Comments on: The Most Dangerous Link Building Myth http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/07/06/the-most-dangerous-link-building-myth/ on Link Marketing & News at Text Link Ads Wed, 12 May 2010 09:36:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mac http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/07/06/the-most-dangerous-link-building-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1079 mac Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:59:11 +0000 http://blog.mediawhiz.com/text-link-ads/?p=122#comment-1079 Links bulding required a better search engine to be on with. Links bulding required a better search engine to be on with.

]]> By: Mike http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/07/06/the-most-dangerous-link-building-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1078 Mike Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:14:41 +0000 http://blog.mediawhiz.com/text-link-ads/?p=122#comment-1078 If this was true, you could influence your competitor's rankings despite what google says.. and yes it's true ;) If this was true, you could influence your competitor’s rankings despite what google says.. and yes it’s true ;)

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/07/06/the-most-dangerous-link-building-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1077 Anonymous Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:30:04 +0000 http://blog.mediawhiz.com/text-link-ads/?p=122#comment-1077 This does indeed work. Blog spam your competitors and see what happens! But there are ways to combat this at a certain level as well. Basically, like Andy put it, if you have 2 trusted links, and 10,000 crap links, you're screwed. But I'm 100% sure based on the quality of the trusted links, they can count significantly more in the algorithm than the sabatoging links your competitor will post to screw you. This does indeed work. Blog spam your competitors and see what happens!

But there are ways to combat this at a certain level as well.

Basically, like Andy put it, if you have 2 trusted links, and 10,000 crap links, you’re screwed.

But I’m 100% sure based on the quality of the trusted links, they can count significantly more in the algorithm than the sabatoging links your competitor will post to screw you.

]]> By: Jarrod Hunt http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/07/06/the-most-dangerous-link-building-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1076 Jarrod Hunt Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:04:58 +0000 http://blog.mediawhiz.com/text-link-ads/?p=122#comment-1076 Patrick, I couldnt agree more. I have seen many many sites get penalized for too many crappy backlinks. It is almost always temporary though. Once trust is built back up, the rankings seem to always come back. As for sabotaging your competitors, not only is it possible, its being done. Is it wise to try and do it to your competitor?.. HELL NO! Not only are you potentially going to help them more then hurt them, you are also doing something that could get your ass sued. Patrick,

I couldnt agree more. I have seen many many sites get penalized for too many crappy backlinks. It is almost always temporary though. Once trust is built back up, the rankings seem to always come back.

As for sabotaging your competitors, not only is it possible, its being done.

Is it wise to try and do it to your competitor?.. HELL NO! Not only are you potentially going to help them more then hurt them, you are also doing something that could get your ass sued.

]]> By: Jeremy Spiller http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/07/06/the-most-dangerous-link-building-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1075 Jeremy Spiller Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:48:32 +0000 http://blog.mediawhiz.com/text-link-ads/?p=122#comment-1075 I believe this theory could be muddled by a couple of factors. One thing that has been spoken about for some time now is the speed with which sites obtain in-bound links. If suddenly overnight a site gets hundreds or thousands of IBLs then G is going to know this, or rather the bots are going to know this and possibly devalue these links or this may affect the listing. The second factor about IBLs from so called 'bad' sites is that many ask for a reciprocal link and a site owner or administrator can unknowingly add links to these bad sites from a links page or sites page to the sites in question. Some then assume that three way links will make a difference as if G isn't mapping the link structure of the web all the time and won't know this. My advice to anyone mounting a good link building campaign is to 'think like a Search Engine' if that is possible. What sort of IBLs would a Search Engine that's looked after by a company with more PHDs on board than any other company be valuing? It has an alogorithm that's trying to return sites ordered by relevance, while ignoring sites that are spammy, spoofy and all the rest. These are the links that will drive you higher. I believe this theory could be muddled by a couple of factors.

One thing that has been spoken about for some time now is the speed with which sites obtain in-bound links. If suddenly overnight a site gets hundreds or thousands of IBLs then G is going to know this, or rather the bots are going to know this and possibly devalue these links or this may affect the listing.

The second factor about IBLs from so called ‘bad’ sites is that many ask for a reciprocal link and a site owner or administrator can unknowingly add links to these bad sites from a links page or sites page to the sites in question.

Some then assume that three way links will make a difference as if G isn’t mapping the link structure of the web all the time and won’t know this.

My advice to anyone mounting a good link building campaign is to ‘think like a Search Engine’ if that is possible.

What sort of IBLs would a Search Engine that’s looked after by a company with more PHDs on board than any other company be valuing? It has an alogorithm that’s trying to return sites ordered by relevance, while ignoring sites that are spammy, spoofy and all the rest.

These are the links that will drive you higher.

]]>