40,000 High Value Links - Sold?
-
I'm a developer spending ever more time on SEO for SMBs. I've never had cause to buy links. Not one bit. I've done ok. Until now that is. Now I am getting my arse kicked into last year. By, I think, a top SEO company. Really, you know these guys and they are whiter than white. But what they have achieved seems an impossibilty to me using white hat techniques. Maybe they are from another planet than me. Or maybe something else is going on.
In six months they have built 40,000+ links. These are unbelievably high quality links in their thousands. Really top notch. Keyword rich anchors slap bang in relevant content on great, great sites such as newspapers, univertsities, government, corporate, charity etc. Nothing spammy at all. Amazing. I was skimming but I found nothing to question at all until link 800 which was a cloaked link on a well known review site's product page. But generally the high quality sustained. Gradually, some began to feel somewhat worked into the content, although worked very well. 2000 links in and there are still magazine and review sites, still page authority 40+. There are still local government sites at 10,000 links when the export file ends. I go dizzy at the thought of the remaining 30,000. How far down could this quality have gone?
Gulp. I am in awe, intimdated...and a little suspicious. How on earth do you do that with a pure white hat on? Actually, whatever colour your hat - how on earth do you do that?
Rand's position is clear. He doesn't do it. Other's are less unambiguous. Comments like "I do it, you do it, we all do it" go unchallenged. Even on a recent link buying question here on SEOMoz most comments say don't do it but one advocates "Paid, targeted, individually prospected links".
Am I too suspicious - a fool trying to rationalise my relatively pathetic link building? Honestly, you should just see these links. Of course, maybe some of you have.
Come on, please don't tell these guys simply worked hard. But maybe that's the harsh truth I cannot face. I have to say I cannot see the site generating an income to pay for the man hours needed for 40,000 high-value, white-hat links but then what do I know.
Tell me, what do you think: Is it possible to build 40,000 very high value links in six months using pure white hat techniques - or is there another way?
Phil
-
Ok here's the thing... QUALITY content building, and I mean really high quality, will generate buzz on its own. The trick is to get content (including videos, images, etc.) to go viral, with links included. Naturally people will share it, retweet it and links will build naturally. They obviously have a large team and a large budget, and likely have people working on quality, shareable, viral content. News sites can easily get that many links, as people are always linking to their stories. So no its not impossible, it's just a matter of working smart and not hard.
Can you give us the link so we can take a look at the site?
-
and then Google says that links only become a factor once they are gained naturally and not like 40,000 links in 6 months.. that is not natural. This should result in: What was it all for if Google ignores it? Well, personally, i think google does not ignore such a fact. In fact: In one of the many projects we've run we bought about 1000 links in 1 month and we got a number one position within 1 month after that.
Buying links still works (unfortunally) but 40,000 high quality links in 6 months is about sick..
-
Could I ask how many linking root domains out of the 40k 'high value' links?
-
One of 3 options really:
-
they have good contacts who will publish links for them (who you know goes a long way)
-
they bought the links (not that uncommon and really isn't paying someone to linkbuild essentially the same as buying links?)
-they lied to get the links
-they have the most amazing and linkable content ever, they are the new lol cats (unlikely though because of the anchor text)
-the company may have hired an offline pr firm to stir up controversy and get editorial articles. I have heard of people creating fake news stories etc just to create a buzz and get attention which converts into links
-maybe you misread the links and they are just from scrapebox or xrumer?
-
-
DM me and lets talk privately - dont want to out anyone in a public forum, which I am glad you didnt. But let me give you a few insights - seems like the co you are talking about is a UK one by the way...
-
Thanks for the reponses. Really fascinating stuff.
How does one aquire a "uniquely prospected, targeted link"? I mean how do you influence, say, the Guardian editorial? Along with the Independant and many, many other powerful sites. Is it a simple matter of building a 'relationship' (ie bribing) with journalists and site editors - and that the big agencies have years of relationship building under their belts? Really, is that what goes on?
I am concluding that link buying is more practised than discussed. I have read a lot about white hat link building and feel I know nothing. But these tutorials are not meant to inform are they? More often than not they are a rehash of the same old same old that really exist to get a few moz points and, more to the point, some juicy links to client sites which the post is ineviatably built around. I know how to get links the hard way and how to buy rubbish links but where is the post "how we buy high value links".
@russvirante
Thanks, yes that's the conclusion I am beginning to understand. I am not so much afraid of buying links I just don't know how to. How to buy valuable links that is.@Gerry Francis
How could an SEO company be in a position to urge, for eaxmple, the Guardians editorial to use keyword rich anchor text? How do they get that influence?@saibose
Well they have some ok tools attracting some links but that's not a lot of their inbound. They have all the social media links but I do not know how to research this thoroughly. I didn't see any social media links in my manual browse through the links. But maybe social media might start explaining the 30,000 I didn't even glance at.@Ian Auld
Well if my suspisions are correct the link builders may well read this. I also would love to hear how they did it - any chance? No chance! But maybe you could write a post explaining how you might do it with a multipronged approach. I'm sure it would contain gold for me.@joelhit
I can barely imagine 400 such quality links in six months. The site has Moz DA of 83, homepage PA of 86.@Barry Smith
Very enlightening those figures. Or is it Professor Smith yet?@Dejan SEO
Mmmm, your comment chimes. The site almost 'misrepresents' it's commercial interests. Perhaps we are talking about the same team.
-
Genius!
That's my weekend sorted getting internet PHDs and becoming a doctor in useless stuff to get links on edus.
I may or may not be joking <- poker face
-
Yes you can get links like that - and you know what works really well? Lies and misrepresentation. I know because I have seen it. Basically getting the link "Google legit" way (e.g. not buying links) but totally unethical in every other way. For example I know of a team who says they are a doctor of physics at some university and bull their way into gov/edu listings on the basis of false identity. Once their client found out they were fired immediately.
-
Almost definitely agency work, medium sized team, probably with a paid link strategy and some degree of automation.
For the sort of sites you're saying they have, it'd probably run you about £80-90k for the 6 months, at a conservative guess (probably top end it at £150k depending on what industry you're in).
There would have been a lot of hard work put into it, but almost certainly some paid stuff in there. Hard to compete as a solitary in house SEO.
Sounds like the guys know what they're doing, would be good to find out who they are
-
Sounds fishy to me. Its not possible to get links the white hat way. There are some possibilities that I can think of. Paying for inclusions, getting majority of links based on press release product announcements or some viral element on the website which has been covered by reputable media sources.
It would be interesting to explore the full set of links.
-
Of course it is possible, although it seems somewhat unlikely. Depends on the size of the site, the type of the site, their social media profile, how good their PR team are, what relationships they have with said review sites, magazines, newspapers etc.
I too would be a little suspicious if the links are very keyword rich, this suggests some engineering on the part of the site. Not to say they have used black hat techniques but maybe they have urged the comapnies to use certain anchor texts etc.
Without knowing what site you're talking about it would be difficult to guess efforts they may have made to accomplish this.
-
No. The truth is this - if your niche is profitable, people will buy links. If you are afraid of buying links because they may damage your site, create another site, and buy links to it. It is that simple.
However, you should be smart about it. Hire an SEO firm that does uniquely prospected, targeted links. It will be expensive, but that is what your competitors are doing, and it appears to be paying off.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Better ranking competitors have paid links from blog pages
I have a trial of all the tools at the moment and it's a lot of fun. I have been delving into site explorer and found that some competitors have links to them from obvious seo promoting paid blog sites. One has no other links except a paid for blog from a site that openly admits it offers paid marketing and they shot up to 4th on page one for a main keyword phrase. The info from moz and matt cuts video's say not to do this, but it's so tempting. The blog is well written, while I sit here and do the right thing, my competitors have page one. If the blog is well written and is meaningful is it OK and if google ever decide it's paid and don't like it, wouldn't it be better to be page one for 6 months and then recover? I'd love to give the link to the seo, blogger thingy but don't want to come across as promoting it in any way. I am sure there are loads of them anyway.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Peter24680 -
Negative SEO to inner page: remove page or disavow links?
Someone decided to run a negative-SEO campaign, hitting one of the inner pages on my blog 😞 I noticed the links started to pile up yesterday but I assume there will be more to come over the next few days. The targeted page is of little value to my blog, so the question is: should I remove the affected page (hoping that the links won't affect the entire site) or to submit a disavow request? I'm not concerned about what happens to the affected page, but I want to make sure the entire site doesn't get affected as a result of the negative-SEO. Thanks in advance. Howard
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | howardd0 -
Link Removal and Disavow - Is Page Rank a sign directory is okay with Google
Hi, Currently cleaning up a clients link profile in preparation for disavow file and I have reached the stage where I am undecided on some directories as I don't want to remove all links. Is Page Rank an indication that Google is okay with a particular directory? For example the following domain is questionable, but has a PR of 3. Do I need to consider scrapping all such links in anticipation of future updates? http://www.easyfinddirectory.com/shopping-and-services/clothing http://www.toplocallistings.co.uk/Apparel/West_Midlands/Shropshire/ Thanks in advance Andy
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MarzVentures0 -
Duplicate content or not? If you're using abstracts from external sources you link to
I was wondering if a page (a blog post, for example) that offers links to external web pages along with abstracts from these pages would be considered duplicate content page and therefore penalized by Google. For example, I have a page that has very little original content (just two or three sentences that summarize or sometimes frame the topic) followed by five references to different external sources. Each reference contains a title, which is a link, and a short abstract, which basically is the first few sentences copied from the page it links to. So, except from a few sentences in the beginning everything is copied from other pages. Such a page would be very helpful for people interested in the topic as the sources it links to had been analyzed before, handpicked and were placed there to enhance user experience. But will this format be considered duplicate or near-duplicate content?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | romanbond0 -
Strange Pingback/Blog Comment Links
On one of my sites I've noticed some strange links from Google Webmaster Tools recent links feature. They are pingbacks/blog comments but they are using keyword anchor text and linking to my site. I know we are not doing this. Should I be concerned about this possibly being negative SEO? Here's a sample (be careful, shady site)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | eyeflow0 -
Best way to handle SEO error, linking from one site to another same IP
We committed an SEO sin and created a site with links back to our primary website. Although it does not matter, the site was not created for that purpose, it is actually "directory" with categorized links to thousands of culinary sites, and ours are some of the links. This occurred back in May 2010. Starting April 2011 we started seeing a large drop in page views. It dropped again in October 2011. At this point our traffic is down over 40% Although we don't know for sure if this has anything to do with it, we know it is best to remove the links. The question is, given its a bad practice what is the best fix? Should we redirect the 2nd domain to the main or just take it down? The 2nd domain does not have much page rank and I really don't think many if any back-links to it. Will it hurt us more to lose the 1600 or so back links? I would think keeping the links is a bad idea. Thanks for your advice!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | foodsleuth0 -
Link Building: Location-specific pages
Hi! I've technically been a member for a few years, but just recently decided to go Pro (and I gotta say, I'm glad I did!). Anyway, as I've been researching and analyzing, one thing I noticed a competitor is doing is creating location-specific pages. For example, they've created a page that has a URL similar to this: www.theirdomain.com/seattle-keyword-phrase They have a few of these for specific cities. They rank well for the city-keyword combo in most cases. Each city-specific page looks the same and the content is close to being the same except that they drop in the "seattle keyword phrase" bit here and there. I noticed that they link to these pages from their site map page, which, if I were to guess, is how SEs are getting to those pages. I've seen this done before on other sites outside my industry too. So my question is, is this good practice or is it something that should be avoided?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AngieHerrera0 -
Client Selling Links On One Site Hurt Their Other Site?
Hi, I have a client who is thinking about selling ads on one site they own via something like textlinkads.com. Do you think they run any risk of exposing their other sites to scrutiny, penalties or problems?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 945010