Comments on: Purchase Links or Build Website Networks?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:29:30 +0000

They can try all they want to try and put a stop to it but they will never be able to. If something is worth money someone will find a way to sell it. In the long run however, I think the majority of people will still be doing tride and true methods to get traffic because high PR links are very costly.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:11:22 +0000

It’s important to weight the relevance of links, as purchased links may be irrelevant and constitute blind promotion, versus purchased relevant links, such as press releases or articles which contain links, but are focused on a given target audience. Some commercial channels constitute legitimate purchased links. Brian's last blog post..The United Nations’ Web Network (July 2007)

By: SEO Services Provider

SEO Services Provider — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:00:58 +0000

This is really good site and rich with content.

By: Easy Backlink Building Methods For Beginners:

Easy Backlink Building Methods For Beginners: — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:25:41 +0000

[...] Purchase Links or Build Website Networks? [...]

By: ledbazar

ledbazar — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:57:59 +0000

well nobody wants to link out - it is like a noose around your neck, and you cant save your trousers falling down - link out is becomming fearful. ledbazar's last blog post..LED Scrolling Signs with a keyboard

By: The Importance of Inbound Links

The Importance of Inbound Links — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:52:49 +0000

[...] Purchase Links or Build Website Networks? [via Zemanta] [...]

By: Michal

Michal — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:08:09 +0000

The idea is cool but not enuogh.
If you stop buying links how will you rank?
It is better to find more money and invest into the network. And not a network of 4 or 5, but a network of 100 sites.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:05:09 +0000

I agree, what do you think of “free text ads” or “ads for a buck” can that be something that can help boost visitors to my blog?

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:53:07 +0000

Although purchasing links solely for the purpose of raising page rank seems like a bad mistake it is still done often. Even with Google serve up punishment to so many there are still lots of people that do it without even thinking. I do agree though that taking that money and create sites in the long term would be a much better investment. Whether anyone else believes that and takes the advice is a different story however.

By: Arnie - Link Building Pro

Arnie - Link Building Pro — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:33:45 +0000

I am a big advocate of “own it” rather than “rent it”, so I would support any company initiative to build high quality, niche sites supporting their marketing and link building efforts.

By: Roderick Ioerger

Roderick Ioerger — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:00:41 +0000

Jaan said:
“I would rather pour my efforts into marketing on large website that can gain links for real reasons, like great content and what the user actually wants to see/buy all under one domain.”

Roderick says:
I think the short answer is that it is a question of technique. For those purchasing links, I believe having a resource and asset of their own is the better way to go. Though I do not disagree with your approach as I use it as well. Often times the content I want to build is not appropriate for the site itself, but still something the site desires to use for marketing.

Steven,
“There’s a lot of thought that would indicate one larger site is better than several smaller sites. I understand your argument, but I’m not sure a network of sites is necessarily the answer for all. It might make sense for some and not so much for others.”

Roderick says:
No marketing solution is perfect for everyone, which is why I prefeced some of what I said with the idea that this would be a good soltion for sites that have been around for a while and have begun to establish there place on the Internet. Of course this is not a one size fits all solution, but for many large sites that don’t know what to do, this may be a good fit and something I believed was well worth while of discussion.

Should anyone want to discuss this topic further I would be glad to have it offline and should it be insightful turn it into a post as well.

Thanks for the feedback,
Roderick

By: Steven Bradley

Steven Bradley — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:40:23 +0000

There’s a lot of thought that would indicate one larger site is better than several smaller sites. I understand your argument, but I’m not sure a network of sites is necessarily the answer for all.

It might make sense for some and not so much for others.

Google for their part has also indicated they don’t care much for interlinked networks of sites for the same reason they don’t care for link buying. Networked sites can be seen as a form of manipulation where you’re creating new sites for the sole purpose of the links between them.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t created multiple sites for your business, but I don’t think this is an automatic one size fits all approach.

Good article Roderick.

By: Brian Chappell

Brian Chappell — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:40:14 +0000

@ steve

The “true internet” you talk about simply doesn’t exist. It did for about 1 year when google first hit the market. Once it gained market share it was ripe with manipulation.

Google’s algo is BADLY flawed for todays time; relying so heavily on backlinks. In todays market, no one wants to give them out without rapping a condom around it.

Now throw in all the FUD flying around, you thought it was bad before, IMO google is only exacerbating the current problem. The fear of linking out to the wrong sources, not using nofollow, and then potentially seeing your site penalized will further depress the “natural linking” you are hoping for.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:19:55 +0000

I totally agree with this article. I have long been a supporter of a true internet allow sites to connect naturally rather then through payments.

By: Jaan Kanellis

Jaan Kanellis — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:24:09 +0000

I can understand the point of creating a mini network of websites, but how do you know this will actually help your primary website rank better. How do you know they don’t devalue the links from these this mini network for the pure fact that you own all of the website in that mini network? Lots of questions still exist with this technique. I am also sure Google is against building mini networks for the sake of building your PR or ranking benefits.

I would rather pour my efforts into marketing on large website that can gain links for real reasons, like great content and what the user actually wants to see/buy all under one domain.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:06:21 +0000

I totally agree with you Roderick. Building out content networks and sites may take more time and money up front but the value is much greater. As time goes on, you’ll see the sites that have spent the time to do things the right way leading the pack.

By: Brian Chappell

Brian Chappell — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:22:51 +0000

Lots of FUD going around right now on this topic. I would note there is a difference in losing 2-3 TBPR’s and getting penalized, whereas you cannot rank for terms you used to.

There has not been any evidence yet to point that a drop in the TBPR also made those sites drop in rankings.

Not saying that couldn’t happen down the road. Currently, however, there isn’t evidence to back it up.

Only time will tell.