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
-
Is there any benefit of posting links on blogs where last conversation took place 6 years ago
i am working on backlinking , i stumbled upon a site whos DA is 90 and spam score is 1%, however that site had last comment 6 years ago, my question is am i still getting any juice since the fact that other people may never go to this in near future, that site looks like an abandoned site.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | calvinkj0 -
Inbound Linking
Hello, I manage a company that owns a bunch of schools (20) websites. They would like to create on each website a page which shows their schools in all the locations. Will this be ok as far as white hat practices and inbound linking?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | brightvessel0 -
Drastic surge of link spam in Webmaster Tools' Link Profile
Hello all I am trying to get some insights/advice on a recent as well as drastic increase in link spam within my Webmaster Tools' Link Profile. Before I get into more detail, I would like to point out, that I did find some relevant MOZ community posts addressing this type of issue. However, my link spam situation may have to be approached from a different angle, as it concerns two sites at the same time and somewhat in the same way. Basically, starting in July 2017, from one day to the other, a multitude of domains (50+) is generating link spam (at least 200 links a month and counting) and to cut a long story short, I believe the sites are hacked. This is because most of the domain names sound legit and load the homepage, but all the sub-pages linking to my site contain "adult" gibberish. In addition, it is interesting to see, that each sub-page follows the same pattern, scraping content from my homepage including the on-page links - that generate the spammy backlinks to my sites - while inserting the adult gibberish in between (basically it's all just text and looks like as if a bot is at work). Therefore, it's not like my link is being inserted "specifically" into pages or to spam me with the same anchor text over and over. So, I am not sure what kind of link spam this really is (or the purpose of it). Some more background information: As mentioned above, this link spam (attack?) is affecting two of my sites and it started off pretty much simultaneously (in addition, the sites focus on a competitive niche). The interesting detail is, that one site suffered a manual penalty years ago, which has been lifted (a disavowal file exists and no further link building campaigns have been undertaken after the cleanup), while the other site has never seen any link building efforts - it is clean, yet the same type of spam is flooding that websites' link profile too. In the webmaster forums the overall opinion is, that Google ignores web spam. All well. However, I am still concerned, that the dozens of spammy links pointing to the website "with a history" may pose a risk (more spam on a daily basis on both sites though). At the same time I wonder, why the other "clean" site is facing the same issue. The clean sites' rankings do not appear to be impacted, while the other website has seen some drops, but I am still observing the situation. Therefore, should I be concerned for both sites or even start an endless disavowal campaign on the site with a history? PS: This MOZ article appears to advice so: https://moz.com/blog/do-we-still-need-to-disavow-penguin "In most cases, sites that have a history of collecting unnatural links tend to continue to collect them. If this is the case for you, then it’s best to disavow those on a regular basis (either monthly or quarterly) so that you can avoid getting another manual action." What is your opinion? Sorry for the long post and many thanks in advance for any help/insight.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Hermski0 -
How do you change the 6 links under your website in Google?
Hello everyone, I have no idea how to ask this question, so I'm going to give it a shot and hopefully someone can help me!! My company is called Eteach, so when you type in Eteach into Google, we come in the top position (phew!) but there are 6 links that appear underneath it (I've added a picture to show what I mean). How do you change these links?? I don't even know what to call them, so if there is a particular name for these then please let me know! They seem to be an organic rank rather than PPC...but if I'm wrong then do correct me! Thanks! zorIsxH.jpg
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eteach_Marketing0 -
Is there any reason to Nofollow Internal Links or XML Sitemap?
I am viewing a new client's site and they have the following nofollow(S) on their site homepage. Is there a reason for this? Also, they people who originally built their site have a footer link on every page to their company (I guess to promote their work). They didn't "nofollow" that link lol... What are the thoughts on footer links? About Us Privacy Policy Customer Service Shipping & Returns Blog Contact Us Site Map Thanks James Chronicle
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
Sure, but what about non-keyword rich anchor text links?
Could spammy non-keyword rich anchor text liks help your website rank? Of course, there's been a lot of discussion around Google's update of its link scheme. Specifically, they target press releases with do-follow links on keyword-rich anchor text and "Large-scale article marketing or guest posting campaigns with keyword-rich anchor text links". Well, that leaves the question unanswered, what if you're doing these spammy linking techniques, but on non-keyword rich anchor text, such as "click here", "find information", and "click here". Will you still get smacked down by Google then? Given that links on non-keyword anchor text can still help increase domain authority, it seems like Google left a door open here for large scale publication of a certain class of spammy links that can still assist rank, no? Also, in answering, please distinguish between best practice, and effective. For instance, purchasing links isn't a good practice, but it can still be an effective technique. While spammy links on non-keyword rich anchor text is certainly not a good practice, is it nonetheless effective?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ExploreConsulting0 -
Spammy Links (from .ru) pointing to my domain! How to deal with it?
Hi all, We run an e-commerce store - I am just looking at the apache logs and I am finding a lot of spammy links that have been referrers to our pages - when I check the links, I cannot find our URL in an HREF on their page so I presume they may be using some country based cloaking? These are the domains that are targeting specific pages on our site:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bjs2010
http://3xru.ru/
http://saldoconsult.ru/
http://euro-casino.ru/casino/
http://delaymoney.maroderi.ru/
http://intimhot.ru/ How to deal with this? Our site is about cookware and they seem to be pointing these links to very specific products and categories. Never seen anything like this before, help would be appreciated. Thanks, B0 -
What on-page/site optimization techniques can I utilize to improve this site (http://www.paradisus.com/)?
I use a Search Engine Spider Simulator to analyze the homepage and I think my client is using black hat tactics such as cloaking. Am I right? Any recommendations on to improve the top navigation under Resorts pull down. Each of the 6 resorts listed are all part of the Paradisus brand, but each resort has their own sub domain.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Melia0