I have to disagree with this, suppose I launch a brand new, high quality site and offer to compensate owners of other relevant site for giving me a link to help spread the word... how exactly is that scamming or stealing?
I think you may be right in some ways.. But i think its if you have to many* links on your site.. say like lists on the right or what ever if you just have 5 or 6 for example you would be ok but if you have say 15 then they count less if you have 20 get a penelty but thats just my guess... We need some one who is physic to read googles mind for us Any physics in this forum? im sure some one has physic websites prove your salt ok tell us
A solution for you is article submission. Once you write some articles related to your site content and you publish them including references in the body of these articles, those links are valuable for your page because they are contextual and, more than that, they are coming from a site (actually the published article page) which has a content related to your website content. Here is a complete articles directory list: http://directorycritic.com/article-directory-list.html?sort=pr
That is how non-paid links are grouped too. I think buying links for PR will go way down but the truth is that if you were buying links for that purpose only you were not doing yourself any favours. High PR is just a little green bar and really does not mean much. I would much rather have a link back from a quality relevant PR3 site than a shabby PR6 site.
Yes, it is right but Google also analyzes the steps 2) and 3) as well as many other. But, sure, seems there are many bugs in the algorithm while, for example, youtube.com dropped from PR8 to PR3 and that's practically impossible considering the number of backlinks youtube has...
I guess Google will have to make up it's mind if it wants this to still be the case, by reducing visual PR on some big sites it sort of makes it look like a bit of a farce. The only advantage of having high PR that I ever heard Matt Cutts acknowledge is that it helps a site get spidered deeper. It is interesting that what Gooogle is doing will probably push more advertising into content which will be much harder to find. But then again I guess it will encourage sites to be 'content rich' so it should generally be a positive step. As someone that has sold a few links I think this step will help out the small link sellers and mostly hurt the 'big guys'.
Selling Relevant links in Relevant text would get no issues agreed. Lets make Relevant Links = x Relevant Text = y Now that factor is only true if: y is in compliance with the rest of the website/a major part of the website or the website is a blog with everything random in it (however if everything is random then (1) The blog will most probably not have much PR power and (2) The links would most likely not carry PR Juice), ALSO, y has to be 100% unique and not contain too many links to resources like x, so what this proves is: The only way you could sell links now and get away with it is by putting in links inside content in a very organic way, your website or a major portion of the website must be directly or indirectly related to the website you are linking to. Simplified, this means you can only sell links to relevant websites now (COMPETITORS) and that too very carefully. Also, forgot to add, Reviews and "Cool site of the day" stuff will NOT work. IT
PR is completely worthless, if not disinformation at this point. Links on the other hand are just as important as before. It just means you have to do your research to determine which links are more valuable.
Well, the thing is, your pm is not actually private. See if you've got contextual ads running in your private areas, then contextual spiders can read those pm's.
tomatir, I am sorry but as I already said, I cannot give this information because it was taken from an official source and the person who provided it to me strongly pleased not to disclose the information there. But, anyway, I didn't followed his advice competely while I opened this post.
I don't buy this. Look at almost any blog with a blog roll longer than, say, 15 items, and you'll find more than one off-topic link, and perhaps even a dead link or two, for instance. Next, how do you differentiate between links-for-PR and links-for-ads? If I sell a 125x125 with a direct link, that's an ad. What about these mini-buttons that used to be trendy? Which are ads, which are PR buys? What if instead of my "Featured Links" I tack them onto the start or end, or even middle of my Blogroll? If I go private and directly sell Blogroll entries and add ALT text? I'm sorely tempted to do so as a number of guys in my niche have been Googleslapped, all of them TLA customers. However, another portion (including me) haven't been slapped, so I'm confused!
The difference between ads and PR buys are that in ads you should use the "nofollow" tag. Matt Cutts clearly specify this thing on his blog.
It is not google has totally given negative marking to paid links, of course to known sellers of links they have given the axe, but to buyers it is not true, they are still getting the benefit of pagerank leak Now google is going for some link structure changing, they will no more be interested in lining up some links in a PR page, but will give more value to links that are inline with the content, since webmasters will find it difficult to put links in their content, and if they does then it means they value the link
Google can detect paid links no matter where in the html code you place the link. The Google engineers have degrees in computer science and can trace the links from the origin such as text link ads facilitating link sales. Also the DP forum is full of people selling links....did anyone forget Google employees read DP too???? You guys seriously need to stop posting hyperbole that has no merit or fact whatsoever and confuses others.... @bomberman PR does not leak. It does not have a hole in the side of it, and some escapes. Any link live on the WWW passes PR within the constraints of the Google Algo. However there is no, and will never be, a leak of it.
I don't think that is true, they can't even stop obvious spam and MFA sites and it is not likely they will invest the millions of work-hours to manually review and trace back links. Also it would be too easy to torpedo the competition by posting fake link for sales theads on forums and simply reporting them, so Gooogle will assume paid links.
I generalized... let me rephrase... Google can detect those paid links, that it is able to detect algorithmically, no matter where they are on a page. To post hiding links in content will pass Google's tests without an iota of fact, is irresponsible to say the least. Again more misinformation. And investing millions in research & development, to earn billions in revenues, is done by companies daily. What would lead you to believe Google would be any different? Peace!