Have you been penalized for link buying?

[PaulDylan]

Came across this story: Link Buying Penalty By Google That Cost $4 Million Dollars (http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/09/02/link-buying-penalty-google/)

Has anyone here been penalized by Google for link buying practices?

[usearchme]

hmm interesting article, I couldnt see any penalty on that users site on the article though so it cant have been a bad one !

I have never known anyone who can say for sure they were penalised for buying links, but its always hard to tell why anyone gets penalised

Woc

[PaulDylan]

Google will never tell how they 'catch' these link buying tactics because once they let people know how they do it, people will game that.

[CReed]

Has anyone here been penalized by Google for link buying practices?

In the past, yes.

[williamc]

Yes, during the witch hunts a few years back. Mainly they go after the sellers.

[stevecane]

Oh yes, my advice is, don't do it, Google is very hot on stopping this.

S

[williamc]

But the fact of the matter is.... buying advertisements, be it image, flash, or text link ads has been around since the webs inception. The simple fact that Google came along later and created a search engine that simply can not handle a business standard is not the webmasters fault, it is googles. They did something stupid and based rankings on something that was bound to be abused, with no forethought to the fact they were doing so against all standards of advertising at the time, and created a link buying frenzy. They caused this issue they have, not us. Now they feel the need to penalize others for the stupidity they caused.

[Tubby]

I got nabbed. . Back a good while back - google merely removed my toolbar green - I constantly got offers from car insurance companies. . I had links going everywhere and kept a diary on my desk trying to keep track of everything.

I never lost a scrap of traffic. . Just the green on my PR4 pages. I did feel quite guilty about taking the money and not delivering the goods to purchasers. . But It was never confirmed to me that they lost traffic either.

I do miss the emails arriving from mostly the UK offering me money for just a tiny bit of web space. . . But then I miss getting 1cent per display of banners - before google was born. . ( I loved them early banner days)

Webmasters still need to eat! . . . currently it seems our purpose in life is to feed google.

[Tubby]

LOL.

I just located a page where I had some paid ads. I still have not got around to updating the page properly - but the remnants of the Insurance links are still visible "Compare the" was "compare the prices" .
page is here (http://www.restored-classics.com/bvac/index.html)
It is hard to keep all the pages up to date - this page got left behind - I recall removing the links in a hurry and rushing to the next lot to remove on the day I was notified.

If I recall correctly That was the last time I recall being in "Panic" Mode!

[yeah]

buying links is associated to spam. Google created the NoFollow concept to prevent spam. How they catch you is unknown and I agree with the comments within this thread about how Google would probably not tell you how they catch you.

Give quality to the internet. That's what Google wants.

[williamc]

buying links is associated to spam.

Horsepuckey. It is called advertising.


Google created the NoFollow concept to prevent spam.

Again wrong, nofollow was created to prevent one certain type of issue Googles algorithm was incapable of dealing with, blog commenting.


How they catch you is unknown

Again incorrect, IMO. Millions of chinese manual reviewers and webmasters snitching each other out.


Give quality to the internet. That's what Google wants.

That is the biggest load of crap I have heard thus far in this post. Google wants to put dollars in their shareholders pockets, nothing more. Google is not truly about quality, they are about what betters THEIR bottom line.

[mjtaylor]

Horsepuckey. It is called advertising. Yes, it is. And it is also called spamdexing or spam by Google when the intent of the advertising is to manipulate SERPs.



Again wrong, nofollow was created to prevent one certain type of issue Googles algorithm was incapable of dealing with, blog commenting.
True, and it's also true that the sort of blog commenting that Google was trying to stop was what it considered to be spam - commenting with the intent to manipulate the SERPs.


Google wants to put dollars in their shareholders pockets, nothing more. Google is not truly about quality, they are about what betters THEIR bottom line.

And how does Google put $$ in their shareholders pockets? By cornering as much of the search market as possible. Quality SERPs are what attract and keep that market. Google is not interested in quality for altruistic reasons, but because they know that searchers will stay where they find the most relevant, quality results. It's a business decision.

[digitalseo]

Im just wondering how will google know if someone will buy a link?

1-2 paid links in one day is ok. Google can not detect this..

not unless someone will report it to Google.....

[keyon]

Google is not interested in quality for altruistic reasons, but because they know that searchers will stay where they find the most relevant, quality results.

I think in the beginning this may be true -- as it is for any new business starting out. But after a business dominates a marketplace, I think people are more likely drawn to the brand name, and not so much the quality of the product. For example, I've never heard anyone say they use Google because they think Google provides more relevant, quality results (at least not in the last 10 years). Most people use Google because it's Google.

[chrisJumbo]

And how he found a way to get a bunch of free links and advertising. Google didn't cost him anything. The title could also read, How a Google Penalty made me $4MM.

[SemAdvance]

Yes Google penalizes sites that buy links. Some people make it so obvious that they are buying links, that Google has to slam them such as the site in the story....and which incorrectly states Google caused the business to lose $4 mil, when the fact is the business owner is who is responsible for the lost sales....as I have said for 6+ years, if you build your business on the back of a search engine then you deserve the ramifications of such a poor business decision.

Back to the topic - dmegs.com PR 4 and is obviously selling links by the looks of things in the right column.

Heres a site that lists sites that sell links. directorycritic.com They are a PR 5, so if the link buying is bad theory were true, wouldn't Google penalize this site for publishing where you can buy links?? In fact the page dedicated to where you can buy links directorycritic.com/paid-directory-list.html is a PR 3.....someone should tell Google!!!!!

This site sells links dirbull.com/ and its a PR 8.....Someone alert Google (calling Matt Cutts!!)

Yahoo directory sells links and Ill bet you cant guess what there PR is???

As long as things are done so that you don't alert the "link police" then link buying is fine,.

[dburdon]

I have to admit it is getting increasingly difficult to convince clients that they shouldn't go for the quick fix of major time link buying. I operate in several market categories where it is obvious that many of the top rankings are supported by paid link buying programmes. And nothing happens. Apart from the high profile cases - Go Compare being one - there appear to be few cases where Google intervenes to penalise overt link buying.

[HighFalutin]

Link buying and paid article/blog linking is rampant in my field and I see no evidence of penalization at all. If you do it in moderation, you will probably be OK. I guess it comes down to a competitor complaining to get someone penalized.

[HampasLupa]

theres Linkvana and other blog networks out there and websites that are using this service that is doing fine on serps... if there's penalty for paid links why this websites are still there and outranking pure white hat websites?

[inertia]

Joining this debate late so apologies for repeating anything or straying off the point.

I've just done a competitor analysis of one of the UK's main comparison websites for a client and the amount of link buying the comparison site is doing is beyond a joke. I knew that would be the case but it was worse than I thought when I dug a little deeper.

I think there's a sliding scale when it comes to link buying (and selling). For the SMEs out there it's all about natural link building as they can't afford the HUGE amounts that decent link buying costs and the SEOs that deal exclusively with these types of company see link buying as a a dangerous tactic. When youre talking about large companies with massive budgets for investment in various "online marketing channels" you inadvertently get into a situation where you're buying links; be that paid reviews, advertorials, directory submission fees, sponsorship, viral tools/app development etc...

It's logical really. If you're buying links from dodgy places that advertise the fact that they sell links then you're building your house on the sand. But if you are buying links as part of a structured marketing package then you're partaking in real world marketing. The only problem is that the only companies out there that can afford this without risking penalty are the ones with massive budgets. Search is a level playing field but it's more level for some than others! ;-)

[kgun]

Link selling and link buying are two sides of the same equation. Both parties shall accept the rel="nofollow" attribute on the link if there is any indication that it can be regarded as link manipulation. If not, both the buyer and the seller risk, as this thread clearly shows, being penalized in one form or another. As far as I have understood, there is no room for link manipulation in Google's algorithm.

An analogy, though it is not criminal activity per se. Generally, criminal activity is executed every day and some are never taken. That don't imply that we shall get rid of the police.

[thersey]

Does Google consider reciprocal links as a form of paid linking?(barter system-you pay by exchanging links) What about Publication and Directory profiles which is paid advertising..

[mjtaylor]

Interesting question, thersey. In a sense, I would say yes - for all practical purposes.

I think Google would say any way you get a link that is not a genuine 'vote of confidence' is manipulating the SERPs and therefore "spamdexing." Google has effectively stripped PageRank from most every link exchange page you see on average sites, much as it has stripped PR from any pages where it has identified or suspected links are sold.

Link exchanges and paid links are certainly in the same boat, as far as Google, it would seem.

Directories, when human edited, are apparently deemed not to be "paid links" in the same way. You are paying a review fee, so if your site could be rejected and your fee not refunded then it is not a "paid" link. There are few directories with PR on internal pages, though. I know. I just bought one. ;)

[PaulDylan]

If you do link buying, then you have to do it VERY MODERATELY. Again, I have bought links before NOT ONLY for SEO but also because the sites were so relevant we knew it would bring very qualified traffic. Has anyone bought from sites like link exchange and gotten penalized? Goog may and prob does have its eyes and the spam team on these sites monitoring activity, possibly.

[gsport11]

I don't understand Google's false interest in uncovering paid links. Yahoo charges, what?--$300 for a link from their directory, and yet it is an extremely powerful link in terms of the pointless rating of Google "page rank." DMOZ charges nothing except an unspeakable amount of time that it takes to be approved by an editor with self-interests; it rates the same in terms of Google's "page rank" algorithm--approximately. In both situations the website owner said, "Hey, I want a link from here." Both requests were fulfilled only after human inspection. I give the same inspection to anyone who wants a free link from me, which I no longer give unless it's in exchange for content. I also give the same attention to my affiliate companies who in effect are asking for a paid link. Fair enough. I give a link or receive a link in exchange of something of value. If the value is not there, they get no link from me whether they offer money or content or a reciprocal link. I expect no less from those from whom I request a link.

Google likes to flex it impressive muscles, but it does so in an inconsistent manner. They make enough money to be able to inspect a website to see if it is worthy of high rankings--especially for popular search phrases--whether or not that site has paid for links. If the site selling links only does so for good websites, shouldn't they be rewarded in the same way that Yahoo has been?

[Social-Media]

Came across this story: Link Buying Penalty By Google That Cost $4 Million Dollars (http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/09/02/link-buying-penalty-google/)

Has anyone here been penalized by Google for link buying practices?

Consider the source... Obviously the guy who was interviewed by Inc. doesn't even know the difference between a penalty and a ban. Contrary to his belief, a penalty doesn't cause your URL to be removed from the index. It simply prevents it from ranking well (won't rank better than position 30, 50, 60, 90, 350, etc. no matter what you do even though it was on page 1, thus the -30, -50, -60, -90, -350 penalty nomenclature). A ban gets the site's URLs removed from the index, not a penalty.

Penalties can be lifted after fixing the problem that violated their webmaster guidelines and requesting reconsideration. Bans rarely get lifted unless the domain changes hands. Big difference.

I have never seen anyone being directly penalized by Google for buying links unless they were stupid enough to brag about it in some public Google forum when logged into their webmaster account. Takes a real idiot to do so. Google can't prove that YOU (and not your competitor) bought the link otherwise.

They are much more likely to penalize the seller (they can prove that by having someone buy a link, although you can typically just look at the links and tell they are selling links). The buyer is penalized indirectly because those links they are paying for are no longer passing them juice once the URLs where the links reside are under penalty.

So Google likely stopped counting a buttload of paid blogroll and footer links from other sites, their rankings tumbled, perhaps even some of the pages were deindexed if they had no remaining external links, and traffic dried up.

Doesn't necessarily mean it was a "penalty" for buying links.

[.netlover]

color me a noob, but what exactly is link buying? example please.

[mjtaylor]

color me a noob, but what exactly is link buying? example please.

Purchasing a text link that passes PageRank. You could also call it advertising. ;)

[.netlover]

Purchasing a text link that passes PageRank. You could also call it advertising. ;)

i must be really stupid. can you give a specific example (maybe using made up domains) to illustrate EXACTLY what one is?

[keyon]

can you give a specific example
Try this...83

[amuthanjrv]

There are hundreds of companies on the internet which use this tactic when it comes to building links for business owners. This can actually cause your purchased links to damage your reputation instead of improving it and possible get you labeled as a spam site.