Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits
-
Hello here,
I am putting down a link building strategy according to the latest "good practices" and Google recommendations, but I find myself often confused.
For example, I'd like to implement the technique suggested by Rand on his article below:
https://moz.com/blog/headsmacking-tip-1-link-requests-in-order-confirmation-emails
But if you look at the comments, a user suggests to "ask for links in exchange of discounts", and everyone there applaud him for the idea (Rand included). But, wait a second... am I the only one realizing that now days Google discourage to ask for links for "money, services, or any other kind of 'offered' benefit"?
So.. where to draw the line here?
Here are other examples that I am not sure are "safe" in link building:
1. Ask for links in exchange of a free Membership on a site (where usually a Membership is sold for a price)
2. Ask for links in exchange of exposure (isn't this a sort of "link exchange"?)
3. Ask for link in exchange of "anything else you can think of", even if necessarily doesn't involve money (i.e. for a "certified site badge", for a free e-book, or anything else)
I'd really like to know your thoughts on this very sensitive issue.
Thank you in advance to anyone for helping me to understand.
-
Thanks Rand! That tells it all
-
Yeah - you've got it.
-
Yes, I see now what you mean... unfrotunately the correct perspective wasn't clear at first, at least to me.
Mostly, the first tip confused me:
1. Ask bloggers for reviews - Contact any relevant blogs in your niche and ask for a review. Send them the product and ask for a link in return.
That can be confusing... "send them the product and ask for a link in return".... the "in return" wording made me misunderstood the tip. That really looks like "asking links for something in return".
All other tips actually look like you are describing, and look ok. In any case, that's why I posted this thread with the title "Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits", that subtle line can be easily crossed if we don't see all these tips in the right perspective.
So, in summary, maybe we should shift the concept from:
"Link to me and I'll give you something in return"
to:
"I give you something awesome to you and, hopefully, you'll link back to me"
Is that the correct mindset in link building nowadays?
Thanks again.
-
That one looks OK, actually, because it appears the author isn't suggesting that any of those things be done in a direct exchange for links. Rather, he's saying that you can do these things and they will often lead to links (which is fine).
-
Thanks Rand for taking care of that, I am sure it'll avoid a lot of confusion.
There is another great article that could sort the same kind of concerns:
https://moz.com/blog/99-ways-to-build-links-by-giving-stuff-away-and-improve-your-brand-too-14029
The article's title itself, I guess, doesn't work that well anymore, isn't it?
Thank you again.
-
Hi Fabrizo - as Jake noted, this can cause penalties and problems nowadays, so I'd recommend against a direct offer of discounts or remuneration in exchange for links. I went ahead and updated my reply to that 8-year-old blog post, too.
-
Yes, exactly what I thought : Create excellent content hoping for natural links back, without any "additional/artificial benefit" given to the linker such as money, exchanges, services, etc.
Do you think that by just removing the concept of "additional benefit" would make link building safe? Or simply: We should shift the concept of "additional benefit" to the "actual benefit" a link can give to site owners (a really awesome resource to show to their won users, a tool, etc.)
I am just thinking aloud here, but I think that at the end the modern/safe link building boils down to simply "remind" and "introduce" users, site owners, bloggers, etc. to your so-hard-built content hoping for a link back. The more "reminders" you send out, the more chances for links back you get. Isn't that just like "advertising"? Has "link building" become like "advertising"?
-
Links still appear to carry significant weight in the search results, and as such link building is not dead. The challenge is how your organization can effectively build link using legitimate methods that will not place you on Google's radar for violating their guidelines.
To date, it seems the most effective way to do this is through content and brand building efforts, with links being the positive by-product of generating effective/useful content and relationships.
Essentially... white hat link building is the byproduct of good content building.
-
Thank you Jake for your reply and for confirming my doubts! I thought exactly what you wrote... but.... I mean, does that mean that "link building" is dead? I see we are just talking about "content building" here, and nothing about "link building"....
-
Hi Fabrizo,
Unfortunately, the lines can be easily blurred when taking the definitions of "link scheme" at face value, which implies any link that is obtained for the sake of manipulating search results could be considered part of a link scheme. It is important to note that this "rule" has evolved significantly over time, and the article you are referencing is over 9 years old... Things have changed.
To answer your specific concern.. yes.. offering discounts in exchange for a link could easily be weighted heavily as "paying" for the link... in much the same way as offering products for reviews, profile upgrades, and other incentivized link development are considered today to be outside of the guidelines.
Google's goal is to encourage you to create value with your content, products, and business relationships in a way that will earn links without the discussion having to be around getting the links themselves. For example, you discount your products in general, offering them at a lower cost than competitors, and deal sites and similar want to link to you as the best place to obtain them.
I know the ambiguity in the guidelines can create some confusion, and I hope that I was able to help clear it up a little.
Thanks,
Jake
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
-
Should a business requestion nofollow links from businesses it has commercial relationships with?
I am working for a motor homes company that works with a network of dealers. Having just analysed the site I notice that dealers are sending links to the site - lots of them. They are all follow links and are freely given. ADDED: There are upwards of a million new affiliate backlinks and then a load of pretty normal freely given backlinks with dealers who have commission arrangements, etc., with the company on motorhome sales. Now this doesn't feel right to me because even if it isn't purposefully manipulative, it may appear so because of clear commercial relationships between my client company and the dealer businesses. So I will recommend nofollow althought the site will lose a huge number of backlinks as a result. What are your thoughts on this?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Embedded links/badges
Hi there Just picking up on something Rand said in his blog analysing his predictions for 2014. Rand predicted that Google will publicly acknowledge algorithmic updates targeting...embeddable infographics/badges as manipulative linking practices While this hasn't exactly materialised yet, it has got me thinking. We have a fair few partners linking to us through an embedded badge. This was done to build the brand, but the positives here wouldn't be worth being penalised in search. Does anyone have any further evidence of websites penalised for doing this, or any views on whether removing those badges should be a priority for us? Many thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HireSpace0 -
Cross-Site Links with different Country Code Domains
I have a question with the penguin update. I know they are really cracking down on "spam" links. I know that they are wanting you to shift from linking keywords to the brand name, unless it makes sense in a sentence. We have five sites for one company in the header they have little flag images, that link to different country domains. These domains all have relatively the same domain name besides the country code. My question is, linking these sites back and fourth to each other in this way, does it hurt you in penguin? I know they are wanting you to push your identity but does this cross-site scheme hurt you? In the header of these sites we have something like this. I am assuming the best strategy would probably be to treat them like separate entities. Or, just focus on one domain. They also have some sites that have links in the footer but they are set up like:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AlliedComputer
For product visit Domain.com Should nofollows be added on these footer links as well? I am not sure if penguin finds them spammy too.0 -
No Follows - Sister/manufacturer sites
What is the best practice nowadays for linking to sister sites? Should you do it, shouldn't you, and/or should you list them with no follows? What about the reverse - having them link to us. Is this bad for us in anyway? Should we have them no follow their link to us? We are a distributor so manufacturers link to us as well, should we have them no follow their links? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CHECOM0 -
Should I 301 Redirect a Site with an 'Unnatural Link' Warning?
Hey Fellow Mozzers, I have recently been approached by a new client that has been issued with an 'Unnatural Link' warning and lost almost all of their rankings. Open Site Explorer shows a ton of spammy links all using main keyword anchor text and there are way too many of them to even consider manually getting them removed. There are two glimmers of hope for the client; The first is that the spammy links are dropping off at a rate of about 25 per week; The second is that they own both the .com and the .co.uk domain for their business. I would really appreciate some advice on the best way to handle this, should I :- Wait it out for some of the spammy links to drop off whilst at the same time pushing social media and build some good clean links using the URL and brand as anchor text? Then submit a recosideration request? Switch the website over from the .com domain to the .co.uk domain and carry out a 301 redirect? Switch the website over from the .com to the .co.uk without doing a redirect and start again for the client with a clean slate? I would still register an address change via Webmaster Tools. Add a duplicate site on the .co.uk domain. Leave the .com site in place but rel="canonical" the entire domain over to the .co.uk Any advice would be very much apprecited. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AdeLewis
Ade.0 -
Is OSE data reliable and removal of malicious inbound links?
I ran a report on my site (www.rentscouter.com) using OSE and it is reporting some very strange inbound links like: anchor text = Megan http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/mmnr/smr/Paul_Henderson_Interview_Full_Clip_REVISED.f4v?m=pc&a=bookmarkList.view&target_user_id=1&search_type=tag&keyword=蒲田・大森・羽田周辺 http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/mmnr/smr/Paul_Henderson_Interview_Full_Clip_REVISED.f4v?m=pc&a=bookmarkList.view&target_user_id=1&search_type=tag&keyword=熱闘!甲子園%2F高校野球ゲーム http://www.hawkeyesports.com/photos/schools/stan/sport/m-baskbl/04-05action/Thumbs.db?pages10=10&size=9?pk=1 anchor text = Alexa's Mom http://www.lg.com/it/products/documents/LE8800.epk?action=view&pageId=214&start=69164 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/techtalk/SEM-0601_191695_7.dot?blogname=mahdid&sub=5&tpl=0 anchor text = http://fansofdavid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/4v5sh3k1.htm?seccion=busqarag_s&busq=Huesos&?seccion=basearag_c&id=3&?seccion=busqarag_s&busq=Huesos&?seccion=basearag_c&id=3&_pagi_pg=596 However, none of these seem to show up in my Google Webmaster account. And generally when I go to some of these links I can't find any reference to my site - is the OSE data bad or are these really shady links someone is building to knock down my site? What is showing up in GWT are a bunch of growing crappy links that redirect to some advertising site - does anyone know of a way to get these removed by Google as I doubt I'm going have any luck trying to contact the owner(s) of these sites: | http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/252213-best_penis_enlargement_methods.htm |
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BoulderJoe
| http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/252426-plumbers_and_gasfitters_needed_urgently.htm |
| http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/252451-the_importance_of_plumbers_and_more.htm |
| http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/253039-football_betting_systems_can_they_be_profitable.htm |
| http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/253131-my_teen_wants_to_know_how_sex_was_and_is_for_me_what_do_i_say.htm |
| http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/254364-why_marriage_counseling_is_good_for_you.htm |
| http://harleydavidsonjacket.org/article/254449-herpes_dating_service_what_is_it.htm | Yes, I know Google will theoretically and maybe eventually "ignore" such links, but that will be on Google time 4 weeks or 4 years - who knows. Plus, with a younger site with a thinner link profile - anything like the links above can't be helping me...... I'm trying to figure out why my site keeps bouncing between #5 and #255 for specific keywords and determining if I have a google penalty which is being discussed in this thread: http://www.seomoz.org/q/help-with-diagnosing-google-penalty0 -
Buying Links
Hello, I have talked to many SEO companies about their services and rates. I noticed that all of them will buy thousands and thousands of links once you first join. That is why they always want a start-up fee, so they can purchase the links. I know the best method is doing it the ethical hard way of asking sites to link to them, but I dont have time to do that. I mainly want to know where the SEO companies buy their links from. I am figuring that them buying the links are not negatively affecting the sites or they would lose their clients if they got into black hat links. It must be good inorder for them to keep their clients. I was interested in buying links, but do not know who to trust. Does anyone have a recommendation?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | neeper670 -
Redirects/What to do with multi domains for the same company?
What is the correct way to "redirect" a domain if you have multi domain names for the same site? For example if a company has www.mysite.com www.mysite.info www.mysite.tv www.mysite+location.com Say my website lived at this location www.mysite.com would I then just forward the other domains to the same place? Do search engines penilize for this? Do search engines view this as duplicated content? Is it even worth having these domains and making the active? Thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | christinarule0