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

Yeah i know there's 100s of factors, i've been doing SEO since 99 and currently have a few thousand page one rankings like "SEO Company" etc.

The tool is calling links any webmaster would give their right arm for as junk. Links i know for a fact if they were pointed at your site you would jump pages in the SERPs overnight for the chosen anchor.

All the best with it, but as a professional SEO the tool has absolutely no value to me what so ever sorry.

 

I checked a number of pages and it seemed like it was a footer external link detector more than anything else. It wasn't always picking paid links. It also declared blog roll links and news links as of no value. The blog roll doesn't make sense as the naturally occurring links to blogs one blogger values should be valuable.

I tried a number of sites and it didn't work consistent enough for me to be persuaded. A number of links I added altruistically and on topic were deemed worthless. I'd have to see it work consistently on sites I was well acquainted with first.

 

I'm sorry sweetfunny, but our thousands of tests would have to disagree with your analysis about links you should give your arm for. If you would give your arm for junk links...what would you do for a quality link?

As for jumping your rankings...this simply isn't true. Unless your key term is just a cakewalk.

To tbarr60, unfortunately blog roll links are basically useless for SEO. Not a true quality vote...and thus google is spot on for discounting those. If you are linking to 5 blogs randomly in navigation with no supporting voting text..that simply isn't a very powerful vote...and rightly so. Although at first thought you may think a blogroll is a good vote. Not really.

Show some exact examples there, and I can point out exactly why the tool found what it did as I have said before.

Also, once again you said it wasn't always picking paid links. I guess I'll have to say it again. It isn't detecting paid links. Flaw in our naming.

It is a "Useless for SEO" link checker.

 

lsample20 you have a point and I would not argue otherwise
paid links stink like leads do" yours had better be top rated lol"

 

Not sure how google will do this but interesting to see people hoping on the bandwagon early!

IMHO I think Google should leave well alone.. Arent people quite entitled to buy and sell links on sites!

 

Not working for me... Not an useful tool at all.

 

Ok, if you want to detect a fair amount of paid links, it's not too difficult. You're looking for a CSS/DHTML layer, with a background color that is different than that of the general page. All outbound links obviously. Beyond that, outbound links that are far below the actual content. If google really wanted to help polish out paid links(at the expense of their index's quality), they would just look inside of paragraphs, and ignore the rest of the page. However, that would destroy the index.
Here's a fun fact.
Google does not truly want to identify paid links.
Google makes it's $$$, essentially, FROM paid links.
Sites that PAY for links, are generally quality. They know this.

Just because Matt Cutts rambles on about something on his blog, setting incredibly stringent linking guidelines, doesn't make it the reality of the company.

 

A while back I noticed a friend of mine had a blog that had a PR8 and some other good indicators. I asked him how he got PR8, he said "what's PR?" which indicates he did nothing to manipulate and probably doesn't do any SEO work, he just naturally had a SE lovable site. I asked him to include me in his blogroll and he said he'd add me to his feeder and consider it. I would think Google could figure out that this type of site would have links that are very valuable due to the lack of manipulation so I wouldn't discount blogrolls.

So what is the difference with the paid links sold on your site?

 

Well keep testing, the only thing that's junk is the tool sorry. It's an ok gimmick for link bait if you market it right, but it has no place in a SEO's toolbox.

 

Ok just an opinion after a first test run.

I tested some own and client sites and as an experienced SEO, so far your tool passed the test with "suma cum laude" nice and great SEO tool.

One thing that made me thinking, more about a mistake I probably made as a SEO, than searching for the mistake in your tool - among the tests I did have been three sites about the same theme, from the same client/company.
All sites are ranking famous for hundreds of searchterms, and all three have two links to the other two sites on their main page.

Now, on two of those sites no paid/low value links were found but on the third one, the two links to it's "partner" sites are shown as paid/low value.

The question that comes up is, do I need to change something on the clients site? Or might you need to improve your tool?

Anyway, I am taking the results serious enough to review my SEO work, thanks.

 

Good food for thought, Brandon, thanks for the video explanation.

(edit) Still thinking 'bout this and in a long run of this, I can see resource pages becoming less important on the whole and front page text links being the links of value as it is tied in with the content and not with the overall site.

 

OK guys...we fixed the tool. We now are calling it by what it actually is:

"Useless Links Detector"

Calling it only a paid links detector obviously gave everyone the wrong idea...even if they read what it was actually doing.

Now, go back and use the tool...and know that it is findind "Useless Links" for seo purposes of course.

That should fix any and all problems that you have with the tool.

For further explanation...I have another post you can find here on DP where I go over some specific examples and why it found or didn't find certain links. That should clear things up for you guys.

 

You might be right, but I think it depends a lot on your deep inbound links to that particulare page

 

Nice change, will avoid a lot of really useless discussions

 

I am sure your intentions are good but the development of such a concept can only mean increased oppression of free trading of link advertising and more people telling us what we can and can't do wth our web sites.

 

I think I will have to side with you on this one. Especially about Cutt's rambles.

 

BS!
You have no idea what Google sees or does not see or what their interpretation is.
For you to publically declare anyone's link as worthless is potentially libelous and it appears as though it is being done to promote your acquiring link sales.

 

tbarr60 thats a fine story how long has that blog been on the web" curiousity lol"

 

I think you named it correctly this last time.
It is a link checker. And It is useless for SEO.

 

Would I take them if someone gave them for free? Sure! Would I pay for them? Not a chance!! Some of us obviously have different standards of link quality that we are willing to accept. This is okay. We all have pay the rent. However, I just can't say any value in clustered, nagivational links. It just seems like a terrible vote to me.

Will do! Any specific advice?

People can do ANYTHING they want!

Would you mind spending one minute and explaining what it is doing?

Sure. Adwords is a PPC engine that offers text links with no SEO benefit (other than what the indirect branding may generate).

Sometimes. However, I'd guess the Google algorithm is a better judge of a links quality than it's paid / not paid status. I'm not sure I would feel good about building a search engine that ranked solely on whether a link was paid or not...unless I was building a PPC engine.

Your buddy giving you a link is a bad vote in my opinion. It's an Agenda based vote. He's giving you a link because you are his friend and not necessarily because your site is awesome. Buddy lists are nice for traffic, but that's the extent of it.

I personally am a HUGE believe in links that are not detectable by Google. Our tests have shown that high quality links in the body surrounded by relevant text has always beat a navigation link.

Brandon