Shouldn't a 3 to 5 site PBN be somewhat safe from a penalty from Google?

So I was just watching this Matt Cutts video from 2014 on cross linking between partner websites:
.
Here is another Matt Cutts video (but older) where he talks about cross linking partner websites:

As per the video, according to Matt Cutts, if you cross link 3 to 5 of your partner websites (such that you form a partner website network), it is probably acceptable by Google. But according to Matt Cutts in this video, if you have 30 partner websites and you crosslink all of them,then you may get penalized. While the most recent video Matt Cutts did on this subject is from 2014, I assume that a lot of the original code in Google's algorithm for handling partner website networks and PBNs today is still similar to 5 years ago.

Isn't a partner website network just a form of a "private" PBN with more obvious footprints? (by "private" PBN, I mean a PBN where only you use it and nobody else uses it) If a partner website network is just a form of a PBN with more obvious footprints, based on the videos above, isn't it somewhat safe to have a small PBN of 3 to 5 sites?

It's not recommended to link your PBNs together. The whole idea of a PBN is about getting Google to think they are all owned by different people.

The problem is not that your 3-4 links will trigger the penalty. Let me give you example:
PBN owner have 100 PBNs.
You buy 5 links - all good and safe.
Client 2 however want 100 links - the seller is too greedy to refuse so he sell 100 links making all of his PBNs connected.
Client 3 want 20 links - now Google is "triggered" - what are the chances that 2 independent websites have the 20 websites linking to them? Hmm
Client 4 want 50 links - from which 10 PBNs are linking to client 2 and client 3 as well - Google algo: Yep, something fishy here lets send this for manual review.

Human reviewer place manual penalty to Clients 2,3,4 and guess who? You. Despite having just 3-4 links.

assaultclass said:

It's not recommended to link your PBNs together. The whole idea of a PBN is about getting Google to think they are all owned by different people.

Click to expand...

But that's what many partner website networks do. They all link together. And worse, many partner website networks are owned by the same people, and have the same footprints. In fact, many partner website networks have extremely obvious footprints - it's very obvious all the sites in the partner website network are owned by the same person, with the same registar, with the same name servers, with the same IP address, etc.

According to Matt Cutts, it's okay to cross link about 3 to 5 of your partner websites together but Matt Cutts suggests that you don't overdo it, and if you have 30 websites in your partner website network, that you don't crosslink all 30 of them.

So maybe the question is, can Google really distinguish PBNs from a partner website network? Because if Google can't clearly distinguish a PBN from a partner website network, then by the logic from Matt Cutt's video, it can be inferred that a small PBN network of only 3 to 5 sites is safe to cross link.

AngelSeo said:

The problem is not that your 3-4 links will trigger the penalty. Let me give you example:
PBN owner have 100 PBNs.
You buy 5 links - all good and safe.
Client 2 however want 100 links - the seller is too greedy to refuse so he sell 100 links making all of his PBNs connected.
Client 3 want 20 links - now Google is "triggered" - what are the chances that 2 independent websites have the 20 websites linking to them? Hmm
Client 4 want 50 links - from which 10 PBNs are linking to client 2 and client 3 as well - Google algo: Yep, something fishy here lets send this for manual review.

Human reviewer place manual penalty to Clients 2,3,4 and guess who? You. Despite having just 3-4 links.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of "public" PBNs. But in my original post, I am talking about "private" PBNs. By "private," I mean a PBN where only you use it and nobody else uses it (as I specified in my original post). So you setup the PBN and you don't let anybody else use it. So there is not Client 2, 3, or 4. You own the PBN, only you use the PBN, and you don't let anybody else use your PBN. The PBN is "private" to you only.

A "private" PBN can share many similar traits to a partner website network. Many partner website networks that have not been penalized are only used by the same owner.

By the way, partner website networks usually have very poor footprints. Many partner website networks are owned by the same person, with the same registar, with the same name servers, with the same IP address, etc.

galaxyduo said:

But that's what many partner website networks do. They all link together. And worse, many partner website networks are owned by the same people, and have the same footprints. In fact, many partner website networks have extremely obvious footprints - it's very obvious all the sites in the partner website network are owned by the same person, with the same registar, with the same name servers, with the same IP address, etc.

According to Matt Cutts, it's okay to cross link about 3 to 5 of your partner websites together but Matt Cutts suggests that you don't overdo it, and if you have 30 websites in your partner website network, that you don't crosslink all 30 of them.

So maybe the question is, can Google really distinguish PBNs from a partner website network? Because if Google can't clearly distinguish a PBN from a partner website network, then by the logic from Matt Cutt's video, it can be inferred that a small PBN network of only 3 to 5 sites is safe to cross link.

Click to expand...

They can get away with it because they are huge sites/big brands. If Google discovers your tiny network of expired domains, they won't hesitate to penalize you. Play it safe. Don't link them together.

Ah well if is yours only - you can get away with much more. A buddy of mine had all his PBNs without privacy, single registrar - his company name on all of them, many on the same VPS and what not. He just did not know better and survived like this for a year. So yeah you can get away with that, until you dont. If is some churn and burn project, sure, but to spend years working on a site, and then to be slapped by manual penalty because you saved few bucks? Naah. Not worth the risk in my opinion.

assaultclass said:

They can get away with it because they are huge sites/big brands. If Google discovers your tiny network of expired domains, they won't hesitate to penalize you. Play it safe. Don't link them together.

Click to expand...

I can tell you that I have found some partner website networks of my own, and that I even obtained some links from an obvious partner website network. And the network I found was not penalized. It was not a huge site nor a big brand.

AngelSeo said:

Ah well if is yours only - you can get away with much more. A buddy of mine had all his PBNs without privacy, single registrar - his company name on all of them, many on the same VPS and what not. He just did not know better and survived like this for a year.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, how many sites did your buddy have in his PBN network? Was he penalized after one year?

AngelSeo said:

So yeah you can get away with that, until you dont. If is some churn and burn project, sure, but to spend years working on a site, and then to be slapped by manual penalty because you saved few bucks? Naah. Not worth the risk in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I am studying and thinking about the partner website networks. Some of these partner website networks have extremely obvious footprints. Like I said, the sites in these partner website networks are owned by the same person, with the same registar, with the same name servers, with the same IP address, etc.

One theory I have is that if you have few sites in your network, be it a partner website network or a PBN, it becomes difficult for Google to determine whether it's really a network or not. However, the more sites in your network, the larger the "sample size," and if Google has a larger sample size, Google can be more certain that it's the same network. It's like when a company does a poll for an election. The larger the sample size of the poll, the more accurate the poll is. The smaller the sample size of the poll, the less accurate it is. This idea is from any introductory statistics course.

I am guessing "sample size" plays a role in how Google detects a network. The more sites in your network, the more certain that Google is that it's the same network. So that's why I think Matt Cutts is saying cross linking 3 to 5 sites in your network is okay, but cross linking 30 sites in your network is not okay. I know Matt Cutts is talking about partner website networks, but I think he is indirectly telling us how Google's algorithm works for PBNs as well. Just my hunch, based on the Matt Cutts video I referenced in my original post.

3-5 is definitely safer than 30-50.

I would never interlink PBN units but if you only do it with 5 I think you could get away with it. (What would be the primary benefit again?)

Neil Patel has all of his assets linked without problem.

Careful about linking from them though.

As others said, its just that it seems more risky than beneficial to interlink the properties.

I did something like that before, but ended up dismembering it cause i thought it was a huge unecessary footprint.

i've seen networks with 50+ sites linking together. 1 big main site that advertises them all and links to all of them. All in the sports niche. all doing okay.

Isn't Envato market doing exactly this? They're linking to graphicriver.net, audiojungle.net, photodune.net, codecanyon.net etc from their header menu and they're all owned by them.

Curious about this.

Matheus Moreira said:

As others said, its just that it seems more risky than beneficial to interlink the properties.

I did something like that before, but ended up dismembering it cause i thought it was a huge unecessary footprint.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that cross linking the websites (interlinking as you say) will definitely increase the risk and make it easier for Google to find out the network. But based on what Matt Cutts is saying in the video, it appears that cross linking 3 to 5 websites is probably acceptable by Google.

Now if you have a PBN with 3 to 5 websites and they don't even cross link to each other, I would think that is even safer from a penalty (for the time being, until Google makes another update to their algorithm).

What if I own 3-4 sites basically under a common brand, just with different topics? They are on the same hosting, same registrars, they have a copyright notice with my name on them and they have logos in one style. Why can't I link each site to the other 2-3 writing they are sister sites? Would Google really ban a family of sites for this? I mean Conde Nast has several magazines after all. And yes, Envato does the same, and many other site families do.

Shopllc said:

What if I own 3-4 sites basically under a common brand, just with different topics? They are on the same hosting, same registrars, they have a copyright notice with my name on them and they have logos in one style. Why can't I link each site to the other 2-3 writing they are sister sites? Would Google really ban a family of sites for this? I mean Conde Nast has several magazines after all. And yes, Envato does the same, and many other site families do.

Click to expand...

Based on the video from Matt Cutts, I would say if you only have 3 to 4 sites, you will probably be under the radar for Google. That seems to be what Matt Cutts is saying about cross linking 3 to 5 sites. If you have over 30 sites cross linking, as per the Matt Cutts video, then you are probably on Google's radar. I assume if you have 30 sites cross linking, the chance of a manual review of your network is much higher.

My guess is that Google uses the idea of "sample size" to determine if it's a network or not. The larger the sample size (ie. the more sites that cross link each other), the more certain that Google's algorithm thinks it's the same network. Anyways, this is my educated guess, based on the Matt Cutts video in my original post.

galaxyduo said:

Based on the video from Matt Cutts, I would say if you only have 3 to 4 sites, you will probably be under the radar for Google. That seems to be what Matt Cutts is saying about cross linking 3 to 5 sites. If you have over 30 sites cross linking, as per the Matt Cutts video, then you are probably on Google's radar. I assume if you have 30 sites cross linking, the chance of a manual review of your network is much higher.

My guess is that Google uses the idea of "sample size" to determine if it's a network or not. The larger the sample size (ie. the more sites that cross link each other), the more certain that Google's algorithm thinks it's the same network. Anyways, this is my educated guess, based on the Matt Cutts video in my original post.

Click to expand...

Google is basically supposed to look for unnatural links. It's when sites link to other sites but pretend to be unrelated. And when they are openly related, aren't these links kind of natural? I don't think Google bans natural nerworks of sites if they are openly related under one brand. They can also see them all in your search console and analytics account as related and belonging to one person.

Of course, it's OK if you do it sparingly. 30 sites is a bit too much.

I guess if you make a PBN site and link it to every site in your open network of sites pretending that the PBN site is not yours, and is not related to your other sites, that would look unnatural. That's a Yeti footprint.

People will tell you it is a risk and they would be correct to some degree. I have been doing small, isolated cross-linking with the PBN for a few years now with no adverse effects. I definitely don't do that with all of the PBN but I like to keep things mixed up and different as it grows. Again as others have pointed out: just be smart about it, don't be greedy and don't follow the same exact formula for everything you do. Especially if you have (or plan on having) a large scale pbn. Just my 2 cents, I am by no means an expert on PBNs but I have had success over the past few years with this.

Shopllc said:

Google is basically supposed to look for unnatural links. It's when sites link to other sites but pretend to be unrelated. And when they are openly related, aren't these links kind of natural? I don't think Google bans natural nerworks of sites if they are openly related under one brand. They can also see them all in your search console and analytics account as related and belonging to one person.

Click to expand...

There are some networks that I have seen that have loosely related niches, but not exactly the same niches. For example, a network of sites may have one site on solar panels, one site on electric batteries, and one site on electric cars. Electric batteries is loosely related to solar panels and electric cars. However, electric cars is not really in the same niche as solar panels. Yet networks like these are not penalized and rank very highly.

Stackz said:

Isn't Envato market doing exactly this? They're linking to graphicriver.net, audiojungle.net, photodune.net, codecanyon.net etc from their header menu and they're all owned by them.

Curious about this.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think Envato does this. They crosslink all their sites. It seems that Google trusts the Envato sites and I wouldn't even be surprised if Google has done a manual review of their network at some point, since they are so well known.