74 replies to this topic

[compar]

I know a web master who is buying links from the index or home page of loosely related web site.

He is very specific in his request. He wants specific three word anchor text and he wants then placed on the bottom of the index or home page. He does not seem to be worried about the traffic to the linking site, but I do believe he wants a substantial PR.

It seems obvious to me that his only real objective is to influence Google. I recently checked his SERP for two of his anchor text keyword phrases and he was listed number one for each term. The interesting thing is that I checked the KWs in Wordtracker and neither were very highly searched upon.

Now the part that really amazes me. He is prepared to pay $10 per month per link.

I emailed him about his experience and he said he was still experimenting, but I don't entirely believe him because I know one web master who has been displaying his links for more than a year.

Does anybody think a one way link from a PR6 page with less than 50 visitors per day can possible be worth $120 per year?

[Jill]

Absolutely! He's getting off cheaply.

But he should shoot for a more competitive phrase if he's gonna pay for it.

I've heard of people pay many, many, many more times that amount.

Jill

[Cygnus]

Yeah, seo_guy on seochat makes a pretty penny selling links from his PR7 + sites.

Cygnus

[BrianR]

Just another good reason for Google to hurry up in tightening up on backlink relevancy!

BrianR

[projectphp]

Just another good reason for Google to hurry up in tightening up on backlink relevancy!

Or more reason to buy links!!! $10 bucks is nothing, and if the margin is good, you only need one customer with a $120 margin to break even, and the PageRank and link text benefit is effectively free.

To me, the seller is under-estimating the sale potential of the link. If he wants a better rate, send him to either SEO Chat or Webmaterworld, and ask the same question, and see what response you get.

Also, the popularity of the search term is kinda irrelevant. One guy I know gets 20 clicks a week, but landed a deal worth $100,000 for a term that doesn't measure on any Search Term DB. One happy camper, and one awesome ROI. If those are the level of teh deals done, and it is only $10 per link, that is chump change!!!

[dimok]

Wow! Pretty low price.

Look at that: www.pradnetwork.com/pricing.htm

[BrianR]

Call me a naive purist, if you like (and you probably will, projectphp! <g>) but I find the whole idea of selling links somewhat distasteful, because it goes against everything that Google is striving for in terms of link relevancy, which is a cornerstone of both their algorithm and the internet itself. (Sorry - a rather l-o-n-g sentence there!)

BrianR

[Jill]

I agree, Brian. But the fact is that it is being done, and that $10 a month is cheap!

Jill

[projectphp]

Hi Brian,

Not at all!!! Your sentiments are echoed by many people. Thing is, though, that for a site with no other saleable assets, links are all they have got. Buying a link is buying advertising. Period. The reasons people buy advertising are many and varied. Oft times, the result can't be directly attributable to efforts. Does a TV ad lead to greater sales? Where is the proof??

If someone chooses to buy a link for $10 a month in the hope it will bring increased returns, that is fine. It is advertising. It existed before Google, and will exist after Google as well.

[Haystack]

The concept of buying ads to increase a site's ranking through a PR boost is simply out of line with what Google was shooting for with their algorithyms. There's no questioning that it will work today, but in the long run is it the best method to build link popularity for a site? Probably not.

In the long run you're most likely better off focusing on a linking strategy using sites that are actually willing to link to the given site such as local, regional, national, and industry directories along with other related sites. This should both increase the site's PageRank, SE rankings, and generate traffic through the links that are actually relevant to the given site.

[projectphp]

Ah, but a TV ad run today and never run again may help sell more Pizzas home delivery style, but is it the best strategy long term?

A $10 per month campaign is quite easy to justify, and provided you can cancel at will, not a bad investment, depending upon your budget. How many clicks is that on AdWords for a term like "travel"? If your rankings improve by a factor that traffic also increase for free, and you get 10 clicks from the link itself, was it worth it? Again, not my call, but for Helicopter parts, the bid is $30. An increase in places on free stuff from number 10 to number two might bring in two extra clicks. That is $60 in value. In a CPC sense, the $10 link just justified its cost, never mind what Google intended. In short, you cant observe something without changing it, and link pop changed the way links are bought!!Fundamental law of Science!!!

In the end, it comes down to cost / reward. Everyone makes that decision for his/herself. Personally, I don't often buy links, but if I needed to, this seems like a pretty sweat deal, given the market forces of supply and demand.

[Haystack]

projectphp, your justification is sound. Additionally, there doesn't appear to be much pentalty for companies to practice this linking strategy. As far as I can tell, the worst case scenario for them is the penalization of the site who sold the link (rare) which would mean they could simply stop paying for the link.

However, is it safe to assume that you agree that a site's SE rankings are potentially artificially inflated by links 'bought' rather than 'earned' from sites who voluntarily linked to the site? If so, don't you think that's outside of Google's TOS?

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

http://www.google.co...guidelines.html

[projectphp]

Ah, the beauty of semantics. Your whole argument essentially boils down a debate over what defines "artificially" and "scheme".

But first, the assumption that an "earned" link is better than a "bought" link is neither justified or well defined. Firstly, How many sites do some big organisations own? Yahoo has Inktomi, Overture, AllTheWeb and many others directly under its control. Are many of those links "earned", or are they "bought?

Besides, PageRank measures importance, and a company that can spend heavily on advertising is probably pretty important, so the correlation between bought and earned is, in many ways, irrelevant.

A text link that is bought is advertising. Where ever, and how ever, the purchaser believes the value of advertising is their own personal opinion, and not relevant to Google's guidlines. Where PR Adnetwork was a scam, was that Massa intentionally tried to Boost the PageRank of pages dodgily to profit off of PageRank. However, a site selling legitimate advertising on pages that have broken no rules is a very different story.

As another question: do you ever buy listings in Yahoo? That is a bought link, but I assume it still helps PR in Google, and therefore rankings, and is not considered a "link scheme". A bought link is surely no different, and no more or less damaging than one in Yahoo!. What about links on clients sites? Is that a bought link? What about visa versa, a link from Web designer to Client. That is certainly bought. And so the list goes on, because the proposition, the way itr was phrased, is ethical as much as anything, and with all ethical questions, the issue becomes where is the line is drawn, not a question of absolutes.

That said, if Google decides that bought links are no longer valid in the PageRank calculations, that is of course their right. If you are silly enough to buy a link just for PageRank, then you are paying money for something you aren't even sure you need, or can really quantify. It is a weird proposition, and one that, in many cases, isn't worth doing. How on Earth do you measure ROI on something like that? If you do it on enough pages, well, you will probably suffer Google's wrath. So caveat emptor for those that partake.

If I were doing this, I would have a big, fat, obvious ad. I would insist on straight links using anchor text of my choosing, and have a 30 word dedscription. Not just for Google, but also for market perception and branding, and to make sure that it is clear what I am doing. A small text link in the footer of 10,000 pages is likely to cause problems with Google, and why take the risk? After all, a link on a semi-related page of even a moderately busy site is still fre traffic, no matter what happens with PageRank.

[Debra]

A text link that is bought is advertising.

Here, here.

If so, don't you think that's outside of Google's TOS?


QUOTE 
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links. 

I think the optimum word here is "schemes". How else would a company advertise on the Web unless they used links?

[BrianR]

We can argue 'the letter of the law' until the cows come home (but we normally pay lawyers to do that for us!), but buying links is surely against the spirit/ intent of the law, as defined by the lawmaker, Google.

If we have to spend a lot of time, effort and words justifying a particular course of action, in my experience, we're already on shaky ground.

IMO, buying links has all the makings of a classic 'SEO no-no'.

Sorry, but I'm with Drag Queen Ed on this one!

BrianR