Is this against google's webmaster guidelines?

[IMShane]

I was trying to learn from a top ranking site and after a thorough checking I found lots of high PR backlinks(mainly PR 3 or 4), and these sites only have several pages, 10 at most, so basically they are only used for backlinks. My guess is these sites were bought immediately after they are expired with good PR values, and to my surprise a lot of these sites still have powerful backlinks from other high PR websites whose owners obviously have no idea the ownership of the site they are linking to has been changed.

From what I saw, some 400 words articles have more than 10 links to totally different niche-sites, and most of these articles make NO sense at all. These kind of backlinks must have passed very good link juice, as the site they want to promote ranked high for very competitive keywords.

So I think those nonsense articles obviously are against google's webmaster guidelines, but I do noticed there's also some carefully written articles which read pretty well and links to different niche-sites, will this also piss off Big G?

Well I'm actually considering building my own link networks, so please give some suggestions. Thanks

 

[IMShane]

Anybody? Come on, you guys must have seen such sites from time to time.

 

[TheMatrix]

Hi

Google is shit, frankly.

It broke it's on guidelines, so whatever we do, say doesn't really matter!

Anyways, to your question: These kind of links are good, but only to boost ranks temporarily. I mean, if there are 10 links per article, and even if just 5 articles are on the homepage, 50 OBL is not that good IMHO.

These blog post links are really good only when the article is good, and related to the link. Why? Well, not because only Google loves it, but because readers, too.

Think about this: If the article is good, and contains only 1 link, then it might as well get syndicated thus generating many more backlinks straight to your site.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[IMShane]

Hi

Google is shit, frankly.

It broke it's on guidelines, so whatever we do, say doesn't really matter!

Anyways, to your question: These kind of links are good, but only to boost ranks temporarily. I mean, if there are 10 links per article, and even if just 5 articles are on the homepage, 50 OBL is not that good IMHO.

These blog post links are really good only when the article is good, and related to the link. Why? Well, not because only Google loves it, but because readers, too.

Think about this: If the article is good, and contains only 1 link, then it might as well get syndicated thus generating many more backlinks straight to your site.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the suggestion.
After checking all backlinks to that site which is only 12 pages indexed by google and ranks 1st for a "27,100" exact match monthly search keyword phrase, basically those backlinks fall into several categories: blog comments, article directory, social network, and high PR sites links as I mentioned in op. I've done everything except above, which means these high PR links helped A LOT in rankings. I don't know if "google loves content" is true or not, to my surprise most of those high PR sites articles do NOT make sense at all but provide good link juice. And I found more than 20 sites from one of these high PR backlink sites, and nearly all of them rank NO.1 for that particular keywords and according to SemRush, most of these sites have more than 10k visits per month.

It bothers me a lot cause I don't know if I should start building such kind of backlinks since it's against the rules. What if I put high quality articles link to my site on such kind of high PR sites? Does this also violate Big G's guidelines?

 

[TheMatrix]

Thanks for the suggestion.
After checking all backlinks to that site which is only 12 pages indexed by google and ranks 1st for a "27,100" exact match monthly search keyword phrase, basically those backlinks fall into several categories: blog comments, article directory, social network, and high PR sites links as I mentioned in op. I've done everything except above, which means these high PR links helped A LOT in rankings. I don't know if "google loves content" is true or not, to my surprise most of those high PR sites articles do NOT make sense at all but provide good link juice. And I found more than 20 sites from one of these high PR backlink sites, and nearly all of them rank NO.1 for that particular keywords and according to SemRush, most of these sites have more than 10k visits per month.

It bothers me a lot cause I don't know if I should start building such kind of backlinks since it's against the rules. What if I put high quality articles link to my site on such kind of high PR sites? Does this also violate Big G's guidelines?

Buying links is a clear violation of Google guidelines. That is why it had to penalize it's Chrome page.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/389863-google-should-penalize-its-chrome-page.html

I'd say you can start buying high quality links from link networks, but the results will be temporary. Because they be adding more and more links and posts to various niches, some articles might be spammy, and it will indirectly affect your link too.

Take your chances. High PR links have good reviews. Try some, and tell us if they worked for you in the long run or no.

 

[IMShane]

Buying links is a clear violation of Google guidelines. That is why it had to penalize it's Chrome page.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/389863-google-should-penalize-its-chrome-page.html

I'd say you can start buying high quality links from link networks, but the results will be temporary. Because they be adding more and more links and posts to various niches, some articles might be spammy, and it will indirectly affect your link too.

Take your chances. High PR links have good reviews. Try some, and tell us if they worked for you in the long run or no.

Thanks for the reply!

Those sites I'm talking about do not belong to any public link networks, because every single site they link to promotes clickbank products and all hoplinks are from the same id. Which means, the guy/team behind this bought expired sites with high PR values, and only build backlinks to his/their own sites. I'm still confused why he/they don't put higher quality articles there instead of crappy ones for backlinks since it's not that hard. And I kinda want to know if I bought such kind of site and only put quality articles there, what would google think of this? Also against their webmaster guidelines? If not, I would be seriously considering building such kind of networks myself instead of busting my ass off blasting with AMR, SeNuke, ScrapeBox, etc.

 

[jascoken]

From what I can gather, you're essentially asking about building your own sites and whether you could 'get away' with the low quality content of some of these sites...

You will always find the exception to the rule with Google... There are loads of crappy sites out there passing lots of great link-juice. I have loads of it myself. But this DOESN'T mean that you should replicate it. 'Sods Law' says that if you do, you'll hit a wall.

Building your own networks is the long-term goal of most IM heavy hitters. Whether it's your own linking network, or networks of grouped niche sites to own multiple slots for certain keywords, or 2.0/public networks for multi-tiered linking, you'll eventually get to the point where you need these for some stability.

Always use at least medium-quality readable content. If it doesn't pass a quick human inspection, then you're possibly in for trouble. Of course, there are loads of BH/link spam areas where this isn't required; but if you're talking about building white/grey hat assets for the future that will last and be as 'safe' as possible, then you need to watch the content quality. (I hate the terms Black/White/Grey hat - as they don't really mean anything - but they serve a purpose sometimes with simple explanations.)

Buying aged/PR'd domains etc is another topic, and useful if you do it correctly; but watch you don't get duped with fake stats.

Also: Building networks doesn't remove the need for other tools or submission systems - it normally ends up causing you to need more, as you'll need to backlink those externally as well, and now you've got a lot more web estate to backlink to! I own over a thousand sites and require hundreds of thousands > millions of links becasue of it. DON'T think that building networks is the 'easy' route; far from it. It's a mature route that generally requires a fair amount of money and time, and a bunch of systems to manage.

PS. As an aside buddy... You're asking for advice, and a senior member (The Matrix) has provided 2 responses, yet you haven't even clicked the 'Thanks' button on his posts. It's the least you could do - and what the button is there for.

 

[IMShane]

From what I can gather, you're essentially asking about building your own sites and whether you could 'get away' with the low quality content of some of these sites...

You will always find the exception to the rule with Google... There are loads of crappy sites out there passing lots of great link-juice. I have loads of it myself. But this DOESN'T mean that you should replicate it. 'Sods Law' says that if you do, you'll hit a wall.

Building your own networks is the long-term goal of most IM heavy hitters. Whether it's your own linking network, or networks of grouped niche sites to own multiple slots for certain keywords, or 2.0/public networks for multi-tiered linking, you'll eventually get to the point where you need these for some stability.

Always use at least medium-quality readable content. If it doesn't pass a quick human inspection, then you're possibly in for trouble. Of course, there are loads of BH/link spam areas where this isn't required; but if you're talking about building white/grey hat assets for the future that will last and be as 'safe' as possible, then you need to watch the content quality. (I hate the terms Black/White/Grey hat - as they don't really mean anything - but they serve a purpose sometimes with simple explanations.)

Buying aged/PR'd domains etc is another topic, and useful if you do it correctly; but watch you don't get duped with fake stats.

Also: Building networks doesn't remove the need for other tools or submission systems - it normally ends up causing you to need more, as you'll need to backlink those externally as well, and now you've got a lot more web estate to backlink to! I own over a thousand sites and require hundreds of thousands > millions of links becasue of it. DON'T think that building networks is the 'easy' route; far from it. It's a mature route that generally requires a fair amount of money and time, and a bunch of systems to manage.

PS. As an aside buddy... You're asking for advice, and a senior member (The Matrix) has provided 2 responses, yet you haven't even clicked the 'Thanks' button on his posts. It's the least you could do - and what the button is there for.

You are the man! Thanks for the detailed answer!
I'll start to do some experiments myself.

Cheers