Most Backlinks Will Kill Your Website

[Intrucoder]

great post op gonna try these methods....
I think thats really happening because I have a site with very less backlinks not even 50 and 13 keywords are in under 100 rank

 

[davids355]

Great post. Definitely some truth in what your saying.

But remember this is black hat world - nothing has changed - google trying to index the web naturally, we're trying to manipulate the results

The theory of Reverse engineering is always on our side

 

[zebrahat]

If Google is still using an algorithm to determine which sites have spammy links and which ones do not, that algo can be figured out, period, exclamation point, over and out. By definition, an artificial device, such as an algo CANNOT create a natural index. Google just does not want its current formula to be as known or easy to figure out, while still using one. How utterly self-serving of big G.

What is the difference between a 'good' backlink and a bad one now? It seems, whatever Google wants at the current moment. Article backlinks 'good' yesterday, now are supposed to be 'bad' on their say so. So now a good directory article that delivers relevant content to the user is supposed to have no link value? Please. Google is exposing its "quality experience" concerns as the window-dressing scam it always was, just a cover for maximizing its adwords profits (as millions of frustrated IMers turn to PPC to make a dollar).

 

[umerjutt00]

In my opinion all we have to do is wait and let the Google finish this play.

 

[hatcheck]

Same questions go to you as go to the OP: http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...links-will-kill-your-website.html#post4384880

What are you basing all this on?

Furthermore, there is often a grey area between natural and not. That is how you should be building links and you'll be fine.

Well, first and foremost I base it on what Google tells us. It's remarkably easy to do internet marketing that Google likes if you actually pay attention to what they say, and they've been very clear about this stuff. Since this particular forum is a white hat forum, I figure that must be appropriate here, no?

Matt Cutts told Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Watch that, "Penguin was designed to tackle 'the stuff in the middle;' between fantastic, high quality content and spam. Panda was all about spam, but the need for Penguin arose from this middle ground. 'It does demote web results, but it's an algorithmic change, not a penalty. It's yet another signal among over 200 signals we look at,' he said."

We also know that Google has been sending what some sarcastically call "love letters" to some webmasters' Google Webmaster Tools accounts, telling them that they detected linking structures to their sites that were unnatural. The "love letter" references Google Webmaster Guidelines, which state (among other things): "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." Examples they cite include:

• Links intended to manipulate PageRank
• Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
• Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
• Buying or selling links that pass PageRank

Now, I don't know how much more specific information you want, but that seems pretty specific to me.

Further, there is the evidence that comes from the advice of all the leading SEO gurus: Danny Sullivan, Bruce Clay, SEOMoz, SEO BrainTrust, and on and on.

Now it's my turn to return the favor to you. What's your evidence that the "gray area" is safe? Because as far as I can tell, it's not safe. Even those who haven't been caught yet will likely get caught over time as Penguin gets further refined. The same pattern happened with Panda. How many Panda updates have there been since February 2011? I've lost count, but I'm pretty sure there are dozens of them.

Further, the gray area is not cheap. This is the biggest myth of all. People spend and invest huge amounts of time, money, and energy taking all kinds of short cuts instead of building lots of great content. Then, eventually, Google shoots them down and they have to start all over again. In addition to justifying the "gray area", would you please explain how this is a good business model? Because frankly I don't see it.

Worst of all, the gray area isn't even very effective, unless you do it in huge amounts, and that's when you're more likely to get caught. I dabbled in it last year based on what I read here. The most positive results I ever saw were modest improvements that didn't last.

By the way, I like your screen name. I don't know if you picked it because of Ludwig von Mises, but if you did, you picked a good economics guru.

 

[Pilot]

hatcheck,

The thing is that I'd love to believe the spirit of your post--the mentality that Google loves to repeat, "Build it and they will come." And for a time, this strategy + creative SEO actually worked wonders. But I've seen too many white hats plundered by Penguins and Pandas to believe that anyone is safe. SEO can still be a great way to make a living, but to rely on one white-hat site in this SEO landscape is, to me, much too optimistic to base your earnings from.

 

[dogmann11]

Well, there's forum marketing, Craigslist, Backpage, Facebook, Twitter + blogs, etc. In other words get some traffic from other sources besides Google until things cool down, and the dust settles. Meanwhile focus on quality content as well.

 

[Mises]

Well, first and foremost I base it on what Google tells us. It's remarkably easy to do internet marketing that Google likes if you actually pay attention to what they say, and they've been very clear about this stuff. Since this particular forum is a white hat forum, I figure that must be appropriate here, no?

Matt Cutts told Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Watch that, "Penguin was designed to tackle 'the stuff in the middle;' between fantastic, high quality content and spam. Panda was all about spam, but the need for Penguin arose from this middle ground. 'It does demote web results, but it's an algorithmic change, not a penalty. It's yet another signal among over 200 signals we look at,' he said."

We also know that Google has been sending what some sarcastically call "love letters" to some webmasters' Google Webmaster Tools accounts, telling them that they detected linking structures to their sites that were unnatural. The "love letter" references Google Webmaster Guidelines, which state (among other things): "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." Examples they cite include:

• Links intended to manipulate PageRank
• Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
• Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
• Buying or selling links that pass PageRank

Now, I don't know how much more specific information you want, but that seems pretty specific to me.

Further, there is the evidence that comes from the advice of all the leading SEO gurus: Danny Sullivan, Bruce Clay, SEOMoz, SEO BrainTrust, and on and on.

Now it's my turn to return the favor to you. What's your evidence that the "gray area" is safe? Because as far as I can tell, it's not safe. Even those who haven't been caught yet will likely get caught over time as Penguin gets further refined. The same pattern happened with Panda. How many Panda updates have there been since February 2011? I've lost count, but I'm pretty sure there are dozens of them.

Further, the gray area is not cheap. This is the biggest myth of all. People spend and invest huge amounts of time, money, and energy taking all kinds of short cuts instead of building lots of great content. Then, eventually, Google shoots them down and they have to start all over again. In addition to justifying the "gray area", would you please explain how this is a good business model? Because frankly I don't see it.

Worst of all, the gray area isn't even very effective, unless you do it in huge amounts, and that's when you're more likely to get caught. I dabbled in it last year based on what I read here. The most positive results I ever saw were modest improvements that didn't last.

By the way, I like your screen name. I don't know if you picked it because of Ludwig von Mises, but if you did, you picked a good economics guru.

And my response to this is that google is not the best source for how to rank well in google. They have a clear incentive to lie and they are clearly biased. That does not mean you don't listen, but that you take everything with a grain of salt.

My evidence- well I really don't need much because the argument the OP and you make is so hard-lined that even one example against it disproves it- and that I have with my experiences with my own and my clients sites. I have continued to link build, albeit more cautiously and in more "quality" ways and I have seen results.

As for Mises, yes it is after LVM, but I'm more of a monetarist now- agree with the Austrians more fiscally, but not in monetary policy and not absolutely in fiscal policy either.

 

[phpfail]

You still need backlinks tho, just better to get quality backlinks, link pyramids are working good right now because its adding some authortiy to the backlinks. Also another thing I have discovered is that website quality is a BIG deal. You need good content, interlinking articles, and dynamic navigation on your site (like amazon's side navigation, how it changes for whatever category you are in). That's what I've been doing to my sites plus a few other tweaks depending on the site and my ranks are returning.

 

[hatcheck]

And my response to this is that google is not the best source for how to rank well in google. They have a clear incentive to lie and they are clearly biased. That does not mean you don't listen, but that you take everything with a grain of salt.

My evidence- well I really don't need much because the argument the OP and you make is so hard-lined that even one example against it disproves it- and that I have with my experiences with my own and my clients sites. I have continued to link build, albeit more cautiously and in more "quality" ways and I have seen results.

As for Mises, yes it is after LVM, but I'm more of a monetarist now- agree with the Austrians more fiscally, but not in monetary policy and not absolutely in fiscal policy either.

One example disproves what I'm saying, but you don't need evidence to support what you're saying? And you call me hard-line?

 

[hatcheck]

hatcheck,

The thing is that I'd love to believe the spirit of your post--the mentality that Google loves to repeat, "Build it and they will come." And for a time, this strategy + creative SEO actually worked wonders. But I've seen too many white hats plundered by Penguins and Pandas to believe that anyone is safe. SEO can still be a great way to make a living, but to rely on one white-hat site in this SEO landscape is, to me, much too optimistic to base your earnings from.

I have yet to see a white hat hit by Panda or Penguin who wasn't doing something Google doesn't like.

For instance, Panda is mostly (not solely) due to content duplication, particularly title duplication. Granted, many CMS systems create this duplication, but does that mean the white hatter isn't responsible for them? If we accept that argument, then we also have to accept the argument that webmasters are simply pawns in the system, and that those who issue software, whether open source or commercial, are the cause of all our problems. Nor is the problem insoluble.

Similarly, Penguin is as much about on page over-optimization as it is about unnatural off-page linking...perhaps even moreso. These factors are clearly within the control of the white hatter.

I would argue that much of what gets passed as "white hat" is actually gray hat and in some cases black hat. Again, they are all within the control of the white hatter.

I've seen "build it and they will come" work consistently for person after person. I cannot say the same thing for gray hat and black hat techniques, which fail much more often than they succeed. Can you say differently?

 

[dbyrn]

@hatcheck

How can anyone judge if a forum link is a natural or unnatural one? If google still considers links as an information about website's credibility then you can use link building to improve.

D.

 

[hatcheck]

@hatcheck

How can anyone judge if a forum link is a natural or unnatural one? If google still considers links as an information about website's credibility then you can use link building to improve.

D.

Google is already able to distinguish which is which. They already know which links are the good ones and which ones are the junky ones. See the Panda and Penguin updates for details.

Further, forum links don't count for much anyway.

However, that's not the main question. The main question is: what's the best use of your time, energy, and money? Is it trying to game Google, or is it to give Google what Google wants: high quality, interesting, useful, original, unique content?

 

[shoaibahmad9999]

Have you watched too many matt cutts videos lately ?

 

[qu1ck]

Well how about you build out a nice white hat site and invest $20,000+ and then some guy comes along with xrumer and builds out 100K links, pings them and you're done. Does that sound like a good business model?

 

[Maja92]

hatcheck: please answer 9999's question because I would like to know as well. Danny Sullivan is a leading SEO Guru? Ridiculous, lol...

OP: No, most backlinks won't kill your website, thank you very much.

 

[Dan Da Man]

I hope all my competitors read this. They will simply loose taking any bit of information out of this thread. Horrible horrible horrible advice.

Not that there really is any competition any more but thanks for making it even more easier.

 

[Checkered hat]

Incredible discussion. Real thriller with Matt Cutt's ghosts flying around spooking everyone and brave Blackhatters shaken but not kneeling. All kinds of questions arised: "Should we feed the Dragon or should we defeat it?"
This is epic. Felt like watching Lords of BlackHat trilogy.

Now back to making money.

 

[hatcheck]

Well how about you build out a nice white hat site and invest $20,000+ and then some guy comes along with xrumer and builds out 100K links, pings them and you're done. Does that sound like a good business model?

You mean Mr. xrumer could or would only do this if you're white hat? Seriously?

Also, can you point to an actual, live, checkable example where this has happened to a white hatter? Because I cannot.

 

[RAYRAY7]

I hope all my competitors read this. They will simply loose taking any bit of information out of this thread. Horrible horrible horrible advice.

Not that there really is any competition any more but thanks for making it even more easier.

It is amazing how people miss the gist of the post. Just as a reminder:

If you rank creating backlinks, good for you but do not be shocked when you wake up one day to find your website missing from the serps

Well crafted personal blog networks will get you great results. If you can create blog networks to target just your niche (health, finance, SEO etc ) then you would do fine.

The ranking perimeters will become known eventually, but right now the ranking massacre continues on a massive scale.

Personally, i care not if you agree with my observations as we humans are like herds anyway following the masses to the slaughter house.

Those with eyes can see these google algorithmic updates is a huge re-evaluation of what qualifies as legitimate SEO.

The huge increase in old domains for sale is just a small sample as to what is coming. Google is determined to reduce organic rankings as a profitable business model. It is like the landlord evicting squatters as a way to boost rental income (ADWORDS)