11 replies to this topic

[howardbritt]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum. I've actually gained great info here and from the keyword strategy videos. So now my issue is the fact of it being almost April '06, and the mention of Text Link Ads and Recip links being discounted by Search Engines. I read Jill's "buying text links-is it evil" article as well.

Let's consider an example where I want to boost the phrase "wedding favor cds" and I'm in the top 1,000. But I have very little inbound links. And I certainly do not have enough text links for a top10 position: 50% of the Top 10 and 2/3 of the top 20. I'd like to plan to boost my link popularity over the course of 3 months in order to really get in the top 10. More of a semi-aggressive? situation in this example.

BUT

If we all know and must accept that text link-ads are loosing their weight, does that mean there will be no use of renting or purchasing permanent links from quality link brokers like textlinkbrokers(dot)com?

Does this mean that anchor text on other sites will be devalued as well, or only if it's found to be a purchased text-link ad.

How would a new competitor play "offense" if it seems as link popularity can no longer be achieved (in less than 6 months) by the new guy? What if I just can't beat competitor A's link popularity and anchor text for a keyword or phrase - because I started my site too late and the algos won't give value to paid text link ads and recips?

So I'd rather just go ahead and SCREAAAAAAMMMMMMMM now before the next update hits. Why wait for it?


Your thoughts everyone. Thanks. Love this site.

[Jill]

Welcome howardbritt!

How would a new competitor play "offense" if it seems as link popularity can no longer be achieved (in less than 6 months) by the new guy? What if I just can't beat competitor A's link popularity and anchor text for a keyword or phrase - because I started my site too late and the algos won't give value to paid text link ads and recips?

Well of course! That's what link popularity is all about. It's NOT something that can actually be achieved quickly, which is why it was an important factor in the algos.

If it's acheived quickly, it generally means something sneaky is afoot.

So here's a novel idea, how about actually making a site that really GETS popular over time instead of trying to fake popularity? (Not speaking directly to you with this Howard, just talking about the future of SEO.)

[qwerty]

I think there will always be a place for paid advertising online, both for new and established sites, but it won't serve to improve rankings. It will just be for branding and direct traffic.

[torka]

Kinda like the difference -- for a brick-and-mortar store -- between free "word-of-mouth" recommendations from satisfied customers and taking out an ad in the newspaper.

--Torka

[authoritydomains]

Hi howardbritt - The main issue with buying links right now is that link brokers are leaving "painfully obvious" signs for the search engines to pickup on.

Link brokers are placing irrelevant paid links all over the net, in the very near future irrelevant links will not help you rank on all 3 major search engines.

Next, brokers are placing your links in link boxes that are soooo easy to find. You want links in the high value areas of a site ie the main body section of a site.

Some brokers place your links in "sponsor sections" another obvious tactic. Even worse, many of the most popular link brokers display the url of the site you are going to buy on. If you can see it, the search engine can see it.

Even the more discreet brokers are showing things like the Alexa rank of the sites they offer. How hard is to reverse engineer the Alexa rating to find out exactly what site is selling links? Well not very hard for Google I would imagine.

Lastly if you are going to buy links make sure you are not buying them with the crowd. Buying links out of an inventory is never really a good idea, you are just painting a target on yourself by being apart of the system.

This is why we have launched our services, we feel that the link brokers out there are letting a lot of people down and are not providing you with long-lasting value. I would in fact imagine they are hurting more than they are helping.

[Self promo link removed. - Jill] ok so i guess if you want to read the article PM me. I didnt view the article as self promotional at all.

Edited by authoritydomains, 13 March 2006 - 11:42 PM.

[Michael Martinez]

If we all know and must accept that text link-ads are loosing their weight, does that mean there will be no use of renting or purchasing permanent links from quality link brokers like textlinkbrokers(dot)com? 

Does this mean that anchor text on other sites will be devalued as well, or only if it's found to be a purchased text-link ad.

I don't agree that link popularity is always important. You can create visibility for a business site in many other ways.

For example, how many business sites pay for ads with Yahoo! and Google? That's buying links, isn't it? Of course, those are links that don't count toward link weighting, link popularity, etc. They just drive traffic to your site. Is that so bad?

I think an interesting question to ask the link buyers is how many of them would still want those links if they were all converted to Javascript and/or started using REL=NOFOLLOW overnight.

While I don't feel Google should be dictating to Web sites what they can and cannot put on their pages, the shoe fits on the other foot, too: Web sites do not have the right to dictate to Google which links it has to look at, or which sites sites to index.

Search service indexing is supposed to be a cooperative effort. We create the content, they list it, they send visitors to our sites. But too many people want to just slap together cookie-cutter sites and make money off them. Everyone is entitled to try, but who is entitled to succeed? No one.

Being free to make the effort doesn't guarantee you success. That's the way a free market economy is supposed to work.

My opinion is that in the long run the paid links may evolve back toward what they should be: traffic-oriented rather than SERP-oriented.

[authoritydomains]

If we all know and must accept that text link-ads are loosing their weight

I do not believe that text link ads are loosing weight, just the ones that are leaving a footprint for the search engines to find. However, the engines are not even all that great YET and devaluing those links but they are working on as we speak.

I think what you are seeing happening now is “off topic” and “link exchange” links being really really devalued and worthless as they should be 99% of the time.

This is why people are saying links are not working anymore...Of course they work, you just can’t get away with the spam that you could even a year back. Logically, search engines have nothing to replace links with right now - tagging is new but it’s a baby still and to me even more open to spam.

The engines are just becoming more relevant. A relevant search engine will not give you credit for a worthless link....so go get good links for a change and you will be happy to see the work really well.

[Jill]

The engines are just becoming more relevant. A relevant search engine will not give you credit for a worthless link....so go get good links for a change and you will be happy to see the work really well.

Sounds good, if it were only true!

[authoritydomains]

lol well sometimes I wonder if MSN is trying all that hard. They will figure it out though or they will die off. If the engines are easily gamed by bad links that are off topic etc then the relevancy will suffer and so will the user base.

To me Google, Yahoo, and MSN go in that order of relevancy and they also go in that order of ease to manipulate and the amount of users who use them. Coincidence, I think not.

So if you keep in mind that search engines will always try and get more relevant you will see that wasting time on bad links is really just that, a waste of time.

[Debra]

Link brokers are placing irrelevant paid links all over the net, in the very near future irrelevant links will not help you rank on all 3 major search engines.

It's not up to the link brokers to decide what's relevant or not, they simply offer a service to people who are willing to pay. Just like the SEO can't make the client decide which keyword sets are going to be more productive - they offer the recommendation/information but it's the client who makes the call.

IMO, buying links is definitely a buyer beware situation, but then so is any large scale link building tactic. In most buying situations, you're added to rows of links along the bottom of a page, or included in a "sponsored link" box. If you're ok with that, then so be it. The small bump you'll receive for that anchor text is just that - small, and you'll need TONS of them to see a difference. We know Google in particular doesn't like the paid link scenario because one of their representatives publically says so. But even if he/Google hadn't been vocal it just makes sense that being one of many at the bottom of a page conveys less link pop than a link in content areas of a website.

So....... buyer beware and be smart about where they're placed unless you're doing it for traffic and brand awareness.

[authoritydomains]

I agree Debra,
The links they are offering are of small value because of where they are placed on the page and the way they are placed on a page.

"It's not up to the link brokers to decide what's relevant"

I belive it its up to them if they want to run a good business. They know they are just taking people's money and not producing real results when they sell clients irrelevant links in the footer of other sites. I think everyone is starting to figure that out for themselves.

[alemcherry]

I dont think paid links are always getting added to the footer. Actually, the cost varies according to the placement, and buyer doesnt have to settle for something he doesnt want. You you try, can find related sites with high PR and low outgoing links, and get a good position on the home page. it will not only help in getting some PR, but will provide some genuine traffic as well.