It really drives me nuts when people go on and on about how 'if you get (insert number) links too quickly, it raises red flags everywhere!'. Honestly, just thinking about this, it makes zero sense. A truely good site, with a viral theme, will very, very quickly get hundreds, if not thousands of links from blogs and forums and everywhere else. Look at any site with a major marketing budget, and this is what happens. Myspace comes to mind. I'm willing to bet they get thousands of links, even when they were first starting up, just because of the theme and audience. So, besides this being a rave about said nay-sayers, I'd like to ask: Has anyone here ever had their site actually de-listed because of sending links to it? How many links did you actually point to it? Was it completely removed, penalized, what? I have infact tryed out those silly linking programs (and quickly abandoned them after seeing little benefit to myself, please take no offense those of you that use them successfully), and have never had a site penalized for either showing those links or pointing those links to other sites. It did even help with my MSN ranks (yea, for whatever that counts for), but not enough to make it worth my time to manage it. For some reason I see it taking thousands of links, if not tens of thousands of links, extremely quickly, for any kind of flags to be raised at all. Otherwise google would get hundreds of these red flags from networks like LV and Coop all the time, and the sharp marketer could simply point thousands of weight or vaults at his competitor and knock him out of the serps just to take over his spot. Once again, it is not only an unfair method on Googles part just for this reason, but also isn't very practical, and makes me think its a myth started by some search engine owner to stop the vast majority from exploiting their ranking system ( ::cough cough:: google ::cough cough:: )
I've never had a site banned from google from getting too many links too fast but I do believe G discounted the value of the links from getting them so fast, thus I didn't rank where I would've if I had gotten the exact same links spread over a years time instead of a months.
I dont think the site gets banned. As long as the links are all 'natural' i.e. not using the same link text all over, there shouldn't be any problem. Of course sites can gets hundereds and thousands of links in a day.. like for example, many people would have linked to the official crocodile hunter site when they heard about Steve's death. These links must be coming from lots of web pages and blogs from all over the internet. I don't think there should be any penalty because of these genuine links.
Exactly! You might not get the best of benefits, but it doesn't make sense to penalize sites for too many IBL too quickly (otherwise it opens the door for exploitation).
I have seen some guys posting about their sites getting de-indexed (not banned) for getting sitewide links from site with 6K pages. when you say viral it doesn't mean getting couple of thousands of links on first day, it should increase day by day.
If you get too many links too quickly which *aren't* 1-ways, (ie: you link back to them), then of course it's going to hurt you, as that's a blatant hardcore seo attempt). Also, if all those links are even 1-ways, but only coming from guestbooks / blogs, then I'd also think that would raise flags as well. But if they're 1-way's coming from a variety of sources, some high quality, some not, I don't think it would effect a site negatively.
I'm pretty sure this has happened to me once back when I was a foolish newbie. I created a fully automated article submission program and a fully automated directory submission program in the same week and ran them both on a site with the article submitter basically going nonstop for several days in a row. The problem was that it resulted in a TON of very poor links - one day shortly after, my rankings for this site on all keywords dropped from top 50 to completely off the charts for months. They did gradually come back over the course of many more months. Of course I don't know for sure that this was the cause, but I really wasn't doing anything else to the site. My theory is not that it got too many links, but the unusually high quantity of bad links probably tripped some filter. Moral of the story: Mix some high quality links in with your spam J/K
Hmm depends on where these links come from. Like, when you submit an article to 500+ directories or something...and it gets picked up quite well....google seems to have no problem with that...but if all links are from let's say directories then there's a problem since directories don't serve any purpose at all IMO
What another webmaster does cannot hurt your site period. Who cares if your site is on a site that has 200K pages indexed. If you don't link to that site it's not going to affect you. 200K links will not get picked up within the hour.
Sweet - take me out! Use the anchor text "Stock Market" and point all your links to www.deepmarket.com - prove to me you are correct.
This fact has to be settled for once and for good. What another site does cannot hurt or affect you in any way. If you do not link back to their site, nothing anyone does with their site can change the status of your rankings, period. Now on the other hand, if you set up automatic software for link exchanges with a service such as gotlinks.com then you will be penalized. That's it! Those are the rules. Now stick to them.
It just one of those things that no one believes in until it happens to them. its not just the number of links but also the quality as well
those are not the rules, that just what google tells you. i have seen it happen so many times to new sites, my own and other peoples as well.
basically dont get shit links, having sitewide links probly isnt a great thing, and is obvious advertising. Google says they dont give weight to links known to be paid. For my link building i try to create contextual links within blogs, articles, news stories etc. I also submit my sites to the major directories which offer good PR on their internal sites, and even some traffic. I build those contextual links via paid blogs, press releases, quality articles with submissions to good article directories, and creating link bait. I'm currently working on a link bait which consists of a collection of 20 health calculators which have articles written around them. This collection will total around 60 pages of content, and hopefully i'll be able to create a nice little link building campaign around them. Its taken me about 40 hours to get all the calculators working (still working on the graphing system though), and i've paid 140$ to article writers. So basically this isnt cheap, however i'm convinced that links generated from this will have a very positive benefit within the SE's. Generally when i pay somebody to link to my site within contextual content i give them a list of anchor text, and deep link pages they can link to. That way i keep my link text fairly randomly distributed.
Think so? Give me your URL and ill introduce you to google bowling, and show you just how much an outside source can influence your rankings. http://seoblackhat.com/2005/09/01/google-bowling-seo-black-hats-for-hire/ Googe's official statement on this situation is : Personally I disagree.
Its not 1000s in a month, its 1000s in a few seconds, ie when you use software to submit to DIRs and SEs. Even this will not harm you, google will just not vaule these links (otherwise we could all do this to our competitors). Linking back to these sorts of sites (link farms etc), that will harm you! Google bowling, is this for real? If it is im a bit shocked!
Never heard of that before but i do know that google can kick your adsense account when there is a sudden huge jump in clickthroughs But as far as the links go, i don't see why they should ban you for that. Didier