If You Don't Think Google Can Detect Paid Links........

Not surprising I guess, but everybody is completely misunderstanding and not watching the video still.

C'mon guys!!!! Watch the video and take note of the other, more detailed posts I made on this.

I think that one option may be to require you to watch the video and go through a tutorial before you can begin using the tool. Possible option.

 

Is it the tool we are discusiong here or the tool. Who the F. caresa bout the video. Your tool doesen't work!

 

You guys are all missing the punchline: the tool (from a site for buying/selling links)is supposed to show you how all other kinds of links are detectable, but the ones you buy through this site are safe. Look at the source!
@OP How do we know if we got our links if we can't see who we're buying them from? What feedback mechanism to have to verify the placement of our links.
Cool video by the way...not sure I believe all of it.

 

Phynder nice tool thanks

will this tool find the links your lookin for though meaning the ones that are paid and High PR

 

Well, I can't edit my post. I wish I could change some wording.

If interested, please watch the video.
If you are not interested in watching the video, I can understand, but you it may be your loss. We are proposing some new theories on SEO on this thing and not everyone will be interested in listening to new ways of thinking. They had the same problem with thinking the world was flat or proving gravity. Of course, Text links are WAY more important than silly theories on gravity and the roundness of Earth.

The Paid Link Detector Tool Does Not Detect Monetary Exchange
It searches for trends in webmaster behavior that closely resemble that of a paid link. There are dead giveaways as to whether a link is quality vote or an Agenda based link. Agenda based links represent links that Google doesn't want to count.

The Paid Link Detector Is Designed To Find The Following:

• Links you give out as favors
• Links you give to your friends
• Links you give to your other sites
• Links you were PAID to give out
• Links that you are not "voting" on

 

Okay, now I'll address your comments / concerns / criticisms. I just can't figure out why none of you haven't thrown your digital panties at me. (That would be WAY better than Digg. Toss your digital panties at this blog!)

This is not what the tool is looking for at all unless all the links on your site are indeed of no SEO value. Of course, the first criteria is that the links are outbound, but we take it much further than that.

It depends on how you have linked to your designer. Obviously, I don't want to give out the code for my mind reader software so we are sticking with link trends and avoiding the motive side. Generally speaking, this type of link falls under the category of "Agenda Based Linking" which is a link that is not an objective vote that indicates quality, but a link that you have some sort of Agenda to place on your site. (Paid links, linking to a friend, etc).

The Paid Link Detector only detects links that are of zero SEO value. Watch the video, it will explain everything.

I could. The problem wtih searching with "sponsored links" is this forum page would come up. After working on this for months now, I can assure you that this is NOT how Google is detecting paid links.

These are not paid links, but they are USELESS for SEO. This is a flaw in the way we named the script. We should have named it "Crappy Link Detector".

Not exactly. If I had access to the Paypal database, I could do it.

Why Google has banned sites for selling links to bad neighborhoods. (Just ask David Airey) I don't think they are banning many sites at all. Our tests are showing that Google is reducing the value of the link to zero.

Our tools has worked extremely well in detecting useless links for SEO. I'm still perfecting the "paid link" side of it. I think if we would have named the tool The "Crappy Link Detector" you'd be more open the new concepts it presents.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please explain?

Brandon

 

I'm going to go ahead and jump in here again just to drive the point home.

THE TOOL DOES NOT DETECT MONETARY EXCHANGE!

Still......everybody is harping on this.

It detects links that are of NO or VERY LITTLE SEO benefit.

In other words, this is a "Detector of Links that Don't Work" or, "Detector of links that google is discounting"...etc.

The algorithm is way to advanced to spill the entire beans here on how it works. Just use your brain though.

What Google and the other SE's are trying to do here is to figure out when a link is actually a good and strong "vote" for the site being linked to.

What factors could you see that would make a link be sort of a crappy vote. In other words, a vote that is paid for, a vote that is forced, a vote that is a favor....etc.

I would love to see some EXACT examples from you guys pointing out what you may think is a flaw in the tool. If you give some exact examples, we can begin to give you some answers on why google is discounting that link.

 

I would guess Google looks for all the external links in the link sales forums, the ones they crawl so many times every day, and use this as seed data. They probably also do what you say, take the reports people send through the webmaster tool console as another bunch of seed data, and probably a lot more.

 

Hmmm.....seemed to detect nearly all of my outgoing sitewide links as paid links.

 

I think I need some rethinking. What do you think?

 

How can you be sure that the link that your tool detects are also not counted by Google? do you know something we don't know? do you know the criteria that google uses to detect paid links? Do have someone on the inside?

And links on your own site, forum and blog were detected as paid. You can't have any credibility here unless you fix the issues on your site before you try and help other's. It detects paid links on every site I checked including Google, Youtube, Yahoo and even Wikipedia. Since every site on the internet has paid links according to your tool, then I'm not worried.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. OK, this is like banging your head against a wall.

It isn't detecting paid links guys!!!! It is detecting useless links. We picked the wrong name because we thought it would get some attention. I think we should probably change it because nobody pays attention to the text and video.

So, I'll address some of the points here:

They could possibly do this, but their detection algorithm is so good now there is really no need anymore. They do check to make sure that they are catching enough with seed data like this and the reports page where they get reports...but they have their algo tweaked to near perfection now.

EXACTLY! Those links are of little or NO SEO benefit. There are some black-hat ways to make a site-wide more SEO friendly...but not worth it.

I think nearly everybody doing SEO needs to start rethinking what they are up to. As people understand more what a quality link actually is and how google determines this, then they will begin to adjust their strategy. Way slow if you ask me, adjust now...you have the information necessary to know what is going on.

Thousands of tests with high confidence levels and low evalues.
Matt Cutts blog, from the mouth of Google itself.
Common sense on SE algorithms and how they discount links
Talks with SE programmers...I'll leave that one alone. lol

Links on our own site, blog, and forum CAN be useless for SEO. These aren't links we are trying to sell off though, and were forced by the script to have the link there. Take for example the link to wordpress, or the forum script. Useless for SEO. Not paid, but USELESS for SEO. That is the point of the tool.

To go a step further. Think about why those links are on our site. Did we actually "vote" for that site with a quality link? No, we were basically forced to link to them by using the script.

Hmmmmm.....now if you are google, would you want that link to count as a "vote".

Election day and there is a pile of votes that came from people who were at gunpoint being told who to vote for. Do you think that pile of votes would distort the election results? You bet they would.

Better discount those kinds of links. See where this is going guys? Try to take this one-step further and think about what a quality "vote" actually is.

What could google's mindset be for determining what a great vote is? There are MANY factors. But start trying to think like the search engines. What links are actually quality votes and aren't bribed or forced or placed in huge bulk?

Just some hints there.

 

Well, it looks like we must refine our strategy on how we package our new tool. Our "marketing" (I hate to call it that) has put us in a position where our concepts aren't being illustrated.

None of the links picked up our "tool" are of any use to the search engines. However, calling the tool "Paid Link Detector" was a bad idea. I wonder what we should call it.

Brandon

 

I like it. A Paid Links Detector .. or "useless links" detector.

I love it at the end of the video where it says "textlinkcenter.com / BUY LINKS THAT WORK". Sorry - but it's in your Yourtube video.

I'm guessing it looks for clusters of links with little or no suppporting text around it, and they're all external and towards the bottom of the code.

 

By The Beard Of Zeus! (In Will Ferrel voice) Someone got it!!!!

You are VERY VERY close in your assumption. You are the first one in all the blogs and forums to understand what it is doing. I'm working on a detailed summary of "How it works" which we will be implementing before the press release.

I'm the idiot saying that. It's embarassing! It's like coming out of the closet on an answering machine, only I'm not gay and I'm not talking on an answering machine.

The bottom of the code could be worked around very easily with CSS, so there is no regard to location on the page.

There is no reason that a person would be casting votes with clustered links. Of course, a person isn't casting a vote for the person who wrote their Wordpress template. A person isn't casting a vote for their RSS feed on feedburner either.

After a "rocky" first start, we are going to rethink our presentation of the Useless Link Checker, make a few changes, and then go from there.

Brandon

 

That would be my guess too. It doesn't seem to pick up on sitewides, or at least to take sitewides as evidence on its own of a link being paid or useless. I imagine this is simply because it's just crawling the one page at a time?

It's interesting, but ultimately too speculative. If there's no input from actual Google employees, all you have is guesswork. I'm inclined to believe it's on the right track, but it's reporting too many false positives.

From the sites I tested, it is picking up a lot of genuine paid links, and a few unpaid ones as well; in fact, very few external links aren't reported as paid. But the fact is, most links are given out with the expectation of some return these days.

 

great tool I found a few links with in a few site's lol"

 

It doesnt work, im linking to one particular site of mine on most my other websites. The tool said all my links to it were junk/paid yet the site ranks solidly in the top 3 for a few competative 150 Mil terms with little other links powering it besides these "junk links".

So its got novelty value but a long way off a serious tool sorry.

 

sweetfunny, there are hundreds of other factors involved here. if you'd like to point out the term and your links...I can provide you with a detailed analysis of what exactly is going on here.

Much depends on competition, other quality factors for you junk links, what types of junk links the comp. have, domain age, outbounds, literally a crap-ton of stuff.

I'd love to know the key term though...I can show you how to rank #1 with one...maybe two links max it sounds like.

Still....some people are harping on it being a paid link detector. Kind of funny after all of these posts they still don't get it.

 

Oh, on the speculation and guesswork.

There is no speculation at all. Only reaction to thousands of tests and from the words and examples of google themselves.

I'd say what we have is kind of like saying that the "theory of evolution" is just a theory.

Technically, it is a theory...but has passed from the theory stage in the minds of the educated many many years ago.

So, with thousands of tests with low evalues and all statistically significant...and the mout of google...I'd say way more than sound. It's fact.