15 Methods for Paid Link Detection

Many major SEO firms make it a standard practice to recommend the purchasing of links to their clients. The search engines actively discourage this practice, and do their level best to detect those paid links. Here are 15 things they can use as signals that a link is possibly a paid link:

  1. Links Labelled as Advertisements: The search engines can scan for nearby text, such as “Advertisement”, “Sponsors”, “Our Partners”, etc.
  2. Site Wides: Site wide linking is unnatural, and should be a rare part of your link mix (purchased or not). The only exception to this is the interlinking of all the sites owned by your company, but this presumes that the search engine will understand that all of your sites are from your same company. In general, site wides are a serious flag.
  3. Links are Sold By a Link Agency: Of course, link agencies are knowledgeable about the link detection methods listed here, and do their best to avoid detection with the links they sell.
  4. Selling Site has Information on How to Buy a Text Link Ad: Search engines can detect sites that provide information on how to advertise with them. This combined with other clues about links being sold on the site could lead to a review of the site selling the ads, and a discounting of the links.
  5. Relevance of Your Link: It’s a powerful clue if your link is not really that relevant to the page it’s on, or the site it’s on.
  6. Relevance of Nearby Links: Another clue would be the presence of your link among a group of links that are not tightly themed.
  7. Advertising Location Type: The search engine can detect when your link is not part of the main content of the page. For example, it appears in the left or right column of a 3 column site, and the main content is in the middle.
  8. Someone Reports Your Site for Buying Links: Who would do this? Your competitor! If your competitor submits an authenticated spam report to Google, it will get looked at, and acted upon.
  9. Someone Reports Your Site for Some Other Reason: Perhaps your competitor does not recognize you are buying links, and turns you in for something else. Once this happens, the search engine will take a look at all aspects of your site, not just the reported issue.
  10. Someone Reports the Site you Bought Links from for Selling Links: A competitor of yours can do this, or a competitor of the site selling links can do this. Once a search engine figures out that a site is selling links, it’s possible that this could trigger a deeper review of the sites that were buying those links.
  11. Someone Reports the Site you Bought Links from for Some Other Reason: As before, this can lead to the search engine discovering that the site is selling links, even though it was not the core subject of the Spam report filed against it.
  12. Disgruntled Employee Leaves Your Company, and Reports Your Site: For decades, many companies have had a practice of escorting fired (or laid off) employees out of the building. The reason for this approach is that people get upset when they lose their job. However, even this practice would not prevent such a person from reporting your site in a spam report to a search engine. Even though that may be a violation of the confidentiality agreement you probably have with your employees, you would never know, because there is no transparency in spam reporting.
  13. Disgruntled Employee Leaves the Agency Your Used, and Reports Your Site: This same scenario can play out with an employee leaving the link agency you used. This form of disgruntled employee can report either your site directly, or the agency itself.
  14. Disgruntled Employee Leaves the Company of the Site Your Bought Links from, and Reports Your Site: Finally, it can also happen with someone leaving the company you bought the links from. This type of disgruntled employees can report your site, or the site they used to work for.
  15. Internal Human Review: Last, but not least, the search engine can do a human review. In general, search engines don’t do spontaneous reviews of sites, and wait for things detected algorithmically, or a spam report, to trigger a deeper review. But, you could certainly imagine that search engines could make an overt effort to clean up the search results in portions of their index they perceive to be spammy.

Search Engine Courses of Action

In the case of Google, it is known that one of the basic policies is to punish sites who sell text links by terminating that sites ability to pass link juice. This is essentially a first course of action. Once this is done, Google could look more closely at the selling site, and the purchasing sites for other signs of spammy behavior.

The search engines also take stronger actions at times, such as an algorithmic penalty, or banning a site from their index. I don’t know exactly how those determinations are made, but I believe that there are 3 major triggers for such action:

  1. It can be the cumulative affect of several signals of poor site quality.
  2. The search engine determines that a site has bought links on a large scale.
  3. Upon human review, the search engine detects a clear pattern of an intent to deceive them.

Summary

Plenty of businesses are successful with a link buying strategy. However, the search engines are investing more and more effort into their detection. At STC, our preference is to focus on obtaining links through great content, and making people aware of what we (our clients) have. But we place a very high priority on very high value links.

These are the types of sites that are very difficult to buy links from. For one thing, when these higher profile sites sell links, it does not take that long for it to become public knowledge. Just ask United Press International, who recently promoted the sale of links for improving page rank. UPI has discontinued the practice because of the furor it created.

This also has great synergies with the notion of investing time in developing great content for users. In a world with increasing personalization by the search engines, this is increasingly very, very important, and over time may well have a larger impact on your rankings then the links you get. You can see the search engines shifting from having web sites vote on your site, to having users vote on your site. One way or another, this is coming to a search engine near you.

Comments

  1. Thank you very much for the useful list published.

    Pratheep

  2. Brian says:

    What about buying links on directories, such as Yahoo! Directory or Best of the Web? Are these just a waste of money?

    Brian

  3. Please explain in more detail what does SITE WIDES mean.
    Thank you…

  4. Thanks for this good information. I still believe in linking within the theme of the site. I will study #2 very carefully. This info woke me up on this subject.

    Any comments on reciprocal linking?

  5. thanks ! it ‘s very usefull!

  6. I don’t agree with the stuff about reporting sites. Matt Cutts and them are taking site reports to enhace the algorithm to find paid links – not to penalize individual sites. It’s also been publicized – by Google – that they don’t read spam reports.

    I also don’t agree with the stuff here about sitewide links; I’ve received completely “natural” sitewide links for my sites numerous times. It’s also a very common practice among bloggers (i.e. a “blogroll”). I don’t think a sitewide link from 100 pages counts as much as the same PR links form 100 pages on different websites, but they are not any worse than a single page link.

    Some of the other stuff you say is good though, like “Relevance of the link,” “relevance of nearby links,” etc.

    Be careful with some of the conjecture.

  7. Eric Enge says:

    Brian – Links from high value directories is OK. A high value directory is one that tells you that you are paying for the editor to review your site, and reserves the right to reject your site, and keep the fee that you paid. You can read more about it here: http://www.stonetemple.com/blog/?p=100

    Hernan – A site wide is a link from every page of a site (no nearly every page of a site) to your site. Most people don’t give you site wide links unless you pay for it. There are exceptions though, and I wouldn’t sweat it if someone does link to you using a site wide if you didn’t pay for it.

    George – We do not active reciprocal linking here. Search engines recognize this as barter, and tend to discount it. We do implement out bound links though. As a result, we sometimes end up linking to people who have linked to us.

    The likely consequence of that is we may not get as much, or any link benefit from the link they gave us. But out bound links improve the user experience of your site, IF they fit the theme of your site, and are useful to your users.

    So all out bound links we offer with our clients are decided on a strict editorial basis, and never as a swap with some other party’s web site.

  8. Great information – it’s like a checklist for flying under the radar.

  9. I don’t understand how Google can get away with ruining the livelihood of peoples businesses. I mean if Google doesn’t like it well too bad but don’t go around and ultimately destroy someone’s free right to make a living off of selling links to other people or agencies.
    Its called Advertising, its what our economy was created on. Google itself has “sponsored links” that people pay for and their own ADWord’s campaign. So what is Google saying, that its ok to purchase links just as long as it is only from Google and not anyone else??

  10. Eric Enge says:

    Chris – Google has recently made it clear that they will review every authenticated spam report they receive (authenticated means a report made within Google Webmaster Tools).

    As for site wides, I do not mean to suggest with this post that site wides are punished. They can, however, be a flag indicating something worth investigating.

    Like you, we have received natural site wides to some of our client sites, and we don’t worry about it. I think where it becomes a flag is if a large percentage of the domains that link to you are giving you site wides. I.e. if there are 30 different domains with pages that link to your site, and a large percentage of those domains implemented site wides, that could be a flag to investigate a site.

  11. Interesting article. Thanks.

  12. So I guess everyone who pays Yahoo $299 per year for a listing will be penalized by Google? Maybe Yahoo will go back to free listings again? This entire “paid listing” witch hunt is ludicrous.

  13. Eric Enge says:

    Hi Ethanol – As I said above, links from high value directories is OK. As far as Yahoo! goes, there is a comment from Matt Cutts on an earlier post on my blog that makes it clear that the Yahoo directory link is OK. You can read more about it here: http://www.stonetemple.com/blog/?p=100

  14. The flotsam and jetsam of the link conversation is once again at high tide! Link buying/selling has always existed and always will. It has always been a huge part of the algorithms…probably always will be. There was a lot of link talk at SMX last week!

    One thing to keep in mind, and GYM is well-aware too, if they ever begin to penalize advertisers for purchasing links; everyone will simply purchase links to knock their competitors out of the top positions. Guerrilla-link-warfare! I’ve had to discourage clients from doing this already.

    Flying under the radar is great. Keeping your site-wides to a minimum is great. All of the things you mentioned are good tips.

  15. What about directories such as superpages.com? If you have a listing on it does it increase your ranking?

  16. Site wide means on every page of a site, Hernan.

    This is an interesting part of the story, as many web designers and SEOs have their link on every page of sites they create. I know I do, and I see that Google still counts some of them as backlinks to my site.

    I read elsewhere that after about 20 links from a given site, Google stops counting them toward your link popularity.

    Thanks for a good article on a hot topic.

  17. We made a real estate related directory and i appreciate if someone can tell me if this directory will will damage our website.

    Its too much confusion in this new google move.

    Thanks for this content. Very useful

    URL to the directory. http://www.blueonerealty.com/real_estate_directory/

  18. greyhound says:

    mstoddart,

    Interesting observation. The way I see it is that the big risk of buying links is the potential for volatility. Today you’re flying high. Tomorrow, due to one of the factors that Eric points out, a major chunk of your link portfolio gets taken out, and you get knocked on your ass.

    Most businesses have very lower tolerance for such risk/volatility.

    So it’s the sudden loss of link credit that is the “penalty”, not so much the active penalization of link purchasing. Sure, someone could go out and buy a bunch of links to your site (aside: I really wonder how easy that is to do on a grand scale; aren’t you typically going to engage in some sort of authenticated business transaction, requiring some sort of proof of identity to get this done?), then wait a while until your traffic soars, then report the links to “hurt” you. But that seems awfully indirect to me.

    Also, everyone should keep in mind one key point: it’s OK to purchase links for traffic. Yes, IT’S OK WITH GOOGLE FOR YOU TO PURCHASE LINKS FOR TRAFFIC! What you *can’t* do, if you don’t want to risk Google’s ire, is purchase links for manipulating link credit (PageRank, etc.). If you purchase links for traffic (i.e., you advertise!), you need to declare yourself to Google by using nofollow. Pure and simple.

  19. Hi. Thanks for the info. Definitely helpful to see, and enough to prompt this question – if Google is trying to limit the number of links, are you saying that all reciprocal linking is not good? Also, what is the deal if you were to link to a site that has a lower PR than your site – would you be penalized more for doing that?

    Finally, as for the buying of links – I was speaking with a SEO expert a few weeks ago, and he was telling me that they use someone who sells them 500 links at $500 – is that going to hurt me if I were to use them? From the article above, it would seem as though you are saying that I’d be penalized if I went this way – however, the SEO expert seems to have been doing fairly well with his clients to date – you see the Google/Yahoo search terms they go for, and they have the top organic search terms…

    Ideas?

    Thanks.

  20. Zip Drugs – I just don’t know about SuperPages.com. My guess is, and it is a guess, is that it neither helps nor hurts you. When a search engine becomes aware of services like SuperPages, they may simply discount them. I’d be shocked if anyone applied a penalty for getting listed there. Clearly, your intent is OK, and I would guess that the know that.

    Luciano – I am really not sure. Most likely it just gets ignored, but there it no way of knowing without doing quite a bit more research and analysis on the particulars of how you are setup. If the content is useful and intended for users, you are probably OK (I can’t see the content, because it wants me to install a plug in of some sort).

    If you use this directory as part of a strategy to do large scale link swapping, then that may be problematic.

    Credit Cards NJ – I would not say that all reciprocal linking is bad. However, it is known that if a large percentage of the links to your site are reciprocal that you won’t rank well – this is what the BigDaddy update by Google revealed last Summer.

    Here is how I look at it – if you would link to the site, even if they didn’t link to you, then a swap is fine. Point is, that you want all your outbound links to be highly relevant to your site.

    If you are looking to increase your ranking through links, and all webmaster should be doing this, I would not base your strategy on link swaps.

  21. Paul Holstein says:

    Could a site purchase links on behalf of their competitors simply to get them banned? This seams as if it could be gamed easily enough. If someone can setup their competition to look like link spammers, they could easily knock them out of there SERPs. Google needs to be careful not to allow third parties to penalize a site.

  22. I don’t think any one is saying “Don’t Buy links”. They are saying “Don’t buy links for the purpose of boosting your Page rank”! Sure, Google sells advertising. Yes, Those are paid links too. We buy those to get traffic – not to get PR. Regarding “So what is Google saying, that its ok to purchase links just as long as it is only from Google and not anyone else??” Google is not preventing you from buying links from others. In fact, the primary purpose for buying links is to get traffic and that should be the only purpose.

  23. Thanks for looking the directory.

    We want to create a 3 link for 1 link to us. Two sites will link by html without no-follow and in blueonerealty will link by yahoo map and in a flex directory.

    Do you think google can get this strategy and pennalize us?.

    Good talking to you. Thanks again.

  24. This article is extremely useful. My thanks David aka ctabuk

  25. greyhound,

    unfortunately, you can easily buy links directed at any website you choose. lots of people do this already for reputation management purposes…buying links to push listings up in an effort to move other, negative listings down. and even worse, people will now actively seek out bad neighborhoods to link to their competitors from. it’s a big problem as far as I can tell.

    you’re right, it is indirect. links for traffic is great and I have tons of clients that buy links for traffic but the problem I see is the whole cut-throat mentality behind this. I live in the world of links for commerce and I’m sad to say that this whole thing is really muddying the waters.

  26. You missed one…

    16. Under the assumption that a site that buys 1 link, buys more than 1 link. Look for linking patterns whereby identical links from an array of unrelated sites are pointing to a single page.

  27. If google don’t like people selling links, then why do they have their own sponsored pages, which get some “bad” sites to the top of the listings!

  28. 2. …The only exception to this is the interlinking of all the sites owned by your company, but this presumes that the search engine will understand that all of your sites are from your same company. In general, site wides are a serious flag.”

    Seoworkers.com is a subsidiary of our company Webnauts Net, and in the footer we have sitewide a link to our parent company.

    We have on both sites contact and about us pages, which can ensure that we are the same company. Though we also use in those links the XFN attribute rel=”me”. Does that protect us from being penalized?

  29. > Disgruntled Employee Leaves Your Company, and Reports Your Site.

    It’s hard to detect that. I don’t think an effective way will come out any time soon, however, it is anticipated.

  30. SpamBoy says:

    About relevancy, that makes a bit no sense, as I always place my other sites links once I launch new project, even they are different niche, that doens’t mean I sell links…

  31. John – I by no means meant to say that all Site Wides would be interpreted as purchased links. Linking between all the sites owned by one comment, for example, is common practice, and these are often done as site wides.

    But it also used to be common practice for people who bought links to buy site wides.

    If I were a search engine engineer (and I am not), I might flag sites where a significant percentage of the domains linking to someone’s site had used a site wide link. I wouldn’t use this flag to automatically assess a penalty, I would use it as an indicator that there might be something to further investigate.

    Of course, if the site providing the site wide had 10,000 pages, I would only credit that as 5-10 links or so, because the additional links are not really additional endorsements.

  32. greyhound says:

    mstoddart,

    Appreciate the dialog! You said:

    “people will now actively seek out bad neighborhoods to link to their competitors from. it’s a big problem as far as I can tell.”

    I really find this hard to believe. It seems such an obvious way to game the system. I’ve often heard (sorry, don’t have time to go cite real references) that Google will not punish you for inbound links, and this assertion makes sense to me for exactly this reason. As another example of something beyond webmasters’ control, consider all the scrapers (representing the definition of bad neighborhood!) who leave your internal absolute links in tact. Many of my clients’ link profiles are loaded with such junk. I can’t believe Google would penalize them for something completely beyond their control.

    What does make sense to me is that Google would not count those links. It also seems that their best strategy (most leveraged, least collateral damage) would be to “cut off the oxygen” and make link selling unprofitable by going after the sellers and preventing them from passing link juice. In so doing, they may very well look at buyer behavior, but I would think that the intent would be to use this information to discover sellers.

    So again, as a buyer, you are exposed to two downsides, neither of which is a “penalty” in the traditional search engine sense:
    1) bad investment (the link you bought doesn’t help you)
    2) volatility – the link you bought helps for a while, you scale your business, including your investments and costs, and then the links are discounted and your rankings and traffic trend down.

    Of course it’s also conceivable that they may take specific action against someone for whom they have very strong evidence that they’re embarking on massive link buying for the purpose of manipulating pagerank. But I would think this would be an extremely exceptional case.

  33. Eric you mentioned that someone can report a site for buying links. Does that mean that someone can not buy links for promotion/traffic reasons?

  34. Great list here – and up until last week, I agreed with Nick.

    Nick said – I don’t think any one is saying “Don’t Buy links”. They are saying “Don’t buy links for the purpose of boosting your Page rank”! –

    Now I’m not so sure, and wrote a long post about this myself – http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/archives/390

    The addition of paid link reporting, though, to Webmaster Tools really makes you think. It actually says “… violating Google’s Webmaster guidelines…” Leading one to believe that a penalty may actually take place.

    I believe this would lead to widespread abuse, and people signing up their competition for these link farms.

    This is a great list for flying under the radar, but I don’t yet believe that there will be a penalty – it’s just too unpredictable.

    I do believe that Google wants you to believe that they will penalize you for buying links.

  35. OK – so let me look at this from another angle, if I might… If link building is not necessarily something that you can do by purchasing inbound links, and you need to get “real” people to add you to their sites, how does one go about getting an increased PR, and additional links? In an industry as competitive as mine, there is really not a lot of wiggle room as far as getting links, and would be curious to know what others would think.

    Thanks,
    CCNJ

  36. Reciprocal linking can provide a benefit, but it is not without a cost – any reciprocal linking program must be managed.

    The purpose of search results is to provide the most relevant websites (results) to queries (searches), and more specifically, to attempt to do so in order of importance. A search engine (SE) achieves that goal by spidering websites as a result of numerous methods, most significantly by following links. So, reciprocal links ought provide a means of associating websites focused on similar (or even exactly the same) topic. Reciprocal links accomplishes that goal.

    However, reciprocal links cannot provide a means by which SE’s can discriminate the best from the worse because all sites are then equally weighted if the measure is based on links alone.

    For a bit of a discussion about reciprocal linking, please visit my post at: http://www.sigmaonegroup.com/Reciprocal-Linking-Benefit-Downfall.shtml.

  37. Why should it be wrong to buy links? Link-trading is the last resort of the victims of pagerank, as no-one would link to your site anymore in the fear of losing linkpower, as link-echange is penalized too, as blogging-software is widely designed to use nofollow, as Google begins to ban webcatalogues … Google’s crackdown on bought links is the next move in an evil game, designed to possibly in the end totally unlink the net in favour of their own all-infecting-ad-spam and their own linkselling-scheme. We will either see Google taking over the whole net or the rising of new intelligent search-engines with the fall of the outlived net-distorting link-popularity algorithms in consequence.

  38. greyhound,

    Sorry for the delayed response! I, too, appreciate the dialogue on such a hot topic!

    I couldn’t agree more with what you said. I heard it first-hand, in person, at Pubcon last year from Matt Cutts himself. Google WILL NOT penalize you for inbounds because you can’t control who links to you; only who YOU link to.

    That being said, many clients (much to my dismay), are not as educated as we are. In fact, most people in general are not as educated as we are when it comes to marketing on the web, yet they still do it and make up the vast majority of participants….IMO. This is where the danger lies!

    Anyone is free to create an account with a link broker and purchase links as they see fit. What we see happening is people will take bits and pieces of things they’ve “heard” and applying them to their online marketing philosophies. So what you end up with is a bunch of amateurs with bad information going at it full-speed-ahead!

    I would agree that it starts and stops with the sellers. But again, I’m on their side. They own the sites, they should be able to monetize any way they see fit. After all, they didn’t write the algorithms and make linking such a big part of rankings. Google has built an empire on selling links…why shouldn’t everyone else, you know?

    Great stuff!! If you ever make it to any of the conferences, give me a shout at matt at linkworth dot com so I can buy you a beer and continue our discussion!!

  39. greyhound says:

    Matt,

    Sounds like a plan. I’ll probably be at SES San Jose, and will take you up on that beer. Heffeweizen, please! ;-)

    Cheers,
    john

  40. Peter Buhagar says:

    Hello,

    Under Point 5 “Relevance of your Link”, Mr. Enge writes, “It’s a powerful clue if your link is not really that relevant to the page it’s on, or the site it’s on”.

    If a website is listed on a relevant page of an index, but the index is general in nature (with 8-10 other categories), would the index itself be considered irrelevant, and therefore defeat the purpose of the website listed in the index?

  41. Hi Peter – you should be OK if you are on a relevant page. Note that many directory sites probably do not pass any link benefit however. For example, if you are in a directory that is a free for all directory, or you pay a fee and you are guaranteed in, those links probably are of no value from an SEO perspective.

  42. Google can punish people who buy links by ignoring links that were paid for. This is a fair punishment and will prevent businesses from submitting competitors to paid directories. Google can let you pay for links and if it doesn’t help your site it will be hurting your pocket book.

  43. Mhm, I personally don´t buy links because in my business being among the first ten is more than enough, it´s one of the few which are still not very google-dependent, but sometimes I already doubt that paid links are worse than others. It depends. Of course in some small business areas paid links can still give great profit. But why not, this is just capitalism and everybody is free to advertise more or less than a similar competitor. The whole Inform about paid links subject is nonsense in my opinion. It seems to me that Google prefers selling Adlinks but forbidding advertising is very strange and I am sure bound to lose sooner or later. The only problem I see is that paid links are more SEOlike than natural ones, sometimes, but the bigger the Seo scene becomes, the more difficult it will be, Google should see this as technical challenge. Also, it should make no sense to buy a PR 7 link and be done with weak competitors.

  44. I’m not a native english speaker but I think on point 14 it was meant: “Disgruntled Employee Leaves the COMPANY OF the Site You Bought Links from, and Reports Your Site”
    Thanks for the article

  45. Hi Dave,

    Thanks for pointing out the correction. I adjusted the post.

  46. And how do I prevent to get a link from a bad Site?

  47. Hi Igor,

    If you mean, how do you determine if the link you are buying is from a site that does not have the ability to pass link juice, I don’t think there is a clear answer.

  48. Thanks, a very interesting about paid links, i think if someone want to buy a link he has to check the site intensive first and he has to look for the site-relevance.

  49. Overall a nice information buddy…But now, webmasters can buy and sell links through content…which is not an easy task to find out the selling and buying of links by robots too.

  50. While searching on Internet I found your blog so interesting.
    I am agree that Google can penalize your site for buying and selling links.
    15 methods of Paid link Detection is really good post. That is what I am searching for.
    Thanks for that!

  51. Very interesting article and even more interesting responses. I think that agencies that sell text link ads have a right to sell them as advertising. But does not Google have the same right to deny text link ads as a means to gain link popularity? It is their search engine. Has not text link ads been used to “trick” Google in to thinking that the link is from an authoritative site. I prefer to play with in the rules. I know a lot of folks who invested a ton of $$$ in text link ads knowing that the links were not exactly the kind of links Google was looking for. I do not encourage my clients to do it and haven’t since 2006. It was not worth the risk.

  52. Good information for byuing links. But what about blogroll, as it will be just like sitewide links. But many blogs use these type of linking always. Do they also be discounted by search engines? Please clarify.

  53. Peterson – blogroll links are pretty easily recognized as a blogroll by search engines, so I would not expect this to lead to a flag by the search engine, unless you have a really unusual implementation (for example, non-standard software).

    Just be aware that 10 links from one domain is not nearly as good as 1 link from 10 domains. In general, multiple links from one domain begins to offer a diminishing level of return.

  54. Jenny Hunt says:

    Sigh, nothing but more FUD and empty speculative drivel from self-styled SEO “experts”.

    Fact: *No one* really knows how search engines operate apart from the search engine programmers themselves and those who truly know and understand which algorithms they have chosen to deploy.

    A sleazy field to start with, SEO has further degenerated into a circus of pretenders (heck, it’s pretty obvious that Matt Cutts is one of these, with those who slavishly follow his every blog entry being even more laughable) promoting one “superstitious” belief after another.

    What a comically depressing state of affaris.

  55. Hi Jenny – It’s truly a shame that you view this as FUD and consider SEO a sleazy field. Quite honestly, I have nothing to say to you, other than sweeping generalizations about the behavior of groups of people is always bad.

    The other thing that I could ask of course, is given your belief, why are you spending so much time on SEO blogs?

  56. Don’t buy links…………….its all about quality anyway! Build strategic relationships and partnerships by capitalizing on your clients relationships. I’ve attained high ranking for many, many clients by following this practice.

  57. Thanks for your comments.

  58. Thanks for the insight. I’ve already made some changes as I was reading this article to one of the websites that I’ve been working on for a friend.

  59. Thank you for ur Valuable information. it will help us.

  60. Valuable Ideas – (Tips)

    Thank you.

  61. Wow!.. Nice list. This is a valuable blog to read and learn lot of things. Thanks for sharing.

  62. This is good stuff, finally somebody with some sense. Thanks for the great article! Some of the comments on here are laughable. If you buy links, you deserve to get caught. If it’s paid advertising add “no-follow”. Easy. Google sends a lot of traffic to sites, you going to argue with it?

  63. Thank you, great post!
    “Links are Sold By a Link Agency: Of course, link agencies are knowledgeable about the link detection methods listed here, and do their best to avoid detection with the links they sell.” ;)

  64. thanks for the valuable informations. i am learning always more and `ll use it sure.

  65. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis auf die info.

  66. Thank you for ur information.

  67. Very informative post Eric. The link detection methods you’ve mentioned will hopefully deter would-be buyers from wasting their money on paid links. Keep it up – Derek

  68. Thanks Eric for the good information about paid links!

  69. SEO is such a minefield. Maybee its just best to pay for the adwords

  70. Anyone is free to create an account with a link broker and purchase links as they see fit. What we see happening is people will take bits and pieces of things they’ve “heard” and applying them to their online marketing philosophies. So what you end up with is a bunch of amateurs with bad information going at it full-speed-ahead!

Speak Your Mind

*

*