The Right Way To Buy Links

[mjtaylor]

Is there a right way to buy links? If it's against the search engine guidelines, does that make it unethical and "black hat" or simply risky behavior?

Obviously if you are buying links that are not followed and you aren’t trying to manipulate the search engines, there is nothing wrong with buying – or selling – links. After all, Google sells them, right?

But what about links that are followed? Is there ever a safe way to do it? What link buying practices are best avoided? Here are some possible Red Flags:

• Site wide links seem to be a very powerful clue to the search engines and are probably as risky as it gets. Site wide links are probably advisable only for traffic;
• No variation in anchor text;
• Links from irrelevant sites;
• All paid links, none organic.

What else sends up a red flag? What do you think is the right way, if there is one, to purchase links (other than those with the no-follow attribute)? What link buying profiles are safe and which aren't?

[tomcatuk]

...if anyone had a quick fix for this, the absolute last thing they'd do is post the technique in a forum, particularly a webmaster forum

I like your list though. For me, it'd be classed risky behaviour. Another form of risky behavior of course is relying on organic Google results as your only source of traffic.

[briguy]

Is there a right way to buy links? If it's against the search engine guidelines, does that make it unethical and "black hat" or simply risky behavior?

Obviously if you are buying links that are not followed and you aren’t trying to manipulate the search engines, there is nothing wrong with buying – or selling – links. After all, Google sells them, right?

But what about links that are followed? Is there ever a safe way to do it? What link buying practices are best avoided? Here are some possible Red Flags:

• Site wide links seem to be a very powerful clue to the search engines and are probably as risky as it gets. Site wide links are probably advisable only for traffic;
• No variation in anchor text;
• Links from irrelevant sites;
• All paid links, none organic.

What else sends up a red flag? What do you think is the right way, if there is one, to purchase links (other than those with the no-follow attribute)? What link buying profiles are safe and which aren't?

Not sure how to word this properly but heres goes..
I think a "safe link" would be a "3 way link"..
Site A links to Site B, B links to C, C links to A.
<edit>removed duplication</edit>

Let say you own a PR4 site and I want to exchange links with you..my 2 site are PR1 and I am currently trying to improve the PR of one of them..
I send you a email..you look at my site, and "politely" email me back with your refusal
I then send you a email offering to buy a "link spot" plus to sweeten the pot..make it a 3 way link..my one site links to your PR4 site and you link to my second site (the site I want to improve my PR)!

Hopefully that make sense

[SemAdvance]

I think the right way is to use a credit card, perhaps a debit card or paypal....

Yahoos Directory is a PR 8 selling links for $299.00 for the year and they've never lost PR for selling links that are followed.

Business.com sells their links for $199.00 for the year PR 7 so pretty good to grab up too...

Want a PR 6 ??? $59.00 gets you a link from Uncovertheweb.com a bit easier on the wallet and very effective....

dirbull.com Various Categories are PR 6 $69.00 gets you 3 links to your site....not a bad buy for PR and Keyword ranking boost (not that I condone such practice)

You were kidding about buying links safely right MJ???

Remember, Google is the largest propaganda machine known to man.....

The safest way to buy links for PR and keyword rankings (for Google)... is to never ever set a pattern......that is all I am saying....

;->

[weegillis]

...if anyone had a quick fix for this, the absolute last thing they'd do is post the technique in a forum, particularly a webmaster forum

That's what I've been saying for years. No matter how the bait is set, the catch is usually small fry.

[tomcatuk]

Yahoos Directory is a PR 8 selling links for $299.00

As far as I know, Google still recomends submitting your website to "relevant directories". Yahoo! charge $299 to review (or re-review) your website. This should not be confused with a "paid link" as it does not violate Googles webmaster guidlines. I wouldn't (and don't) think twice about paying for a review from a good directory.

[mjtaylor]

You were kidding about buying links safely right MJ???

I believe I phrased my post as a series of questions for a reason.

Remember, Google is the largest propaganda machine known to man.....

And I would say they do a dang good job of it. No one seems to know what the truth is.

The safest way to buy links for PR and keyword rankings (for Google)... is to never ever set a pattern......that is all I am saying....

;->

And that makes a lot of sense to me. Excellent advice, I think.

As far as I know, Google still recomends submitting your website to "relevant directories". Yahoo! charge $299 to review (or re-review) your website. This should not be confused with a "paid link" as it does not violate Googles webmaster guidlines. I wouldn't (and don't) think twice about paying for a review from a good directory.

Agreed. I do think it's an odd distinction. I get that what seems to make the difference is the editorial review, and the usefulness of a directory. I don't use the Yahoo directory, but I do use others at times when a general search is not working. I actually like DMOZ a lot. <duck>

[williamc]

• Site wide links seem to be a very powerful clue to the search engines and are probably as risky as it gets. Site wide links are probably advisable only for traffic;
• No variation in anchor text;
• Links from irrelevant sites;
• All paid links, none organic.

Sitewides are not that big a problem IMO, as any blog that adds you to their blogroll (unpaid) is going to show as a sitewide anyways. Too many CMS's are like this, to be much of a scare.

Always vary anchors as that would indeed be easy to spot.

non-relevant sites would be looked at harder *IF* a manual review was done, IMO

Link profile always needs to be watched and kept neutral, you are very correct in assuming that would be a huge flag.

Another point would be: buy links placed in content where they are actually a good fit, not in footers, sidebars, etc. This is far more likely to seem like a 'cite' than a paid link.

[briguy]

Always vary anchors as that would indeed be easy to spot.

Got my attention...any rule of thumb, for how many times to use a keyword (anchor text)before changing it?

[williamc]

Briguy: There really is no set number, as it is more an aggregate ratio of your entire link profile. Remember the end game we are striving for is for our link profiles to look, or actually BE, as natural as possible. So it really is more a matter of profiling all of your links, getting the numbers of each of the different anchors in front of you, and modifying as needed by getting links with the anchors needed to look natural. At that point you can start building upon individual anchors again.