Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

24 Million Back-Links.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
9 replies to this topic

#1 brdlands2

brdlands2

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:34 PM

I have a question. I just did a back-link check on this one really popular video game site. 

Its has 24 Million back-links. Seeing as how google penalizes for spammy back-links and black hat seo, 

could this site be affected if a large percentage of these 24 Million back-links where some how 

back hat or spammy? 

 

But this site always comes up on top, no matter what. Is it because its been around for a long time? 

 

And google has 3.7 Billion back-link. Couldn't google be penalized? 

 

I personally think, that nobody really knows how its all pieced together and chaos has allot to do with it...


Edited by brdlands2, 14 October 2013 - 03:39 PM.


#2 squidjam

squidjam

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:49 PM

A "really popular" video game site that has been around for a long time would naturally have millions of back links.

 

Google would obviously have billions of back links.

 

Google penalizing themselves would be interesting  ;)



#3 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,628 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 14 October 2013 - 06:16 PM

On top of that, a really popular site has certain advantages: Just for the sake of argument, let's say that Google found out that Yahoo, a really popular site with millions of backlinks, had about half a million really spammy backlinks. if I go to Google and run a search for Yahoo (because I'm none too swift), how am I going to feel if the results don't include Yahoo.com? Google has to think about how searchers are going to respond to not seeing that big brand in the results when it's obvious it should be there, so maybe they penalize them just a tiny bit, but not enough to actually drop them from the results.

 

Otherwise, when I search for Yahoo on Google and don't see Yahoo, I'm going to conclude that Google's not all it's cracked up to be, and go search for Yahoo on Bing.

 

Or maybe on Yahoo :)



#4 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,636 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:42 AM

Just because a site has a LOT of backlinks, that doesn't mean they're all (or even mostly) SPAMMY backlinks.

 

I'm sure Wikipedia has a ton of links pointing to it. I'm also sure they do relatively little (if anything at all) in the way of building spammy links. Same with Google. They get links because people choose to link to them, not because they're doing anything nefarious to "cheat" their way into those links. Could be the same with the site you looked at.

 

If you have an excellent resource, you keep it live long enough and you do a good enough job of letting other people know about it, you will eventually get a lot of links. This is not, and I believe never will be, a problem.

 

--Torka :propeller:



#5 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,106 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:23 AM

And there is the simple fact that 'spammy' links are only EVER going to be ones that you have placed yourself or have had someone place for you.

 

Search engine spam doesn't 'just happen' it has to be made that way..



#6 squidjam

squidjam

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:41 AM

Chris, I've seen people talk of other people creating spammy links to other people's sites in an attempt to sabotage their rankings. Don't know how much that really happens.



#7 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,106 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:02 PM

Yes but would you spend a lot of time and money trying to sabotage something that may not exist in the first place, and may not even concern the 'competition'??

 

Just because person 'A' chases rankings doesn't mean that 'B, C & D' also do.

 

Not everyone is obsessed with SERPs, one of our hosting clients pays absolutely no attention to SEO, doesn't have "Twitter", "FaceBook" Etc. Etc. accounts, never checks 'rankings' and treats 'organic' results as a lucky bonus. They have two websites that do NOT link to each other despite them selling the exact same products because one site is unpriced for trade accounts and the other sells to to Joe Public.

 

If somebody got them a whole bunch of links hoping to sabotage 'rankings', they would probably send a "Thank You" note for the extra traffic and sales they gave them.



#8 squidjam

squidjam

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:37 PM

Chris, I mentioned it in part to see if it made any sense, really. My thinking is that backlinks are just one small piece of the puzzle, so I can't see how someone creating thousands of "spammy" or "questionable" backlinks would necessarily have a significantly negative effect on a site.

 

If you're doing all the other things right, why would even a few thousand questionable links make any difference?

 

I've always wondered about backlinks anyway, because how in the world can you control who links to your site? You can't. So why would Google be dumb enough to penalize your pages for something you have no control over?

 

Where's the intersection of myth and truth on this one? If there are unnatural backlinks, is it because those links are created within a short time frame? It would be easy to see that a site that's indexed one week most likely wouldn't have thousands of backlinks the next. But then again...not necessarily. If you promoted your site a bunch, you might just have lots of links.

 

*sigh*  :)

 

Yes but would you spend a lot of time and money trying to sabotage something that may not exist in the first place, and may not even concern the 'competition'??

 

Just because person 'A' chases rankings doesn't mean that 'B, C & D' also do.

 

Not everyone is obsessed with SERPs, one of our hosting clients pays absolutely no attention to SEO, doesn't have "Twitter", "FaceBook" Etc. Etc. accounts, never checks 'rankings' and treats 'organic' results as a lucky bonus. They have two websites that do NOT link to each other despite them selling the exact same products because one site is unpriced for trade accounts and the other sells to to Joe Public.

 

If somebody got them a whole bunch of links hoping to sabotage 'rankings', they would probably send a "Thank You" note for the extra traffic and sales they gave them.

 

It sounds to me like they are very wise folks. They're focusing on their business and results.



#9 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,106 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:41 PM

If you're doing all the other things right, why would even a few thousand questionable links make any difference?

 

The time that such a tactic can 'hurt' is when the 'site' being targeted already has a weak or questionable 'link profile' and the crap outweighs the good.



#10 brdlands2

brdlands2

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:10 AM

I knew this was a good question to ask, I am new and learning.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!