Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by ┼blackrat┼, Nov 6, 2010.
Well guess you unleashed your xrumer real hard on that eh...
301's are not blackhat, blasting the hell out of a 1999 .com on sites with porn and gambling links doesn't look too good though
Well if you use a 301 to backlink spam to the old domain and reap the juice on the new, then I call this blackhat.
However, does this works?
I've recently tested this and my conclusion is yes the 301 will forward linkjuice and whatnot. This is what a 301 is designed to do 1. tell the search engines the website has changed locations (and by association forward "link credits and juice") and 2. forward visitors to the new location.
I agree, doing it specifically for this purpose is a tad on the grey side.
Just don't "blast the hell" out of the old domain, especially if it has been unused for awhile. However many links you build out just don't ping them (my opinion). Let Google find them naturally, like in the real world.
Yes, a 301 redirect will pass on all the link juice. I have been doing that for the past 2 years
My question has always been, if you take Domain A and 301 it to Domain B.
Then blast 1 Million+ links to Domain A in a week. Would this sandbox Domain B?
Which site recieves the penalty? Domain A, Domain B, or both?
Google are staffed by 'people'. They aren't stupid. They know what's going on, and some things are tolerated - some are penalised
That sounds like a sweet tactic. I don't think anyone can answer these questions definitively without testing. That's the only way you can truly get to the bottom of myths and realities so much suggestion is test it out on some of your throwaway domains and see what happens.
Usually most of the link juice will be passed, but it doesn't necessarily always pass all the link juice.
There was some discussion a few months ago regarding the topic. I looked for the threads but the bhw search feature isn't what it used to be. I wasn't able to find the exact threads I was looking for, but here's one of the videos from Matt Cutts that prompted some of the discussions.
There's also an article on Stone Temple Consulting where Eric Enge interviewed Matt Cutts earlier this year.
One thing brought up in the interview was there's some amount of link juice lost in a redirect. It wasn't specified how much is lost and appears to depend on various factors.
Here's a related article by Seer Interactive regarding a test done to determine how much link juice is passed through a 301 redirect.
Here's a few other bhw threads related to the same topic:
Hope that helps.
Lemme quote one of BHW oldest member posts in this thread:
Cracks me up.
Don't do this.
Why would you build all those links to a 301 that you don't control? The URL shortener services recycle URLs and delete them regularly. Since it costs no real money to make a domain/subdomain, just host the redirect yourself. Total control...
Yeah that's a good point.
The value of redirects is that all the backlink building that you do to a site doesn't have to go to waste if you decide to change your website. That's only possible if you have control of the redirect. Why build a lot of backlinks to a url that you can't ever edit. If the shortened url is pointing to a page that moves, you decide to start promoting something better, or the shortened link gets deleted, then all those backlinks become obsolete for you. If the backlinks are pointing to a url that you control then it's just a matter of editing the redirect and point it somewhere else.
There's another thread on bhw talking about bit.ly that brought up the value of hosting your own shortener. Your post gives another reason that setting up your own link-shortener a good idea.
Separate names with a comma.