1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Old School Advice For Linking - That Never Actually Gets Old

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by Scritty, Aug 2, 2016.

  1. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    4,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    Sigh,

    Another couple of assists for guys (well one guy one girl) who had issues with bad ranking in Google.
    The girl just hadn;t left it long enough. The site was less than 3 weeks old and the keywords were moving up nicely. I put her on to social media to get some nice quick visits. Turning a small ROI within a few days. All good.

    The other...

    A partial Google ban. Here's the thing though He had under 100 inbound links. and none of them seemed that bad. No PHP injections, no dodgy domains countries. Even rhe content around the links seemed ok
    I've seen this before. Scratch that I've seen this MANY times before.

    The question always is

    "How the hell did they get me when I only have 50 links?"

    I don't know the full answer. But I can guess at part of it based on experience.

    Lack of citation.

    In every case where Google slaps someone with a very low inbound link count and nothing too egregious in terms of linking sites, a common factor is the selfishness of the link profile.

    Example
    50 articles, WEB 2.0 sites and a few miscellaneous links made with GSA (A very good tool if used properly - but it's rarely used properly) all with one link per post - all to the same page. No other links.

    Yes the anchor text was mixed up - yes the content surrounding the links was different most times, the link types were mixed up, the d0foll0w n0foll0w was realistic. But the linking itself was 100% selfish.

    Selfish linking, where no other link is included in the content to a (none commercial if you have any sense) 3rd website makes it REALLY easy for the search engine to ask the one question that MUST be top of their "Is this link spam" check list.

    That question is;
    "Who benefits from this post?"

    If there is only one link then that's obvious.

    The next question is probably
    "Have we found any more postsa like this where the same site is the only beneficiary recently?"

    if the answer is;

    "Why yes, in the last week we have found another 55 of them"
    That's pretty much their job done for them. It wouldn't take a genius to guess what is going on..

    Consideration?

    • Negative SEO?
    • Why do some people get away with it and other not?

    Good questions. I have ideas but no answers. My best guesses here revolve around Google monitoring certain niches and keywords much more stringently than others. The more commercial the market potential, the more established players in that market (ie likely big spenders with Google Adwords budget) the more likely they are to look.

    I bet there are other considerations of course, but selfish linking is so easy to avoid. Linking to a few dozen none commercial (not direct competition for your market) websites is really easy with modern linking tools, easy to do my hand, easy to ask a service to do for you.

    I posted something similar to this about 4 years ago. It made no difference then. I must have reviewed 2000 websites in those 4 years maybe 50 or 60 had this issue, the frequency I find this hasn't gone down at all. We all still love selfish linking and forget citation.

    Peace out!

    Scritty
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  2. Unreliable Witness

    Unreliable Witness Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    174
    It is impossible to know whether this is true, but it makes sense.

    If you look at content on highly trusted sites, it often links to more than one other site, rarely links to home pages, and rarely links with short money keyword phrases. It is rarely "selfish" for a single site.

    It is so easy to think of "link juice" as a single thing, when it is far more likely that the value of a link is measured in multiple ways - one of which is likely to be "who benefits from the link".

    An excellent point - often missed.
     
  3. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    4,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    You're right there. There is no guarantee this is what is going on. The old "corrolation doesn't always equal causation" principle applies. I'm quietly confident that it plays a part though.
    That question "so who benefits from this link" has got to be one Google asks itself?
    Either way I now find a nice big list of none competiting authority sites in the same niche (I don't just rely on Wiki and the high profile news networks) and make sure a couple of them get citation in every post I link from.
    I still lose the odd churn and burn site - but the rate is pretty low - a helluva lot lower than the Google white hat "White Knights" would have you believe. If you believed Google they are masters at taking down sites with self promoting links. In muy experience they might take down 3-5% of them - then rely on the fear that those targetted webmasters spread when they tell their tales of woe on forums like this.

    Google are - despite their "trying too hard" tag line - evil. Their restrictive practice and near monpoly of such a massive market is something that shouldn't be allowed. But I'm glad it is - because while they are so inept it makes them a nice lumbering/cumbersome target to pigtgyback wealth from .
    Better the devil you know ;)

    Scritty