Community Consensus: Are These Good Links?

[The_Cheat_Sheet]

I recently used a firm to do 2 months of outreach as a test for quality of work. Their reporting process is monthly, which seems fair, but after the first month's report I was sorely disappointed with the targeted domains for links.

Apparently, the firm decided to condense the two months of outreach in to 4 days, so by the time I was finally able to see the work, the "job is done." Again, extremely disappointed. The original SOW was to target set posts for outreach in month 1, review/adjust and move in to month 2. No dice.

So, here I am now left with a list of sites that have been targeted for outreach, being told "they are quality sites."

What do you think, am I missing something and these are truly good links? Below are just a very, very small sample of the outreach completed:

http://www.vrml.k12.la.us/7th/homework/ss/student/addtional.htm

http://healthyfoodsandmore.com/useful-links.php

http://antique.vccc.com/links.htm

http://cyberflapr.tripod.com/links.htm

[Paddy_Moogan]

Hi Julie,

Sorry, I don't think I agree that Google ignores links from pages that have "links" in the title. That would mean they ignore this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/links/

Which obviously wouldn't make sense.

Cheers.

Paddy

[Paddy_Moogan]

Hi Hunter,

There are a few things here that I should probably address before giving you my view on those links.

1. The expectations that were set by the agency in question

If they didn't tell you in advance that these were the types of links they were going after, then they haven't set expectations very well. If they did set expectations on the types of links they'd be targeting and these are very different to that, then they haven't done a good job on that front.

2. The processes they've used

Condensing outreach into a short time frame does seem a bit strange and doesn't allow for refinement at all. Link building can sometimes be hit and miss, so you need to allow time to adjust an approach if something isn't working or you, as the client, want to change something.

On these two alone, you probably have a right to feel aggrieved and haven't had the service you expected.

Having said that, there is a time and a place for these kind of links. They seem to be what's know as "resource" based links because the pages in question list lots of resources on them. I scanned through all of them and they all seem to link out to legitimate resources. I didn't check every single one, but if these were link farms, I'd expect to see links to random websites in a range of industries such as gambling or pharma. I also don't agree with Julie that Google ignore links on pages with "links" in the title, that would mean they ignore links like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/links/

Which is clearly a good, trusted domain.

The types of links that your agency has built for you aren't necessarily bad, but if this is the only activity that they're doing (and you're not doing anything else), then this can look a bit strange and you need to diversify your tactics a bit more.

In summary, I don't think it's as black and white as those links being low quality. They may be fine, it's more about the context they're being built in and what they're linking to. As well as the other links on the page.

I hope that helps!

Paddy

[TimHolmes]

It almost seems like they have paid a link farm to place your links anywhere with the aim of getting as many as they can, to make it look like they have done lots of work.

If all the links are like these, I would potentially look to reach out to these sites and request the links be taken down before they cause your link profile any harm. I would also check each link for relevancy to your site.

I would concentrate on letting your content earn links, create content that your user base wants to share with their friends, colleagues and businesses. This way you will generate a more natural and hopefully relevant series of links that get placed with more relevant content on other sites.

[julie-getonthemap]

No.

Especially the last 3 - anytime the title of a page in links, I believe Google ignores them.