Rapid link growth frowned on by SEs?

I've heard this in many forums but i've also heard the contrary in many places too. I figured I really I need to get a lot of backlinks and I have found websites that are doing link exchanges, I've got all of them saved in notepad but is it true that getting too many backlinks quickly is frowned on by search engines? What would be a good number?

All of these links are related to my category and content. Like it wont be 400 in a day cuz I do links manually but something around 30's a day perhaps...But, 90% of these will be reciprocal links...

is there anything like a safe number per day?

Thanks!

Ps I hope I posted this in the right place.

 

Yeah. I'd avoid this these days.

 

I do not think that adding a bunch of links at one time will hurt your ranking. How else are you suppose to climb to the top if you do not get links. Although that may hold some weight with google I do'nt think it will affect you on other search engines. It is not about how many links you have but the over all quality of those thinks is what matters.

If your site is new then you might stay in the sandbox no matter how links you add, and no matter how slow you get them.

 

This rapid link development fear is not for small guys like me. It is for sites with a network of millions of site. I would say don't worry.

 

Thanks. Was just worried and yes all of these links will be quality links, related to my content.

My site is doing well in all other engines except google. so I believe it is the backlinks that are affecting my results (or the fact that im still in google sandbox) or is it something else? Last time i checked, i had only 67 backlinks. (which is too low...imo)

 

1) Remember that Google doesn't show all the links pointing to your website. So if it shows 67, that means that G can see at least 67 links, but usually it can see (and take into cinsideration) much more links

2) 30 links per day is quite OK from my experience - and IMO you shouldn't listen to those saying that reciprocal links are dead... These are just rumours - and usually these people can't prove what they say. The problem is that they usually exchange links with various spammy sites and get banned - and then claim recips are bad

 

I wrote about this earlier this year, when Matt Cutts pointed one of my websites as bad example of reciprocial link (yeah, and DP coop ). Then he claimed that I didnt have more than 5% of my real pages indexed because of this.

But the funny part is that I created these links AFTER months of not being indexed.. So, from my point - fully bullshits and masking our eyes about their problems... Recips arent bad, they are bad only if you link to banned or pure spammy pages... I wont trust each directory and wont put anything that I think can be trasnformed in FSBO or spammy site with high PR (yeah, more backlinks good to own a directory with recpis and then screw the whole internet with bad links )

 

reciprocial links are not dead but it appears they do provide much 'less' weight than equal quality one-way links and that makes sense to me. I think when Google or anyone else talks about aquiring links too fast, it means 100's a day or 1000's in a very short period.

I do have one site that I ordered 300 directory submissions for and did a bunch myself and it only received (and remains) a PR2, so maybe there was a penalty for quick links in that instance.

 

Nobody can really answer that question for sure. As with anything in SEO look at it logically and with common sense.

Would Google be able to detact a massive increase in backlinks. Yes certainly. Would they punish a site for it? Maybe. There are lots of diffenet reasons sites pick up large amounts of baclinks in a short time. Maybe they have a funny video or pucture on the site that's been blogged. Maybe they're doing extensive offline advertising. Maybe they have a new product out. Maybe it's a seasonal product - christmas crackers for instance. Google wouldn't want to penalise sites like this, it'll damage the quality and relevence of their results. I'm sure however if they see a site that picks up 10 times the number of IBLs than their competitors have in the space of a couple of months then they'll be looking closely at the site.

SEO is a test of common sense, do you think what you're doing looks spammy, if you're not comfortable then other people probably think the same.

 

Yup, if building links was so bad - im in top5 for one of my keywords, I'll give 5x10k$ to build links back to my competitors and voala - they are out

 

That is a really interesting point to make as they would have no control or knowledge of the link building until it was to late! I worry about too many links as I am using a couple of forums related to my industry everyday now and wondered what the effect might be, but I am being genuine and not spamming when I write on them so I hope G sees it that way too On taht subject, is it a good idea to change your signature ocasionally so it has different anchor text (thinking of the varied text for links issue too? )

 

Yes, that's a good point. Varying the anchor text would be important as that something that the search engines again can check for.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Rand from SEOmoz (and many others) insisted that Google bowling (the thing you're talking about) is possible. I haven't ever seen any bowled website myself - and I have asked many people who swear they saw such sites to show these sites to me, but got no real reply - but something (probably my Degree in Applied Matematics) makes me sure that bowling IS possible (since Google is just a set of mathematical algorithms).

What d'you guys think? Can someone show me an example of such a bowled website?

 

Did you contact Nintendo? I had a look for the post I was telling you about but I couldn't dig it out.

 

Yup, seoBear and I have degree in matematics and thats my teory that 5x10k$ will be OK to prove or decline this theory

I dont have enough time and money to test this by myself(yeh, have to work to eat ) but someone with good coop weight can test this with no spending money or time at all

A few months back someone was using "google seo" or something in the anchor text of a coop link with serious weight, I cant remember what has happend with this, but I think this was a way of rolling out matt cutts website if his theory was right (ranodm links, different topics, low-or-no-pr...)...

 

For increasing your PR, it will work. But for SERPs, it may not be a great idea. Link exchange should be done with sites relevent to your site. Sudden increase of links is also not great for Yahoo! SERPs.

PR and SERPs are related but NOT the same. That's why low PR sites can be ranked higher than other sites with the same keyword competition. PR is just one big factors for SERPs, but NOT simply high PR = high SERPs.

 

Thanks for your inputs. Yes, it will again be related websites. And the 67 backlink is not what google's showing me (google only has 2) but what all of them are showing (and it kind of makes sense because I havent worked on the site). I will change the anchor text a little for them. Surely dont wanna get banned by Google God.

 

Reciprocal links will work well if those are on old pages of an established site. I have seen google counting those and showing when link:URL search is done.
Although don't go for automated sites which have too many members and allow you to do a reciprocal link campaign by automatically creating pages on members websites. That may not help...

Most often I have seen these automated solutions creating new pages which are not linked from any other page on the website and of course not from any other site as well. How is this page going to get indexed and the link counted?

When I create a new page then I always link it from almost every page on that site so it gets indexed in engines. Soon it will age and links on it, external or internal get counted.
bye

 

Yes, but picture a situation when a person links to me (without me asking for a link), and I link to her (again, legitimately). We do that because we like each other's site, that's it.

Will Google see these links as "lower weight" because it will think it's a link exchange? Seems mighty unfair to me, if so. What about common sense then?

Warkot

 

Warkot, then I'll create right now 10 000 websites with a single click, will invest in 10 000 domains and will corss-link them all. I'll get 9 999 links and smash my competitors. But that's not right, so google puts low weight... Did you understand something bad english at all