What Makes "bad Neighborhoods" Bad? Options

[snipermilk]

From a link building standpoint, all static links (non-redirecting script) should have a positive link popularity effect. At the end of the day, they're still links and it shouldn't matter where they're from right? But that's not the case, as SEOs have come up with the "bad neighborhood" concept.

From a technical standpoint, what makes a neighborhood bad? Is the "bad" tag an algorithmic or manual/qualitative penalty?What tools can you use to see these "bad" elements? Can a "bad neighborhood" become good? Do the SEs really have a way for sniffing out bad neighborhoods?

When you look at it, the Internet is really just one big link farm. Is it bad if some animals in that farm prefer linking among themselves only and not with the authoritative animals? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[qwerty]

You're asking about links to you from "bad neighborhoods" rather than links from you to them, right? That's really not a problem. It's not likely to help you either, but unless you believe in Google Bowling, or whatever they're calling this theory of using incoming links to sabotage a site (I've seen no proof of it), it's not going to hurt you. Just don't waste your time seeking out links from junky sites.

And how does one determine if a site is a bad neighborhood? That's mostly a matter of opinion, but I just think of it as a crap site I wouldn't want links from in the first place, like a link farm, a scraper (they're bound to link to you if you've got halfway decent rankings, so don't worry about it), a network of crosslinked sites designed to create illusions of authority, etc. Just use your nose. If it stinks, avoid it.

[Scottie]

A bad neighborhood is a site that's been penalized or banned, in most simple terms. Linking TO a site that's been determined not to be worthy of being allowed in the index probably means you aren't too picky about where you are linking...

It's the old being judged by who you hang out with thing. If you hang out with sites that cloak, spam, and create artificial linking networks, you probably are one too.

BUT- I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you have a dozen links to strong authority sites, and one link to a site that appeared perfectly fine (but you later found out they were cloaking and got banned) I doubt it's going to hurt anything.

However if half or more of your outgoing links are to spam networks or banned sites (as in, you joined some automated program and just accepted anyone who would link to you without checking them out) then it's likely your site will be assumed to be as low quality as the sites you are linking to.

[glengara]

* Do the SEs really have a way for sniffing out bad neighborhoods?*

Originally BNs referred mostly to FFAs/link-farms, though from what Matt Cutts says about possible usages for the rel-nofollow attribute, G seems to have widened the net.

In an old thread over at SEW, there's also the "quit smoking" guy that was hosed for linking to a topical site that was using hidden links to pharma types.
Interestingly, I can't remember if the "topical" BN was identifiable as such before GG came along and pointed things out.

[Michael Martinez]

"Bad neighborhood" has become an overabused buzz expression. Most people never need to be concerned about who links to them or where they are linking to.

If it makes sense for your visitors, any link is a good link, coming or going.

[snipermilk]

You're asking about links to you from "bad neighborhoods" rather than links from you to them, right?

Yes, I meant links to my site from "bad neighborhoods". I've experienced first hand the dangers of "linking my site to them".

Most people never need to be concerned about who links to them or where they are linking to.

Is it safe to say then that using AddW** to get FFA sites to link to my site might be one productive link building strategy after all? I really have a hard time getting links from sites via the normal "link exchange" request route because I don't have a large inventory of high PR sites and I can't write the best of exchange request emails. So any site I can get to link to my site is a good thing...


Desperate link builder,
Marc

[qwerty]

Is it safe to say then that using AddW** to get FFA sites to link to my site might be one productive link building strategy after all?

No. It's safe to say that getting links from those sites isn't likely to harm you, except for the fact that you'll have wasted however much time it took you to do it. But it's not going to help.

The point is, if some garbage site links to you, you don't have to beg them to remove the link. You don't have to worry about it. But don't seek them out and ask them to link to you. They're garbage.

[Randy]

Marc,

You may want to give the little Common Link tool that I've been developing in my free(?) time a whirl to see if it helps you to identify some good linking partners.

A couple of notes. 1.) The tool is still quite beta since I haven't had in free time for the last month plus to work on it. 2.) Please do not disengage your brain while using this or any other tool! I do not have it filtering anything, so you're going to get all of the bad with the good.

Those who have been helping me test it have been reporting some pretty decent results, so it might help you. There's a link on the above page that gives a fuller description of what the Common Link tool attempts to do.

[snipermilk]

Thanks Randy. I've added it to my toolbox already. Will give you feedback soon (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[randfish]

I've seen some evidence of the "bad neighborhood" links affecting one of my sites - in Yahoo! particularly. Paid for inclusion to get it looked at by a person and they put it back, but scary for a while and based solely on the inbound links.

Also, in my interview with MSN (at SEOmoz), they noted that if spammy sites point to you, you "look like spam". Sounded to me like they take those links seriously and don't buy the "can't control who links to me" argument.

Countering it with high quality, legit links seems to be a good way to make sure it can't hurt you long term. Once About.com and Topix and del.icio.us/popular have you on there, and your natural link love is built up, I doubt that bad 'hoods can throw you down.

[Jill]

That's pretty scary. But I guess it does make sense that if ALL your links were from bad neighborhoods, that's kinda telling.

[qwerty]

I guess it's like the (perceived) situation about a year ago regarding run-of-site links: if a high enough percentage of your backlinks were ROS, you were in trouble. I'm still not sure if it was true or not, but until I removed the ROS links pointing to my site, I couldn't be found for either my own name or that of my company.

I haven't seen anything similar happen with links from bad neighborhoods, but maybe it's a matter of percentages. But that could become a big issue with all the scraper sites out there. If they're identified as bad neighborhoods, a lot of sites are going to need a lot of good links to counteract the effect.

[randfish]

Yeah - I noticed I have at least 10,000 sites if not more that are scrapers linking to a client's site. The problem is, too, if you're ranking well for thousands of queries because you run a blog and articles up every day/week, you're going to get tons and tons of scraper links...

I wonder if these will affect the rankings negatively - very dangerous game to play for the SEs.

[Jill]

I wonder if these will affect the rankings negatively

I just can't see how they could let them. It's not like they're not aware of them. I'm sure they don't count them other than if you have no legitimate links.

[glengara]

IMO it all depends on what other games you've got going...