Guest posts on sites you buy advertising with?
-
What are your thoughts about the following scenarios.
Scenario 1: You purchased a banner ad on a site for $50. Then you notice that the site accepts guest posts and you contribute a guest article which has a followed link.
Scenario 2: You pitch a guest post to a blog and they say sure but first pay us $50. You say, I can't pay for links but how about I buy an ad spot for $50 instead in appreciation of you reviewing by submission.
Scenario 3: You pitch a guest post to a blog and they say sure but it will cost $50 to be published. You say sure and pay them.
Which of these would go against Google's guidelines and be considered a paid link? It seems like they are all buying links to a different degree, but they would all be indistinguishable to Google.
-
Right, but the question is more about the ethics of paid placement than the quality of the link, isn't it? Obviously manipulative = bad because it's more likely to be caught. Discretely placed links = better because they're harder to detect and seemingly add value. That all skirts the fundamental ethical issue, though.
Would the link exist without payment? Is there an effort to manipulate search rankings with the link? Google would say that if you really cared about the context of the link and wanted the traffic it would send, you'd have no problem nofollowing it. In that case, paid placement should be fine. If you're letting it pass authority, it shouldn't be paid. There's really not any wiggle room in the TOS.
It all comes down to a risk / reward calculation. If your link is legitimately contextually relevant, the content you supply is good, the site it's published on is high quality, and the site being linked to is likewise a quality site, there's minimal risk.
-
I totally agree that placing a link in-context does not make it a good link. I could also show many examples of links in-context that are obviously manipulative. So we have to go what I've been saying for a long time - is the link adding value to the article? Is it placed at the time of publishing? Is it there just for the link, or does it provide value to someone who would click through?
Studies have been showing time and time again that readers are much more likely to click on something like [click here] or [this article] instead of an exact anchor. Exact anchors are basically only done by SEOs.
So we should think carefully about when'where we put these links too. I think the argument and studies done on partial-match anchor text being valuable bolsters the argument to link whole sentences instead of just the keywords you want to rank for. You may also get more referral traffic if you do this.
-
Agree. But I do think John Muller had a solution for this with the no follow. If it's followed that means you want to influence the rankings (if money has exchanged hands).
The problem is that if the domain is "clean" and not involved (at lest clearly) in selling links there is no proof and for this reason tehy can not take action but at the end of the day is a payed link no matter how is spinned.
But i think it's all about perspective, what's the angle from witch everyone is looking at it. The problem is we care how google is viewing it and google dosen't care how we see it
-
I tend to disagree with John about what constitutes a paid link. Just because a paid link is embedded reasonably in content doesn't mean it suddenly aligns with Google's TOS. The intent is to manipulate search rankings and the link wouldn't exist without payment -- I think that's the easiest criteria to apply to these questions.
From my perspective, scenario 2 and 3 are pretty clearly violating the intent of Google's guidelines. That said, this type of approach is pretty much undetectable, particularly if the post published on the site is of high quality, the site being linked to is of high quality, and the publishing site doesn't publicly solicit this type of arrangement.
-
To your reason for the article, it goes back to your mindset I think - you can either do it for the link and therefore have to produce content, or you can produce content that happens to have a link. Any link is paid for in some way, by someone. Salaries, bandwidth, etc.
I just don't think it's that straight forward, as I said in my first reply on this thread.
-
The questions are really on point but unfortunately there is only one straight answer: if money are exchanging hands and involves a link then it's a paying link.
I've run the same set of questions (not exactly but with the same core) with John Muller from Google and his answer was on point: Yes, it's a payed link but if you want to be safe just place the links on no follow.
It make sense . if you pay for the article and if you want a link that can bring some referral traffic or you need it for branding then go for it but place it on no follow.
That won't happen as you want that article (in most of the cases - 99% ) for the link - you don't give a r..s a...s on the article
Google however is flexible in my opinion and even if it will see a follow link and it will somehow understand that is a payed link it won't take action if it make sense, if the domain is not featuring different similar payed links on each page and so on.
My 2 cents.
-
Great answer John -- I agree that this is a very vague/grey area. Are there any videos or interviews with Matt Cutts talking about this?
I think similar scenarios should be brought up with Matt at conferences so we can his answer "straight from the horse's mouth" as this topic is getting more and more attention (and more severe penalties ie. iAcquire)
Thanks for your answer
-
So, I think this is a great question and underscores a very important part of SEO - it's not black and white. Some links are obviously paid, others are not. Then we have the middle where we have to interpret what is being talked about as "paid" or "incentivized" links.
I wouldn't consider any of these "paid links" I don't think. The only one that I wouldn't say this about with 100% clarity is #3, but in that case you're paying for the article, and technically you could pay to publish an article without a link, right?
The problem is that money always muddies the waters. By buying an ad spot you are advertising yourself, but it's obviously marked as an ad. Also, if you buy ad space you're probably guaranteed to be accepted as a guest author even if it is "reviewed by submission".
By paid links Google is talking about links that are "meant to manipulate Pagerank". All links manipulate Pagerank in some way you could argue. So are all links bad? No. I could show many examples of paid links that add nothing to the page on which they are. THOSE are the manipulative paid links, not one within a blog post that has a publication price.
Also, going in and paying for a link within an article after the publish date, and especially in an article that was not written by you, is definitely manipulation, even if the link makes sense.
Those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others, though this topic has been discussed to death in the past few years.
-
Mmm.. I like your question. I don't google will see any of these links as paid. As long as your guestpost is relevant and the link in it is also, i don't see any problem. Not even to pay for it. But, if i must choose.. Scenario 2, a guestpost with followed link and a bannerad of 50 usd, that's the best deal
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
-
Backlinks from missing sites
While combing though spammy backlinks, I'm finding a lot of supposedly "active" links that lead to 404 errors, pages that contain no html, domains for sale, and sites that all have a uniform design which I can't tell if they're web host default pages, or pages using a spammy third-party link aggregator (or both).
Link Building | | rickmic
For example: http://easyreveal.us/ So, do I disavow missing sites? Lost sites? Is there a drawback to disavowing sites that have been removed? Any help would be appreciated.0 -
Open Site Explorer
Open Site Explorer has a link profile for my web page twice. pensacolarealestate.com and www.pensacolarealestate.com/ I don't know if I am getting the link juice from the weaker of the two (pensacolarealestate.com). If I am not, I desperately need it. I am ranked 3rd on my SERP which I have always ranked 1st. I need to go back to one asap. Please help me guys 🙂 I need as much of an explanation to accomplish my goal as you can muster! Get this solved and I will be a subscriber after my free period (lol).
Link Building | | JML11790 -
Satellite Sites ?
Hello, One of my competitors has a large amount of sites/blogs, similar to the attachment/screenshot. Is it possible that they own these are are using them to boost their rankings? Thanks! ICZTX.jpg
Link Building | | TP_Marketing0 -
Open Site Explorer
Typically when using Open Site Explorer to analyze links, how long does it take for them to show up? I have some links that are on high page ranking sites, yet they still do not show up with the Open Site Explorer. Thank you
Link Building | | TP_Marketing0 -
Linking strategy between my own sites
Hi, I have one main site, let's call it food.com I also have 10 smaller sites, let's call them mexicanfood.com, indianfood.com, italianfood.com etc food.com is on its own separate dedicated server the 10 smaller sites are all on a shared IP in hostgator I don't want Google to think that I have created the 10 sites for only purpose of creating links to each other. So, would you recommend that all those 10 sites link to each other? or should there be no interlinking within those 10 same IP domains? What about linking from those 10 sites to my main site? How should I structure my own backlinks not to get penalized by Google ?
Link Building | | limens0 -
Techniques for Finding Blogs that Accept Guest Blog Posts
I'm running into an issue where we are having difficulty finding blogs that accept guest blog posts after doing this on 300 or so blogs. We usually Google "guest post" related keywords with "blog" or take blogs off of lists of sites that accept guest blog posts. What techniques do you recommend? Do any of you use myblogguest.com with any success?
Link Building | | qlkasdjfw1 -
Is there a tool to show you new links to your site?
Are there any tools that show you new backlinks that you have recently gained?
Link Building | | MarieHaynes0 -
Site size affecting page rank?
I've noticed the sites that rank above me for certain phrases are much larger than I am. Here are the results of the 'site:' command for the top 6 results for a phrase I want to rank for (yes, I know that 'site' is not exact): 32,600 pages 8,760,000 pages (wikipedia) 684 pages 148 pages (domain name equal to search phrase) 1400 pages 120 pages (my site) Now, I appreciate that larger sites have more stuff to link to, and therefore have more juice flowing to them from external links. BUT, is it also true that they are generating lots of internal juice by having so many pages? I've looked at the PageRank algorithm and understand that the max page rank for a site (with no external links) is based on the number of pages of that site and how well linked they are). My question is: based on all the experts here, is number of pages in the site an important factor (assuming good on-page SEO), or does it really come down to number of external links (from relevant sites with appropriate anchor text, of course)? Can a small site with tons of external links rank above much larger sites? Has anyone beaten Wikipedia for a phrase they were targeting? How did you do it? Thanks!
Link Building | | scanlin0