With all the emphasis on links to your site I was wondering, are there any links you’d prefer not to have pointing back to your site? I can’t think of any but I’m sure there must be some instance where this is the case.
If bad links could hurt your site it would be too easy for people to hurt their competitors so I would not think any links would hurt, personally I would rather not have links from link farms,viagra/porn sites but you cannot control who links to you.
President Bush has a lot of bad links to his web page with the anchor text "miserable failure" Those turned out pretty bad for that guy.
Well, googlebombing aside, if you are asking about any kind of "bad neighborhood" issues, then no; Inbound links can't hurt you by association.
Actually, I believe that inbound links can hurt you by association. For example, if you have 1,000 links and 900+ of them are blog comment spam then, Google can analyize that you have a lot of links coming from "bad neigheborhoods" and they might see your site as being part of a bad neigheborhood too and your site will start to be seen as spam as well.
This is really some stupid-ass advice that additionally has nothing to do with the thread's subject. Kudos on your 5th post. Btw, can you please use like 3 or more exclamation marks next time? The more, the better, or we won't hear you. Warkot
I think this is just a speculation. I fail to see how Google could prevent people from abusing what you describe and bashing their competition by pointing 100k bad neighborhood links to their sites. If links are bad (not trusted), Google will simply devalue them. But to punish a site for something beyond it's owner's control... Nope, I don't think so. Warkot
I have nearly 3,000 backlinks for one of my sites. I don't have the time or the patience to check on all of them. However, using webmastereyes I can see the pr of each backlink at 100 links per page using the advanced Google search buttons. Just for a glance every now and then. Traffic is still increasing. A few months ago the site was getting 4000 hits per month & this last month should be around 6000 hits. Bad links do not affect the site IMO.
My site gets linked to from pure nonsense sites (MFAs, scapers, spams) etc, I havent suffered in rankings yet because in the end you really cannot control who links to you, all you can control is who you link to.
Rand Fishkin from SEOMoz claims that Google bowling is a reality. But as far as I understand, that would cost a competitor much more to drop your website out of G's index than to optimize and promote his/her own site
Warkot, exclamation marks aside, what Netnuta meant to say is that in evaluating the site, and specifically calculating the PR, Google counts only links from sites with PR > 2 (although I think it's actually 4 or higher).
OK, I guess I had a bad day. Sorry for being a bit impolite. Well, most of the time I don't care for PR when building links. What I care for is theme relevancy. But your post made me think. Have you got any (empirical) proof for what you say or is it a 'widely believed fact'? Warkot
Google counts every link as an incoming link, PR only comes into it when two sites are identically matched.
I'd prefer for scraper sites not to link back to my blogs, but its kind of out of my hands so I don't really worry about it.
seoBear, the article you posted really sucks... You know why? Because the page has a lousy PR! It's zero. Zilch. Nothing. Post it again when it gains some good PR Warkot
good one Warkot... made me smile... I'm sick'n'tired of this PR obcesion too.. People give it too much thought really!