Google And The Buying Of Links

[Chris]

Note: Chris here again with another article concerning the search engine biz. Please share any link buying experiences you've had. Enjoy.

One popular method of raising rankings is the buying of links from high PageRank sites that often have no relevance to the subject of the buyer’s site. Google discourages this practice, stating, “Many sites that advertise link-sharing programs not only offer little value., but will distribute your email address without your permission.”

What can Google do to combat link buying? Or are they going to take any action at all?

“Seobook” a SEW forum poster and webmaster of SEOBook.com, offers this suggestion: “the biggest thing they can (do) is plant seeds of doubt to lower demand and raise costs to make ROI less predictable.”

Link buying techniques do have some signatures that search engines can detect. One give away is an increase of non-relevant outbound links that land on pages with high PageRanks. If Google discovers this, they can then penalize the offending party.

Ultimately, it may take Google moving away from PageRank before any real success is awarded. Poster David Wallace suggests that Google, “get rid of the PR indicator and backlinks checker. If someone cannot see their PR and if they cannot check backlinks at Google, how will they sell links based on PR6, PR7, etc., etc.?”

A number of posters at the SEW forum don’t think that Google is going to do anything to combat the practice of link buying. A search of the keywords “PageRank Links” reveals at least two AdWord ads offering to sell links with high PR. This seems to suggest that Google isn’t in a hurry to eliminate this practice.

Besides, quite a few forum members wonder if link buying is something that should be a penalty incurring offense to begin with. Jeff Martin, a moderator at SEW says, “If I have a PR 8 site and I offer ads for run of site and sectional like every other web site on Earth why would Google need to do anything about it? What ‘law’ have I broken? None. To say its wrong would be like (penalizing) SEW because of all of the SEO advertisers Danny has.”

For now, it appears Google will not penalize you for link buying, or perhaps, not even be able to. “Seobook” supports this thought: “Anchor text is extremely powerful and until their algorithm can learn to devalue random unrelated links, link selling will remain a big business.”

If you have any experience with the buying or selling of links for PageRank purposes, or otherwise, please share them with us at WebProWorld.

[cbp]

I have speculated in several threads that one way Google could do this is to block PR being passed via external links on a home page.

I have seen several eg's where this appears to be happening (one eg; 20 links on home page; 6 external; PR8 for >12 months; the sites the 6 links were to still had PR2-4 after several PR updates; there was nothing blocking links being crawled and they were paid links).

Its just a balance of probabilities - IMHO, if here is an external link on the home page of high PR site, the chances re that its a paid link..... so why not block the PR passed on via these external links???? ---- sure thre will be some collateral damage (innocent links blocked)... but its abalancf prbabilities

CBP

[achronister]

I purchase links every now and then. I don't see anything wrong with it the way I go about it. The question I always come up with is why would anyone purchase links on unrelated sites? Sure, it helps for rankings but the ROI is just not there as far as that goes. If the engines change the algo then those links are completely irrelevant, and you're still paying for them.

I only purchase links on highly targeted, relevant sites that will bring in traffic as well. It's a simple form of advertising and branding that happens to help with the SERP's.

I also keep an eye on what other links are on the page and stay away from sites that have OB links to unrelated sites.

As far as I'm concerned, PR isn't as relevant as traffic and visibility. I don't think I should be penalized by SE for being 'official supplier' of certain sites. IMO if the sites want to put up irrelevant links for money then they aren't worth being on anyway.

[cbp]

I sort of disagree on semantics - I have a problem with the concept of "purchasing a link" as that implies you do it for ranking purposes. I prefer the concept of "purchasing advertising" (...which may well be just a text link) --> this implies you are doing it for traffic reasons, brand awarenesss etc (and not for the PR).


I don't think I should be penalized by SE for being 'official supplier' of certain sites

I agree, but its a balance of probabilities and there will be colateral damage.

When you buy a link, where is it? on the home page? or on an internal page?

CBP

[achronister]

It varies depending on the site. Sometimes it is in internal pages (specifically for each NFL team for example). Other times it is only on the home page, and sometimes run of site. We sponsored the entire Yahoo Sports section during the NCAA finals. It created excellent exposure but I wouldn't call it purchasing a link for ranking purposes.


I sort of disagree on semantics - I have a problem with the concept of "purchasing a link" as that implies you do it for ranking purposes. I prefer the concept of "purchasing advertising" (...which may well be just a text link) --> this implies you are doing it for traffic reasons, brand awarenesss etc (and not for the PR).

Good point. My main emphasis was I would probably purchase these even if it didn't help with ranking. However, when I do ad buys, I keep in mind the fact that it will and take an overall view of the benefits.

[Mel]

I have speculated in several threads that one way Google could do this is to block PR being passed via external links on a home page.

I have seen several eg's where this appears to be happening (one eg; 20 links on home page; 6 external; PR8 for >12 months; the sites the 6 links were to still had PR2-4 after several PR updates; there was nothing blocking links being crawled and they were paid links).

Its just a balance of probabilities - IMHO, if here is an external link on the home page of high PR site, the chances re that its a paid link..... so why not block the PR passed on via these external links???? ---- sure thre will be some collateral damage (innocent links blocked)... but its abalancf prbabilities

CBP
The problem with this idea is that there are hundreds of thousands of sites with good content who either include newsfeeds on their home page or have links to other valuable content from their homepag, and blocking the passing of PR from such pages would make a mockery of PageRank.

Even the total elimination of PageRank would not help much since the real value of a paid link is not the PR but the anchor text that you can control.

[Dave Hawley]

I doubt Google will ever penalize for link buying for PR. IMO, they would simply ignore any passing on of PR. The links simply help them spider the www to enure their database is the biggest.


A number of posters at the SEW forum don’t think that Google is going to do anything to combat the practice of link buying. A search of the keywords “PageRank Links” reveals at least two AdWord ads offering to sell links with high PR. This seems to suggest that Google isn’t in a hurry to eliminate this practice.
This is one of the reasons why I make my initial statement. Of course they will allow these ads. They make $$ from them and the naive ones who buy a link are simply wasting their money. No skin off Googles nose and money in their pocket. They are also profiting from the whole sham.


Besides, quite a few forum members wonder if link buying is something that should be a penalty incurring offense to begin with. Jeff Martin, a moderator at SEW says, “If I have a PR 8 site and I offer ads for run of site and sectional like every other web site on Earth why would Google need to do anything about it? What ‘law’ have I broken? None. To say its wrong would be like (penalizing) SEW because of all of the SEO advertisers Danny has
I don't believe it should (or ever will be) a penalty incurring offense, you are simply wasting money. That's the penalty


Google has a HUGE team of full timers working on this sort of stuff and Google is a very wiley business with deep pockets. If they see Webmasters buying PR, posting about it's merits etc they know full well their ploy is working.

Often you have to listen to what Google is NOT saying as apposed to what they are saying.

[Dave Hawley]

The problem with this idea is that there are hundreds of thousands of sites with good content who either include newsfeeds on their home page or have links to other valuable content from their homepag, and blocking the passing of PR from such pages would make a mockery of PageRank.

Why do you say that (make a mockery of PageRank)?

If it is done, it would be done the same to all homepages, not a select few and only to external links. This would balance it all out.

[moredoug]

If you block all external links from being craweled, that could hurt the guy that has many hosted websites and domains that all link to each other.

[williamc]

Google has indeed been blocking sites that it knows for sure sell text link advertising. I do not know of any link buyers affected though. Those of us that sell links have adapted to compensate of course. At least those of us smart enough. I still see many that sell non-relevant links, and allow their websites to be seen ahead of the sale or even after way too easily.

[Peter (IMC)]

Perhaps Google should also block links from the Yahoo Directory. Those are paid for links as well.

Many other directories also have paid links.

This is wrong:

Google discourages this practice, stating, "Many sites that advertise link-sharing programs not only offer little value., but will distribute your email address without your permission."
Google doesn't discourage anything. That just simply means you should be careful when purchasing links.

Buying and selling links is just normal practice in advertising. There is nothing wrong with that and I doubt that Google thinks there is a problem. Just people that can't stand the idea of "the rich" buying expensive links, have a problem with this. And I don't understand why. Nobody complains when a big company buys a 1 page ad in a newspaper while the little guy has to do it with an "adwords sized" ad in between 100 other ads. But buying a link in a high PR webpage all the sudden is a crime?

Buying and selling links does not compromise the function of PageRank and therefore there is nothing wrong with it. However, hiding links (and some other practices as well) do compromise the functionality of PageRank and it seems Google is trying to detect these practices and do something about it. But a simple link deal (paid for or an exchange) can not be a reason to devaluate a link.

TSPR (Topic Sensitive PageRank) however, does help reducing the effects of unrelated links.

Regards,

Peter

[TrafficProducer]

One popular method of raising rankings is the buying of links from high PageRank sites that often have no relevance to the subject of the buyer's site. Google discourages this practice, stating, "Many sites that advertise link-sharing programs not only offer little value., but will distribute your email address without your permission."

Just what are people doing if the pay for AdWords, PPC or any type of advertising with Google??? Is this not just a form of paid links?

The word “Hypocrisy” springs to mind.

[bhartzer]

PPC is a form of paid links, so are many other types of online advertising. For this discussion, I think we're talking about pure text links, only there to boost PageRank.

[Dave Hawley]

Those of us that sell links have adapted to compensate of course. At least those of us smart enough

Do you really think you are ahead of Google?

There seems to be a LOT of speculation that PR can be bought. Does anyone have proof that this is the case?

Before it happens, IMO Google showing a page in a Link: check does not automatically mean it's passing on PR. In fact, I would think Google would show bought links in a link: check as it give out a false signal.

In regards to paid directory listings. For some time now I believe that Google treats these differently. Let's say 2 Webmaster pay $299.00 for a Yahoo listing.

WEB1 goes into a category with only 2 links and has a PR8

WEB2 goes into a category with 10 links and has a PR5

I would think it is very likley that Google would simply pass on the same PR for all pages listed. If it doesn't, they are then throwing an inconsistency in there own PR algo. With the amount of money Google would have poured into PR, directly and indirectly, over the years, I dont think they would leave so much to chance.

I would also think the same happens to all directories, free and paid.

[mythman]

PageRank should be based on how much traffic a site gets. If many people wanted to increase their PageRank, I'm sure they could buy all kinds of trash-traffic and rank just fine; though I'm sure they'd know that all kinds of other people (whether they are better-people or not) can do the same thing, throwing the system into chaos. And the people who think of this would then see what a useless practice non-subject link-buying would be.

Google (&c.) should trust that this is the case, but still should consider "PageRank" to be only a part of the link-listing process--they should include a site-review (or at least a verified-reputable visitor-recommendation) before listing the site on a search.

[cbp]

they should include a site-review (or at least a verified-reputable visitor-recommendation) before listing the site on a search.


That called DMPZ/ODP --> Google Directory :-)

What you are suggesting is probably never going to happen. Thas why Google have the Hilltop thing with the expert/authority sites as given site that extra boost. Who will review the >4 billion pages before inclusion? (as a DMOZ editor, I have spent from 5 minutes and up to 1 hour reviewing sites, looking for the mirrors, duplicates, spam etc)

Yahoo do seem to intervene with humans lot more --- but they have a different business model.

CBP

[fathom]

PPC is a form of paid links, so are many other types of online advertising. For this discussion, I think we're talking about pure text links, only there to boost PageRank.

It isn't the purchasing of anything that is the real problem nor the issue.

The depth of which any company implements (regardless of payment) is.

Google "cannot detect paid for PageRank text links any more than it can detect "I scratch your back - you scratch mine links".

It can only detect unnatural patterns of linkage... and these are "free" as well"! :-)

[chiff]

Google seems to have the algo set to penalize sites with lots of irrelevant backlinks and reward sites with lots of relevant backlinks. Buying links from sites on unrelated topics won't do anything for anyone - except the few business people who are savvy enough to dangle the bait in front of ill-informed web masters.

On the other hand, buying links from high ranking web web sites with related topics is called advertising - there is no reason for Google to penalize that.

The deal is -- anything you do to spam the search engine is frowned on and will eventually come back to bite you and lots of others who are innocent - as so many found out in a few of the past Google algo revamps like Florida (sob).

A link for a steak site from a vegetarian site is not designed to catch traffic and lure customers... it's designed to boost search engine ranking - and it isn't going to work. Now a link for a soy protein drink on that same site is a relevant link and will benefit the users - and anything that benefits the users makes Google happy.

Does Google care if fools want to throw away their money in an effort to spam Google...hmmmm... my guess would be probably not. If you are paying someone for a link that's not related to your subject... well, that's your business. Spend your marketing budget however you want.

The same is true for unpaid links. Writing to a webmaster of a site that focuses on fishing asking for a link to a prom dress site is a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. If your site sells rods and reels - it's a good match. Pretty simple concept. Wish everyone would get it.

The bottom line remains - good, relevant, focused keywords used in all of the appropriate places - backed by good, relevant, focused content rich with your keywords but not overloaded - will win you customers, traffic and good placement. Scams will just cost you money.

Google probably feels that it's a punishment that fits the crime!

Margaret

[fathom]

Google seems to have the algo set to penalize sites with lots of irrelevant backlinks and reward sites with lots of relevant backlinks. Buying links from sites on unrelated topics won't do anything for anyone - except the few business people who are savvy enough to dangle the bait in front of ill-informed web masters.

On the other hand, buying links from high ranking web web sites with related topics is called advertising - there is no reason for Google to penalize that.

The "act" of buying or selling is not the issue... it is the method of implementation that defines worthiness of fair credit, good credit, exceptional credit, or no credit.

hmmm.... question - what "actually" makes a site (or page to be more precise) "relevant" or "unrelevant" per the link exchange?

Obviously not just the link anchor right? So are we saying that the focus of the page is extremely important... and if so what parts?

Also: since we do know that the link "anchor" does pass relevancy -- wouldn't links to that "link from" page also determine relevancy... but then wouldn't these (once removed) page parts also come into play, and then again all the links pointing to those?

We are often "too short-sighted" for our own good... while we appreciate the general principles we really can't see beyond a "single link" and notice the benefits that appear "before" or "after" that one link.

In the end it is the way links are implemented which determines "unrelevant" or "relevant"... so how do you get from one to the other to avoid the pattern detection?

[Dave Hawley]

there is no reason for Google to penalize that.


Why do people assume the Google would penalize? I would bet money they don't. At worst they would simply ignore the link for PR etc.




Obviously not just the link anchor right? So are we saying that the focus of the page is extremely important... and if so what parts?

I would say it's the focus of the site that is extremely important, not the link page. Google possibly looks for matching, or similar, keywords/phrases etc on the sites homepage only. It is no doubt not perfect but....what is perfect?

[Ed Stockdale]

When I drive home tonight and pass a load of billboard ads that are not related to driving I'll try and not be so outraged by this spam that I crash . Then I'll sit down and read the paper and be shocked by the number of ads not related to the news items on that page. After I've overcome my disgust at the paper selling off topic advertising I'll watch the TV hoping that the TV ads will be related to the programme I'm watching.

Clearly Google knows something about off topic adverts that the rest of the advertising industry has missed.

[chiff]

When I drive home tonight and pass a load of billboard ads that are not related to driving I'll try and not be so outraged by this spam that I crash ....

The difference between billboard ads and other traditional broad spectrum ads and links on web sites is too obvious to discuss.

If you bought a book on wrestling and found it chock full of ads for your local ballet company, you might wonder what maniac had control of the ballet company budget... or you might just flip past the ads and get on with your reading. It's just not a sane ad campaign.

Given that links from relevant sites make sense in terms of both driving traffic and providing info to the user, it makes sense for Google to recognize the efforts of those who provide relevant links.

You also need to remember that no one bit of data in the Google algorithm is going to make or break your position in search results. Each piece of the puzzle is important. There will always be ways to scam. As soon as they get discovered the algorithm gets tweaked to eliminate the scammers. Often the scammers are just using a perverted version of a good optimization method and when the tweak goes through - everyone gets burned.

My question is - other than trying to put one over on the search engines and fool surfers into thinking they'll find something on your site that's not there - what reason would anyone have to buy a link on a site that is not relevant to their topic. Good traffic - visitors who may actually become clients or customers - comes from sites that offer goods, services or information in the same niche as your site.

Having a liquor store's site come up on the first page in a search for bibles may get you traffic, it can be done using the right techniques...but do you really want it? Do you really think that traffic will convert to sales? Do you think the people who get to your site that way will bookmark it and return often to buy the product? Is your site live to be a business concern or to lure traffic? Think about what the purpose of traffic is... and think about what methods will bring in the kind of traffic that is good for the health of your site. It seems that, sometimes, we - and I include myself here - get so wrapped up in figuring out what will please Google that we lose sight of why we want to do it. Trust is a big factor in sales. Bringing someone to your site through a search - who is looking for whatever it is that they searched for - will not do any good if the customer finds you don't have what you lead them to expect. Bait and switch doesn't make anyone happy in brick and mortar stores and it doesn't bring smiles to online customers either.

Webmasters need to use their time and resources wisely, there's never enough of either. IMHO :-) - buying off topic links is a waste of both.

Margaret

[achronister]

what reason would anyone have to buy a link on a site that is not relevant to their topic. Good traffic - visitors who may actually become clients or customers - comes from sites that offer goods, services or information in the same niche as your site.

Having a liquor store's site come up on the first page in a search for bibles may get you traffic, it can be done using the right techniques...but do you really want it? Do you really think that traffic will convert to sales? Do you think the people who get to your site that way will bookmark it and return often to buy the product? Is your site live to be a business concern or to lure traffic? Think about what the purpose of traffic is... and think about what methods will bring in the kind of traffic that is good for the health of your site. It seems that, sometimes, we - and I include myself here - get so wrapped up in figuring out what will please Google that we lose sight of why we want to do it.


Best post in this thread. I agree completely. Buying a bunch of on topic links or just receiving a free link is esentially the same, free ones are great though. IMO, it won't get you penalized, it still passes PR in most cases (the few exceptions are difficult to decide what is causing them not to pass PR), and even if it didn't pass PR, they bring in relevant traffic.

[Dave Hawley]

Webmasters need to use their time and resources wisely, there's never enough of either. IMHO :-) - buying off topic links is a waste of both.

Brilliant! What a refreshing change from most posts about spamming blogs, guestbooks, FFI site, forums etc! Inronically most poor advice comes from those in the SEO business and should know better.

[Ed Stockdale]

Chiff, you appear to have misunderstood what I have meant. I'd agree that if I did a search for bibles and ended up at a liquor store I'd be less than happy but that is misleading advertising NOT off topic advertising. Surely it is up to all of us to decide where best to put our marketing efforts - if the price is right and the link not misleading then I don't see the problem with off topic advertising.

I'd also add that on topic advertising is often ignored by regulars where as something different can catch the eye. How many of the ads on this site do posters notice - ads for webmaster related tools and service? Don't know about you but I'm already familiar with the type of products available in this niche and have made my choice so they hold little interest. There are other niche community sites where this holds true so off topic advertising on those sites can be a reasonable investment.

Each site and market is different so if off topic advertising does not work for you then fine, but please don't assume the rest of us can't do the basic math of what pays and what doesn't.

[Dave Hawley]

I'd agree that if I did a search for bibles and ended up at a liquor store I'd be less than happy but that is misleading advertising NOT off topic advertising.
What is the difference?


Surely it is up to all of us to decide where best to put our marketing efforts - if the price is right and the link not misleading then I don't see the problem with off topic advertising.
True. But in the same way it's up to Google to decide if off-topic advertising should be used to help with rankings.



I'd also add that on topic advertising is often ignored by regulars where as something different can catch the eye.
That would be an exception to the rule though.


Each site and market is different so if off topic advertising does not work for you then fine, but please don't assume the rest of us can't do the basic math of what pays and what doesn't.
I don't think that is chiff's point. We are talking about how Google sees off-topic advertising. Hence the thread heading of "Google And The Buying Of Links"

[Ed Stockdale]

What is the difference?
Well with one I'd click on a link that said 'bibles' and it would take me to a site selling liquor - misleading and I think wrong. With the other I would be on a site about bibles and click on a link that said 'liquor' which would take me a liquor store - off topic but it is what it says.

But in the same way it's up to Google to decide if off-topic advertising should be used to help with rankings.
Off course you are right. Just pointing out that there is nothing ethically superior to off topic paid links to on topic paid links. Both are artificially raising the advertising sites ranking by buying a vote.

That would be an exception to the rule though.
As I said previously sites vary but there are many very popular community type sites that it does apply to.

We are talking about how Google sees off-topic advertising.
Correct, apologies if I appear to be wandering O/T, not my intention. From a SERP 'gaming' prospective all exchanged and purchased links, both on and off topic, are a 'fake vote' and thus from a SERP prospective should be treated equally.

[Dave Hawley]

Well with one I'd click on a link that said 'bibles' and it would take me to a site selling liquor - misleading and I think wrong.

Ed, I was replying to your other statement of;

..if I did a search for bibles and ended up at a liquor store...quote]

[quote]As I said previously sites vary but there are many very popular community type sites that it does apply to.

Agree Ed, but there are likley many more that is doesn't apply to, hence my "exception to the rule" statement.

[williamc]

Those of us that sell links have adapted to compensate of course. At least those of us smart enough

Do you really think you are ahead of Google?


I do not look at it as "being ahead of google" or being ahead of anything really. It is a matter of staying relevant, thus keeping the user experience along the lines of what they were already looking for.

The people selling non-relevant links and trying to "beat" google will sooner or later get tossed, just a matter of time until google techies find a way to block them.

As to whether paid links do in fact help, Yes, I have plenty of evidence, just none I would ever be willing to show, as it would jeapordize clients.

[Dave Hawley]

The people selling non-relevant links and trying to "beat" google will sooner or later get tossed, just a matter of time until google techies find a way to block them.

This is my point. How do we know that Google ae already onto this? Like I say, I doubt Google would ban or penalize, but rather simply ignore the passing on of any benefits.

[fathom]

The people selling non-relevant links and trying to "beat" google will sooner or later get tossed, just a matter of time until google techies find a way to block them.

This is my point. How do we know that Google ae already onto this? Like I say, I doubt Google would ban or penalize, but rather simply ignore the passing on of any benefits.

I think these are a little far fetched.

1. people sell links because they've heard you can make additional revenue and usually this is through a link-broker. No matter it is the same as Yahoo making additional revenue.

2. people "buy" links because they've heard the comments "just get links" and seeking free links tend to take lots of under-productive time, with limited return off the single link developed and buried on a page with 200 others.

Additionally, if your cost (in time) to develop "free" is greater than your cost to develop by "fee"... it is good business sense.

It has never been about "beating Google" it is about producing "competitive advantage".

I do "buy" links - from Yahoo. It's unlikely they will do anything that will produce a "less link" over time.

I do develop partnerships - and as any partnership has "mutual benefit" the "exchange of links is one". It costs both partners but not in dollars and cents... in knowledge transfer... or using your advantages to leverage against your disadvantages.

Beating Google... not likely - I'm not a search engine! :-) I did hear Yahoo wanted to beat Google - but is this wrong as well?

[Dave Hawley]

Ok, lot's of numbered statements, but I do not understand why you say "I think these are a little far fetched" is reply to "How do we know that Google aren't already onto this? Like I say, I doubt Google would ban or penalize, but rather simply ignore the passing on of any benefits"?