going to blame the cop? The truth is, it is your own fault.

[marcel]

Why would it be a scam ?


It's legit. Sounds like a great idea to me. Once the buyer is happy with links like that, why not...

As long as the forum owner is not annoyed with users abandoning their accounts to start new ones.

[amxfan]

Originally Posted by marcel

Why would it be a scam ?


It's legit. Sounds like a great idea to me. Once the buyer is happy with links like that, why not...

As long as the forum owner is not annoyed with users abandoning their accounts to start new ones.

Ok I have calmed down a little....

You think that this is a good idea? Even knowing Google is against the buying and selling of links?
Would you say this could also be looked at as a form of black hat SEO?

I spend most of my time here in the site review area of WPW due to I believe this is where I can do the most good. I also have a great deal of respect for this forum and it's members that contribute to the cause. But why should I? Why should I help someone who needs it just so they can come back and spam the forums that myself and many, many others have spent so much time trying to make better and the place to come for good sound advice?

What you do on your own site is up to you and to be honest I really do not care. But what people do here "including myself" affects me and also affects the other members as WE become a part of it by association. I'm not quite sure how else I can put it other than it all has to do with respect.

Now maybe I'm way out in left field on this and if so thats fine. But in my opinion I think people that abuse the forums should not be allowed to be part of the forums.
Selling sig file links is abuse IMO.

Over 100 people have looked at this thread, and apparently since there have been no replies supporting or opposing this, I am getting the feeling that to many it is okay. I am getting the feeling that I am wasting my time and should just shut up and let it go.

[visio]

Originally Posted by amxfan

Ok I have calmed down a little....

You think that this is a good idea? Even knowing Google is against the buying and selling of links?

yes google is against selling links, because they want to be the only ones doing just that.

[lukkyjay]

It's only a matter of time until the forum software updates include a "rel=nofollow" on sigs. I'm surprised they don't already.

[incrediblehelp]

Buying links is never a good idea any way you look at it. You never have control of the links or what value they will give you, so essentially what are you paying for?

[Terry Van Horne]

Umm... is this abusing a community and not using it for the purposes the community was created or is cool to use a community solely for the purpose of promotion. I don't believe so and doubt the links provide much value since it is quickly buried. This is just another BS scheme brought to you by the wannabe SEOs of the world! IMO, It's well below the level any professional stoops.

[Palindrome]

Originally Posted by amxfan

Over 100 people have looked at this thread, and apparently since there have been no replies supporting or opposing this, I am getting the feeling that to many it is okay. I am getting the feeling that I am wasting my time and should just shut up and let it go.

Hi

I think most rational people would agree with you. Set aside the moral issue and consider the inevitable damage.

Those with genuine, freely given links in forums, or who offer real support in exchange for their links will lose that value. As has been said, search engines will simply clamp down more and more. The road that Google have taken recently is just a start, they wish to return to the dream of links being nothing other than a freely given editorial vote. The fact they will kill a percentage of genuine votes in trying to achieve this, will not stop their pursuit of the impossible. They believe that is best for their real business, advertising.

This particular debate over forum links may not last long anyway, wouldn't be at all surprised if the push behind nofollowing blog posts is continued into forums. If that doesn't work, they simply devalue the lot.

So we should all be concerned, although not too worried about schemes that are likely to be short lived. Bettter to concentrate on replacing what we will lose in the process.

[alexsimon]

Now the thing with spam is not ok.

But buying sigs in relevant forums is not immoral. Forums could counterreact on this and put nofollow tag to the links in the sigs.

It would be ok, since it would not affect the algo, and at the same time, they would (or would not) bring in visitors to those sites.

To clarify myself the only accepted way of this is:

- by buying sigs in relevant topical forums. For example in a travel related forum for a travel site. It does not annoy users.
- by buying them for the visitors that would come through those links and not for the algo (this could be prevented though by forum owners I guess)
- by not buying newly created accounts, and by not supporting the spammy posts these new accounts make.

Spamming forums and then selling the links is not ok, but buying a sig link from a reputable member of a forum, a nofollow sig link maybe, would be acceptable, as people look for what those members have in the sig, and thus they may become prospective visitors of the site that is advertised.

[amxfan]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Buying links is never a good idea any way you look at it. You never have control of the links or what value they will give you, so essentially what are you paying for?

I wish I had a answer to this question but I don't.

@ Terry

People that are here to help do so for free. I look at a sig file as a way the admin of the forum says thanks for your help. If one is only here to promote themselves and not here seeking help or to give help, then they should not be allowed here, never-the-less to have a sig file. I think we both agree on this. As far as no professional SEO would stoop to this. I wish I could agree. Not all professionals use the best tactics to promote their clients as I'm sure you know.


@ Palindrome

Very well put and I agree. We should be expecting something to happen and start planning on it now. With that I also have to wonder if it would be better if they did not add a nofollow to the sig file as I can see some good people leaving due to there would no longer be any incentive to help. I would rather see the forums go to the 'you must post X amount of times before you can have a sig file' or have 'X amount of activity per week to keep their sig file' rule if they must do anything.

I also made that last statement due to I do not understand why anyone who spends alot of time here would not get upset at the mere thought of this. After all this is OUR forum these people are abusing.

@alexsimon

That is your opinion and you have a right to it, but I do not agree with it.
If a member of the forums has a sig file to their site or sites and they are active in the forums then yes that is okay as I feel that is a way of saying thanks for helping. But once the member starts selling their links in that file I feel they have crossed the line as they are no longer there to help the cause but more so to make money. Once money gets involved the members mind set would tend to change and soon they start to think.. hmmm if I had a few accounts, I could make more. And it keeps going down hill from there, bringing the forums down with it.

[chrisJumbo]

I do not believe members should be selling their sig link. Matter of fact, it may even go agaist the terms of service of the forum, if it isn't it should be.

However, one thing to note, the forum signatures I believe are dynamic so if you change your sig links, then when the SEs come and re-index the post, the old sig links will be replace by the new. Can someone verify this?

Thus, if I'm correct, whatever "value" was there would disappear.

I think if you really valued the member's authority you could PM them and they could do a review or something for you. Selling sig links just seems low, low, low.

[amxfan]

chrisJumbo

Thank you I agree 100%
As far the the sig file goes if you have 100 post and you change the sig. it changes it for all 100 post. This is why they were selling the accounts and not just the links I guess.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by visio

yes google is against selling links, because they want to be the only ones doing just that.

False.

Google, like Yahoo and MSN, sells advertising links; they do not sell natural ones. Link selling & buying, of the type frowned on by SEs, is of the latter kind, that which corrupts the organic search results.

[arius]

This has been around at least 9 months or a year. I remember being solicited this service through and old Two-way link builing service provider we used (which of course was looking to compensate for his lost business). I don't like buying link at any capacity so did not act on it, but I know a two sites that ended up using them. One was very happy and i think still use the service (and claims he saw improvements in his SERPs), the other (which is the more credible one I should add) did not continue with the service.

In summary I think if you are ok with the concept of Link Buying (I am not, but I know some are ok with it), and you don't want to wait on getting some additional support on your relatively new site, I guess it is ok to make a part of your package. But putting 50% of your budget in this is no good. I still would not do it. There are a lot more better, honest and smart ways to get links.

[dreras]

Don't do it. Paying for links is never a good idea.

Your only going to be mad at yourself later.

[vwlpaige]

I agree that buying links in the way described is black hat SEO.

Let's not blame Google for the IBL situation. The better target of blame is the guy who tries to game Google and lead searchers to a site having nothing to do with his search - or a site simply filled with Google ads on the topic of the search.

Please remember that one of Google's main aims is to keep the natural search listings worthwhile.

The people who have been among the worst abusers in the various forums with inapplicable links have been the viagra guys and various other pharmaceuticals. Often they use misleading link text which does not help Google or anyone searching on Google.

Let's be practical. Yes, we all want our sites to be found, and if we're practicing white hat SEO, we're playing by Google's rules. Helping Google to maintain an excellent search is in our best interests, because we need the #1 search engine. Plus if Google catches anyone using black hat techniques, the offending site gets dropped.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Buying links is never a good idea any way you look at it. You never have control of the links or what value they will give you, so essentially what are you paying for?

hey incred

what about "link placement programs"..? are you saying that all these companies that buy thousands of links are kidding themselves?

thanks
rick

[onlinetv]

Originally Posted by amxfan

Ok I have calmed down a little....

Google is against the buying and selling of links?

Gee, Google is against buying and selling links but that is its core business. It sells the links through offers of bribes, you put the links on your sites as an affilate website on their farm and they sell the links and pay you a vig for your "account."

It would be okay if you calmed down and notice the squeeze play. It used to be called "monopolistic behavior" where someone says here is my product, you make more money; don’t sell anyone else’s. Didn't Microsoft try that same thing and get reamed for it?

It is nice that Google does not like sites buying and selling links, perhaps it should stop the practice? It nice that you think the offer of money for links is immoral, but why do you sell them through Google then? Do you think a Goolge delivered advertising for wheelchairs is contextual for a cartoon site?

Is this getting to be like some cult religion where if you sell links to any other cult the master cult will put you to the "question?"

Google is a huge web farm of capitulating sites dedicated to one search god for the daily bread of buying and selling links. These affiliated sites adhere to strict rules to bring top listings to their paid link web farm of Made for Adsense websites. Each site consists of a limited amount of content, usually much less content than advertising. Google allows their web farm owners to place upwards of 6 huge ad sections per page and each sites takes advantage of this even placing the sold links in the middle of small stories.

The biggest problem today is that the MFAS websites are content-less with key worded bull instead of the content someone searches for. They are the top pages of the search returns on Google and basically if you are looking for something these days you get these sites instead of what you are looking for. Google is failing through over sanitation. A site with 70 google text ads on it and one paragraph about a topic with a link to another MFAS is maddening even for jaded old schoolers like myself. I find Google more useless each day as sites adhere to its rules with nothing in them at all except the keywords and rules Google likes to find. While many legitimate sites work within the rule set, their business is not Google adsense even if they augment their earnings with it. Most sites just want the adsense and pass bull under the ads to try to get their daily bread.

Google's monopoly is being enhanced through puppets that hang in these forums to march along the dotted lines encouraging everyone into Google's Web Farm Affiliate program called adsense. It is a legitimate piece of business for a company to ask exclusivity in contextual advertising on a site, but it is not legitimate to demand you not sell direct links or garner your wages in other directions.

The difference between you making posts and paying someone else? You hired someone. Google does not want you to hire anyone. If you do not go and do it Google thinks it sucks. But that is only for you, big companies on the top of their search have large staff that do it, so they are salaried, not paid to do it. Someone makes an account with some depth and sells it to you or you hire someone to build that? The stupidity is to buy it and not continue to milk your cow. Even more stupidity seems to arise when you think hiring people, or paying for their work is wrong. Perhaps in this context Google is trying to keep you all mom and pop operations so that you cannot expand? How many posts and work like that can one person do and still run their real site (if they have one)?

Google is plainly trying to bully its web farm affiliates into its monopoly and it will come down for this practice. Reading these posts makes it plain to see the carrot and stick works well and most people will just shiver to follow the yellow brick road allowing Google to ban competition from its web farm affiliates sites. Web farm affiliates will help Google capture its monopoly through fear. That is evil - that is Google.

[cbosleeds]

Its pretty common for SEO companies to use forums as part of the link building strategy for their clients anyway - they're just not so transparent about it as to sell forum links in blocks. Its a method of holding an ace over the customer as well - since once the customer stops the contract, some SEO company's then just take down the links, with one easy edit. Personally I'm not a fan of this and any links acquired over the term of a contract ought to stay up in my opinion

Selling forum links like this though is not the best way to go about it, since the links aren't really anybody's to sell. Whereas paying for an SEO service to find relevant links - including on forums might be seen as a little more legit. Its all about packaging the service.

[onlinetv]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Buying links is never a good idea any way you look at it. You never have control of the links or what value they will give you, so essentially what are you paying for?

You are the best and I have a lot of respect for you. Yet this has me tossed.

I sell my ads direct for the most part. Either sites come to me because they saw I have great content and ask how can I stick my link on your site, or I am seeing their site and thinking they would be great sponsors or places I want to be seen at and contact them. We agree on a price per month and off I go with more money than google ever paid me.

I not only have more control I have direct control.

If I want my link on someone’s site I like and it would have people that would like my content then I would offer to pay them for the link. I have done this since 1996 before Google was a sperm in the Internet bubble.

I not only find this natural I find Google unnatural and constantly filled with ads that must be left over inventory with no contextual relationship to materials presented on the page.

Direct ads will beat any Google program on a monthly basis.

Why would I pay Google to place an adsense ad with my link on some site I do not know 1000 times to finally get a click I pay 10 bucks for? I can find the sites I would love to be on and ask for a link. They can decide if I fit and their people would like it, set their price and off we go. I am where I want to be with a price agreed. No surprises no bullshit.

Google is just another scam. What you are saying is never try to deal direct - go Google and saying it allows more control. That is entirely untrue. Buying links is the best way to control where you are seen and set the price without change on a monthly basis. It is a webmasters true best friend and Googles worst enemy.

Google makes you scam for them.

If websites linked direct for small montly fees they would earn more and the ads would be perfect fits for the content and people of a website because the site owners have an abundance of partner type sites out there. You will actually have to limit your choice of sites when you realize how big it is.

Google encourages cheats because the more adsense sites you visit the more chance they make money. They are no longer worried about search but money in advertising. To beat the cheats and wipe out the idea of the competition they claim you should not deal direct for the same reason they are actually bad - no control of your ad or what is placed on your site or knowing what is being charged or paid for it.

[amxfan]

I like to thank every one here who has replied

Ad far as buying and selling links goes there seems to be a major misconception. No one said you could not sell ad space on your own site or buy ad space on someone else's site. You can. What they do say is do not sell or buy ad space or links that pass PR and if you do make it a nofollow or put it in a Iwindow or java script or do something where the SE's can not crawl it and it does not "cast a vote" for who ever the link or ad goes to.

Also there is a misconception that Google adsense is a form of selling links. Does it pass PR? NO

The comment was also made that many people on forums tell people to use adsence or adwords. Well to be honest I have not seen this. Most people here that I know of believe it is a wast of money for the return you get and try and get people off of it.

Basically if you or the person buying or or selling a link is doing so to gain PR or to help increase their own ranking in the SEPRs. then do not do it. If it will not help you gain PR or increase your ranking in the SERPs then it is okay in the eyes of the SEs. I personally think if it is your own site fine but if it's on someones else's site that you use like forums then it is abuse.

[onlinetv]

Originally Posted by amxfan

What they do say is do not sell or buy ad space or links that pass PR

That is entirely google's problem. Using "nofollow" is for spam not sponsors or people who support a site. If I put a sign of spam on my best friends I should be embarassed. If they want to tag a sponsor make a rel="sponsor" tag so that they can be proud. Grouping them with the spam tag is bull. I have them all in clearly marked sponsor boxes as that is traditional so that my users know. But if Google cannot group them and do what they want then demands to use a spam tag on advertisers it actually becomes an underhanded trick to get rid of competition without directly taking responsibility. They allow you to assume everything without stating the case.

Originally Posted by amxfan

Also there is a misconception that Google adsense is a form of selling links. Does it pass PR? NO

Authority for this statement? Do you even believe everything Google tells you? Did you work for Enron? Do you understand the business model they operate under? Google sells contextual (sometimes) text links and display advertising to an affilate webfarm. Web site owners have little or no control over those ads either in whom or price.

Does not pass PR? Have you not noticed the many threads of using adsense to get your site searched faster by Google? Have you ever clicked on the first pages of search returns and seen anything but PAGES of adsense laden drone sites? Live.com is doing a much better job actually in relevant search results and so is Yahoo! It is the mal-addiction to the Google advertising giant has caused a market distortion.

Originally Posted by amxfan

Basically if you or the person buying or or selling a link is doing so to gain PR or to help increase their own ranking in the SEPRs. then do not do it.

So you deduce, in the name of the Google web farm affiliate program, that we are required mind-reading skills to make such subjective decisions about why an individual or company would like buy a link? Does google have a sample questionnaire I can supply my sponsors for prior screening? Truth serum or maybe a lie detector? This is all to be returned for my relevant content in a white/yellow pages type search for relevant content? Or is it to make money for Google?

If a site has something that my site relates to they want to be my sponsors they are welcome and right on there, come on over.

Google fed me wheel chair ads on a teen music site!

If you want the best advertising go direct. Advertisers pay a nice small set monthly (this is generally 15 to 50 a month) and you get to choose who appears on your site. Advertisers know where their ads are and know exact costs and web owners know whom they are promoting and what they will get at the end of the month. It is almost like real business! They go in sponsor boxes proudly displayed as they have since web sites started.

Content wins in the end and can pick and choose its advertisers. If you don't have real content and are dependent on the Adsense circle scam then by all means you better get in the line. But if you have a real site and deal with other real sites you can deal like a real business out there. Obviously you have never tried it.

On the small part of the Google conglomerate concerned with search rather than advertising they will loose their reputation if content does not remain at the top exclusive of their ad farm sites. Their sad lack of taking responsibility for their own search engine shows they care little about it and turn to the site owners to do kludges while they build out more ways to advertise. It is all done under a guise.

What Google should do is create the rel="sponsor" tag. Then they should make you all apply that to your sponsor advertising. As they remove them from the search results there will be an equal growth in lawsuits applied against them. Do you get how sinister this really is? We all agree that a spam tag was needed to apply to comments so the drug pushers and spammers would not get any PR. It is nice. But do you REALLY agree those who support your site and do it more than just a normal user should be grouped in that tag? THERE IS A REASON THEY DID THAT! A Legal reason! Let them show their evil - don't let them hide it and don't put a spammer tag on advertisers.

GOOGLE! I know you read these forums! Get up to the front line if you want sponsors tagged! Say it out loud instead of insinuating under the cover of a spam tag! Take legal responsibility for your illegal intent.

[Azher Memon]

This is worst kind of activity...you are plying with people's trust on you...

[amxfan]

This is off topic of buying and selling links in sig files, but..

That is entirely google's problem. Using "nofollow" is for spam not sponsors or people who support a site. If I put a sign of spam on my best friends I should be embarassed. If they want to tag a sponsor make a rel="sponsor" tag so that they can be proud. Grouping them with the spam tag is bull. I have them all in clearly marked sponsor boxes as that is traditional so that my users know. But if Google cannot group them and do what they want then demands to use a spam tag on advertisers it actually becomes an underhanded trick to get rid of competition without directly taking responsibility. They allow you to assume everything without stating the case.

Taken from Wiki
The nofollow attribute value is not meant for blocking access to content or preventing content to be indexed by search engines. The proper methods for blocking search engine spiders to access content on a website or for preventing them to include the content of a page in their index are the Robots Exclusion Standard (robots.txt) for blocking access and on page Meta Elements that are designed to specify on an individual page level what a search engine spider should or should not do with the content of the crawled page.

I do not see anything calling this a spammer tag do you? But if you do not want to use this tag there are other ways to make the link not crawlable.

Does not pass PR? Have you not noticed the many threads of using adsense to get your site searched faster by Google? Have you ever clicked on the first pages of search returns and seen anything but PAGES of adsense laden drone sites? Live.com is doing a much better job actually in relevant search results and so is Yahoo! It is the mal-addiction to the Google advertising giant has caused a market distortion.

Taken from Wiki
Abuse Some webmasters create websites tailored to lure searchers from Google and other engines onto their AdSense website to make money from clicks. These "zombie" websites often contain nothing but a large amount of interconnected, automated content (e.g., a directory with content from the Open Directory Project, or scraper websites relying on RSS feeds for content). Possibly the most popular form of such "AdSense farms" are splogs (spam blogs), which are centered around known high-paying keywords. Many of these websites use content from other websites, such as Wikipedia, to attract visitors. These and related approaches are considered to be search engine spam and can be reported to Google.
A Made for AdSense (MFA) website or webpage has little or no content, but is filled with advertisements so that users have no choice but to click on advertisements. Such pages were tolerated in the past, but due to complaints, Google now disables such accounts.
There have also been reports of Trojan horses engineered to produce counterfeit Google advertisements that are formatted to look like legitimate ones. The Trojan downloads itself onto an unsuspecting computer through a webpage and then replaces the original advertisements with its own set of malicious advertisements.[14]

that we are required mind-reading skills to make such subjective decisions about why an individual or company would like buy a link?

Do not need mind reading skills. In short if you sell a link, the link should not be crawlable

If you want the best advertising go direct.

I agree.. I do not buy ads or links. I do not use adsense nor do I sell ads or links. I do advertise in other forms of media though.

If you don't have real content and are dependent on the Adsense circle scam then by all means you better get in the line. But if you have a real site and deal with other real sites you can deal like a real business out there. Obviously you have never tried it.

So are you pissed off at me or Google? There is no need to be indignant. I do not think I have been.

What Google should do is create the rel="sponsor" tag.

Until then what do you suggest we do? Do you really think it is in the best interest of the members here that I suggest that everyone thumbs their nose at Google and tell Google to go to hell? Or would you say that it is in the best interest of the members here that I state that penalties may incur if Google catches them doing this or that? As of right now, the majority of the surfers use Google, so it is in the best interest of the members here to adhere to whatever guidelines Google sets forth if they rely on organic search results for sales / visitors.

Google only says this.
We do not care how you build your site, We do not care of the layout.

They also say
If you want to be IN our SERP's you will build it to meet these guidelines.

I have to ask, do you have the right to tell people you will not add there link to your site?
Google has the right to do the same.

Does the state you live in tell you what color car you must have? Or what type of car you must have? Or how about what size car you must have? NOPE they do not.

But they do tell you where you can drive it.
How fast you can drive it.
They can also prevent you from driving it if you do not follow their rules.
Same principle.

This is worst kind of activity...you are plying with people's trust on you...

What are you talking about?

[marcel]

Google likes it when we use the Interwebs exactly the way they want us to.
Why do you care what Google thinks ? Google isn't the Internet and Google probably isn't your customer.

It's just another company, like yours.

Originally Posted by amxfan

Ok I have calmed down a little....

You think that this is a good idea? Even knowing Google is against the buying and selling of links?
Would you say this could also be looked at as a form of black hat SEO?

I spend most of my time here in the site review area of WPW due to I believe this is where I can do the most good. I also have a great deal of respect for this forum and it's members that contribute to the cause. But why should I? Why should I help someone who needs it just so they can come back and spam the forums that myself and many, many others have spent so much time trying to make better and the place to come for good sound advice?

What you do on your own site is up to you and to be honest I really do not care. But what people do here "including myself" affects me and also affects the other members as WE become a part of it by association. I'm not quite sure how else I can put it other than it all has to do with respect.

Now maybe I'm way out in left field on this and if so thats fine. But in my opinion I think people that abuse the forums should not be allowed to be part of the forums.
Selling sig file links is abuse IMO.

Over 100 people have looked at this thread, and apparently since there have been no replies supporting or opposing this, I am getting the feeling that to many it is okay. I am getting the feeling that I am wasting my time and should just shut up and let it go.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by onlinetv

Web farm affiliates will help Google capture its monopoly through fear. That is evil - that is Google.

Nah, it's clever. Monopolies are cool...they separate the mighty from the vermin.

I say crush all competition then rush home for Oprah. Thanks for your bleeding heart input though.

Regards
Rick

[marcel]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Buying links is never a good idea any way you look at it.

There is a time and place for everything. Even for buying and selling links. Buying influence and exposure is a very old advertising technique.

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

You never have control of the links or what value they will give you, so essentially what are you paying for?

There are lots of things we don't have control over. Even in PPC. We just have to accept it and move on. It's the whole 20% .

It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales comes from 20% of your clients." It's a principle I am sure your aware of.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by marcel

Google likes it when we use the Interwebs exactly the way they want us to.
Why do you care what Google thinks ? Google isn't the Internet and Google probably isn't your customer.

It's just another company, like yours.

Google has brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales to my humble little business. I therefore care very much about what Google thinks.

Does that make me a yahoo?

Regards
Rick

[marcel]

If the posters are posting crap, delete their content.

If they post good content, keep it.

I get lots of spamming commenters on my financial blog. I regularly delete their links if they load it with keywords or obviously have nothing special to say.

Originally Posted by amxfan

For some reason I was not able to sleep and found myself bored. In so I decided to check out what was going on in the "internet underground" So I fired up MIRC and started to poke around. I pop into a SEO channel and after awhile a topic caught my eye of someone selling one way links in blocks of 25, 50 and 100. What they where actually doing is selling accounts. In short they would go on "I think related" forums / Blogs and post threads. Once they have gotten X amount of threads they would put a keyworded link in a sig file then sell that account and start all over again. I found this fascinating that someone would actually do this. But it also got me asking myself

Is this the new wave of link buying? or just a scam.

Now I know IRC is not the place that most companies go to get SEO help and most of the people in that channel I would bet where running some what questionable sites but the fact is there where people there and if it gets out could this become the new wave?

[marcel]

I hope that is small chunk of your income. Because what Google giveth, Google can take away.
Google does not care how much you make. It's your responsibility to make sure no one has the ability to take away your hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially Google.

Originally Posted by rickanderson

Google has brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales to my humble little business. I therefore care very much about what Google thinks.

Does that make me a yahoo?

Regards
Rick

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by onlinetv

Gee, Google is against buying and selling links but that is its core business. ...

False.

Google, like Yahoo and MSN, sells advertising links; they do not sell natural ones. Link selling & buying, of the type frowned on by SEs, is of the latter kind, that which corrupts the organic search results.

[marcel]

Originally Posted by deepsand

False.

Google, like Yahoo and MSN, sells advertising links; they do not sell natural ones. Link selling & buying, of the type frowned on by SEs, is of the latter kind, that which corrupts the organic search results.

I hardly care what they Google and friends do. They don't fit in any business plan. Only PPC is reliable. Ironiclly PPC is a paid service.

Corrupt the organic search results ? Search results are like charity (not love). And as the saying goes "Beggars can't be choosers". When you play SEO 100% the way Google wants you to, you become a beggar.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by marcel

I hardly care what they Google and friends do. They don't fit in any business plan. Only PPC is reliable. Ironiclly PPC is a paid service.

Concur. And, PPC is advertising.

Originally Posted by marcel

Corrupt the organic search results ? Search results are like charity (not love). And as the saying goes "Beggars can't be choosers". When you play SEO 100% the way Google wants you to, you become a beggar.

And this justifies some trying to buy their way to the front of the line?

[marcel]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Concur. And, PPC is advertising.


And this justifies some trying to buy their way to the front of the line?

Who said they are buying. They are advertising. They are marketing. It's an age old practice.

And there is no line. It's a setup. A trap. You see, the turbulent seas of search results give Search Engines and advantage over you. You become frustrated and end up buying their PPC.

And once again, there is nothing wrong with PPC. Just use PPC and stay at the top of the search results if you think the competition does not deserve to beat you. Put your money where your mouth is and let the returns on your investments do the talking.
But remember, PPC is a short term marketing strategy, buying links is a long term advertising strategy.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by marcel

Who said they are buying. They are advertising. They are marketing. It's an age old practice

But remember, PPC is a short term marketing strategy, buying links is a long term advertising strategy.

No, those who buy links, so as to gain an unfair advantage in the natural listings are not advertising; they are, in effect, buying votes, so as to inflate the perceived value of their site.

They are committing fraud.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by marcel

When you play SEO 100% the way Google wants you to, you become a beggar.

rofl...i soo love unintentional humor

[cbosleeds]

For me the whole paid link thing is a positive on Goog'e part, and helps protect the web as a meritocracy - only people with deep pockets can buy enough links to make a difference, but anyone willing to put the work in can bring them in for free. The grey area is of course SEO whereby you are paying a professional to put the work in for you. Its not ideal, but its the best we've got and if everyone could go out and buy links with impunity the web would be a very different place.

[marcel]

Originally Posted by deepsand

No, those who buy links, so as to gain an unfair advantage in the natural listings are not advertising; they are, in effect, buying votes, so as to inflate the perceived value of their site.

They are committing fraud.

No thank you. I won't accept that misinformation. It's a broad, blanket statement that lacks context and is full of emotional FUD.

Who is the "They". Different people buy links for different reasons. Everything isn't about SEO.
What is the "fraud" ? Please point to specific laws that are broken in each instance your "They" buys links.

Get the facts straight. There are specific forms of advertising in specific countries that can be labeled as misleading and fraudulent. Simply buying links, even to influence the search engines is not one of them. Again buying links to influence the search engines is not fraud. At BPFS (commercial link) we let the publishers identify when a product is being promoted to influence the behavior of a reader. In any case, we don't sell influence, we sell links and exposure to target markets.

So, again if your unhappy about that, just buy PPC ads. Google will gladly accept your money in exchange for short term exposure to a target market. Again, nothing is wrong with that. There is a time and place for everything but not search engine puritan worship toward homage to a commercial monopoly.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by marcel

No thank you. I won't accept that misinformation. It's a broad, blanket statement that lacks context and is full of emotional FUD.

Odd, but that's precisely how I see your position!

Originally Posted by marcel

Who is the "They". Different people buy links for different reasons. Everything isn't about SEO.
What is the "fraud" ? Please point to specific laws that are broken in each instance your "They" buys links.

Get the facts straight. There are specific forms of advertising in specific countries that can be labeled as misleading and fraudulent. Simply buying links, even to influence the search engines is not one of them. Again buying links to influence the search engines is not fraud. At BPFS (commercial link) we let the publishers identify when a product is being promoted to influence the behavior of a reader. In any case, we don't sell influence, we sell links and exposure to target markets.

Repeatedly labeling link buying for the purpose of inflating a site's apparent value, and thus gain a higher SERP, as "advertising" will not suffice to make it so.

As for fraud, your attempt at evasion by way of arguing that the specific laws of different jurisdictions vary will not serve to change the nature of the activity in question, which is to deliberately deceive, by way of material misrepresentation, for the purpose of gain at the expense of another, which is the common law definition of fraud.

Sophistry will gain you nothing here.

[innominds]

Yes, it is agreed that forum links are traded for SEO benefit but in the long run the search engines do not give the value to the forum signatures. They simply skip them.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by amxfan

@ Terry People... As far as no professional SEO would stoop to this. I wish I could agree. Not all professionals use the best tactics to promote their clients as I'm sure you know.

I won't accept that as professional service. End of story. That is why there is a credibility problem ie: the willingness to accept low standards as the standard for professional SEO. Certain industry prominents accept anyone willing to pay them as the standard for professional!

[marcel]

Originally Posted by amxfan

You think that this is a good idea?

yes
See my next answer

Originally Posted by amxfan

Even knowing Google is against the buying and selling of links?

Of course. Google does not own the Internet and Google isn't the Internet.
Google is against the buying and selling of direct dofollow links
Google does not care about nofollow links.
However, even nofollow links are valuable. To start with, they provide exposure within a possible target market.

[/quote]

Originally Posted by amxfan

Would you say this could also be looked at as a form of black hat SEO?

We are all Google Black Hatters.
You become a Black Hat, from the moment you consciencely choose to optimize a link within a forum, blog and leave it as GoogleBot food.

Originally Posted by amxfan

Now maybe I'm way out in left field on this and if so thats fine. But in my opinion I think people that abuse the forums should not be allowed to be part of the forums.
Selling sig file links is abuse IMO.

Just to clarify my first response to you: Selling links within a forum, where it's specifically banned is a BAD idea. Violating sellers should get banned.

However there are forums where such behavior is welcomed and encouraged. Webmaster Forum - Internet Marketing & Search Engine Forums is one of them. On DP you can sell your Avatar and signature links. It's like a Webmaster flea market. Not suprisingly it's very easy to sell low priced products and services on forums like DigitalPoint. Every forum is different. There are lots of forums where there is no explicit rule concerning the buying and selling of links. These forum owners appreciate the extra content and interaction.

So, you should not assume that everyone would be against it.

[marcel]

Originally Posted by dreras

Don't do it. Paying for links is never a good idea.

Your only going to be mad at yourself later.

If that were true, why does it work ? If the right target market is available, advertisers will even buy nofollow and redirected links.

I would really like to see scientific evidence from the don't-buy-links crowd. Just repeating the concerns of Google isn't evidence.

When real businesses want results they pay for it (PPC, dofollow links, nofollow links, redirected links). Running a business and beng a search engine beggar (SEO beleiver) does not go hand it hand...

[amxfan]

marcel

Of course. Google does not own the Internet and Google isn't the Internet.
Google is against the buying and selling of direct dofollow links
Google does not care about nofollow links.
However, even nofollow links are valuable. To start with, they provide exposure within a possible target market.

Please read #25 of this thread. We just said the same thing, didn't we?

We are all Google Black Hatters.
You become a Black Hat, from the moment you consciencely choose to optimize a link within a forum, blog and leave it as GoogleBot food.

This is your opinion and I will respect that. But I personally do not agree with it. I do not see how anchor text is black hat SEO.

However there are forums where such behavior is welcomed and encouraged

You are absolutely correct. There are forums where this is welcomed and encouraged. There are also so-called SEO professionals that use black hat SEO. There are also people who run link farms. There are also people who try to manipulate PR. Just because there are a few that do it, does not make it right. Again, my opinion, I believe it devalues the forum and the membership. The first time a member comes to a forum for any reason but to support or help that forum, I believe that member has no reason to be on that forum. Once money changes hands, or once a member starts getting paid for having other peoples links in their sig file, soon they will only be there for the money, and more than likely greed will take over and they will not just have one account on that forum, but many. Maybe that's why the forums allow this. Automatically they will get an artificial increase of membership. Please bear in mind, this is just my opinion.

I do not assume everyone is against it. I am voicing my opinion. If you disagree with it, this is fine.

On the same note, it is also MY opinion that when you are on a forum you are loyal to that forum. I am personally a member of a few different forums, but I go out of my way NOT to put a link from one forum to another. If I do, I put it inside of a code tag. I do this because I do not want to advertise another forum on a forum, especially if they are in competition. I'm not sure if you ever ran a forum, but I do not think you would like it, and you would probably ban someone, if someone came in and posted links to a competitors forum from yours. Google states that a link from page A to page B is a vote. I do not own this forum. If admin wishes to cast a vote to his competition, it is up to him, it is not my place. I'm not trying to lecture on this. I am just trying to make you understand my point of view.

[marcel]

Originally Posted by amxfan

marcel

Please read #25 of this thread. We just said the same thing, didn't we?

Actually I was clarifying my first answer to you. Adding details. I said that in the last paragraph.

Originally Posted by amxfan

This is your opinion and I will respect that. But I personally do not agree with it. I do not see how anchor text is black hat SEO.

If you don't see how anchor text is SEO, we have nothing to talk about.

Originally Posted by amxfan

Again, my opinion, I believe it devalues the forum and the membership. The first time a member comes to a forum for any reason but to support or help that forum, I believe that member has no reason to be on that forum. Once money changes hands, or once a member starts getting paid for having other peoples links in their sig file, soon they will only be there for the money, and more than likely greed will take over and they will not just have one account on that forum, but many. Maybe that's why the forums allow this. Automatically they will get an artificial increase of membership. Please bear in mind, this is just my opinion.

There are so many flawed assumptions in this thinking. Forum owners and members have thousands of business goals. But you have your opinion.

Many forum owners would love the help as long as it's relevant and intelligent. But again, your expressing your opinion.

And about the Google SEO side: There is nothing to worry about. Google knows about forums signatures and discounts them easily. Your competitor won't beat you based on forum signatures. There is nothing to worry about. and no need to even have this discussion.

This is where I drop out of the thread...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by marcel

There are so many flawed assumptions in this thinking. Forum owners and members have thousands of business goals. But you have your opinion.

You are actually doing nothing but trying to rationalize the principle held by some that the end justifies the means, a principle that most hold to be unethical.

Therefore, it is your own argument that is flawed, in that it assumes said principle to be generally accepted as being valid, an assumption that is false.