Cross-linking using rich anchor text - erk!

[Kay]

Why were you building links anyway? To game the SEs or just to build traffic?

Same thing.

No, it's not and you know that. A lot of people used link building as a means to improve their ranking in G. They tried to game the system. More sites linking in equals a more "respected" site and a higher position on G's search results. Yeah, right. But G didn't like being gamed, that's why they're penalising for it now. Link building to improve your position in G is old. Very old. Sitting in a rocking chair with a tartan rug over its legs old.

On the other hand, if you build your links to build traffic, you would go about it in a completely different way. For starters, you don't use link farms or hire monkeys to make thousands of blams and crap forum posts to get your link in the sig. There's a huge difference, both in the approach and in the result.

I really don't understand why some people are scared of building links now. Yes, I do understand about negative SEO, but how can getting a normal looking link from a reasonably well-respected site hurt you? I won't do it, because I'm a nice, kind person, but I could take the link you have in your sig here and post it on one of my sites in a relevant way and in an appropriate context. Are you really suggesting that it might hurt you? If that's the case, then I'm off to link to everyone I don't like.

[cash ninja]

I've said it before on another thread and I'll say it again here. No one has come up with any evidence yet that negative SEO actually works, despite there being lots of speculation about it.

Personally, I am continuing to build links to my sites in the hope of bringing in more relevant visitors, or at least, visitors who the content is relevant to. Now, if a consequence of that is that I getter better search engine rankings in Google, Yahoo, Bing or where ever else then that's a bonus.

I am also experimenting with some more frowned upon link building tactics (paying some random dude on fiverr to spam 1000s of links at a site) on sites of my own to see what happens. Because, well because why not? And also because I want to know what will happen. So far, surprisingly in that particular experiment, the site is currently ranking quite well in Google! I have no idea if that will last or not though...

[Kay]

Your experiment sounds interesting, but when you change more than one variable at a time, how will you know which one was responsible for any variation in results?

Are you trying these experiments on different sites?

[cash ninja]

With the particular site I am thinking of, yes I am using just a single (or truth be told a couple) of link building methods - first a fiverr 'link pyramid' which was in essence a one shot deal. Then some article marketing. Now these are both methods that are meant to be bad for link building since Penguin, although I have heard mixed opinions about article marketing.

I have another site where I am trying a different experiment. It's the site I have had the longest (12 years now maybe?) and it still has incoming links from way back that are unrelated to the current content. But that's all I have done, put new content on it without any new links to it. It's also an emd as is the site in the first example.

I have some other sites I am experimenting with as well currently but it's too early to know what's happening with those at this stage.

[Slowdive]

There is some pretty compelling evidence that negative SEO does work. Even if it was initially debatable some people speaking behind closed doors seem pretty sure its viable now, I am inclined to agree. Of course the industry as a whole is keeping quiet on the issue, even the real BH guys are not too interested in making the methods known. The funny part of it is in many cases the same people who are claiming negative SEO does not exist are the same people advocating being incredibly careful with your link profile, this is a sensitive time and mistakes could cost you.

However the reality is if you were building links properly in the first place then all of this is a storm in a tea-cup my top ranking sites are still sitting pretty, my penalized sites were gaming the system and it was too be expected sooner or later. All that has changed is there is more focus on off site signals and one needs to diversify there anchor text more and look for a more varied link type. My feelings anyway.

[JJMcClure]

No, it's not and you know that. A lot of people used link building as a means to improve their ranking in G.

And a higher ranking leads to..... more traffic! It's the same thing Kay. Nobody ranks for 'respect' because a ranking isn't worthy of respect unless it's a high volume search phrase and therefore you'd get more traffic by having it.

but I could take the link you have in your sig here and post it on one of my sites in a relevant way and in an appropriate context. Are you really suggesting that it might hurt you? If that's the case, then I'm off to link to everyone I don't like

Yes, that's the problem and now you see why the SEO world is in turmoil over this update. Did you read any of the threads about this?

Have another read of this one The Negative SEO Debate Sparks Up Again - the article in the OP is worth a read.

I've said it before on another thread and I'll say it again here. No one has come up with any evidence yet that negative SEO actually works, despite there being lots of speculation about it.

Did you see the thread I linked above? If that isn't evidence then I don't know what is.

[Kay]

And a higher ranking leads to..... more traffic! It's the same thing Kay. Nobody ranks for 'respect' because a ranking isn't worthy of respect unless it's a high volume search phrase and therefore you'd get more traffic by having it.

Yes, a higher ranking can, and often does, lead to more traffic. But that's not the point. Not everyone is chasing free traffic from the search engines. In which case, you build links in a different way because you have a different purpose in mind. In ye olden days "link building" was all about trying to convince G that your site was popular. That could get you to #1 on G, which in turn led to more traffic. Great! But you can go about link building in a way which is intended to get more traffic to your site without relying on your position in the search engines.

It's nice to get some free traffic from the SEs, but I wouldn't chase after it. A lot of it doesn't convert. In many cases they're information seekers rather than potential customers. And if you have invested your time and efforts into getting all this free traffic from the SEs, then when an algo changes, you are up sh!t creek without a paddle. And you and MikeB are in the same boat together, frightened in case anyone links to you.

As Slowdive said,

..the reality is if you were building links properly in the first place then all of this is a storm in a tea-cup...

I agree with that. You see, there IS a difference in how you build links. Are you doing it to get higher in the SERP (and yes, that does lead to more traffic), or are you doing it with the aim of building traffic directly through those links? It's very difficult to understand and explain because it's all so much a different approach to the same end result, ie more traffic. But there is a difference. It requires a different approach and produces different results. Much as I like my free organic traffic from G, I do not base any strategy, link building or otherwise, around them. They could change tomorrow. I figure it's better for me to be getting my traffic from elsewhere - forums where I hang out, other people's blogs where I comment, etc. There's all sorts of places I can get traffic from. SEs are only one of them. If I rely on only one major source, I could wake up tomorrow, find out they've changed their algo, and now I have no traffic to my site.

I will reread the info about negative SEO, I'm still a bit unsure and confused about that whole issue and don't want to comment until I have enough of an understanding to form an opinion.

[JJMcClure]

! But you can go about link building in a way which is intended to get more traffic to your site without relying on your position in the search engines..

True but you said that gaming the SE's and getting traffic weren't the same thing. If you're gaming an SE, what else would you be doing it for? You can get traffic without gaming SEs but you there's no point gaming an SE unless it's for traffic.

It's nice to get some free traffic from the SEs, but I wouldn't chase after it. A lot of it doesn't convert.

That's far too sweeping a statement to affect our discussion. You said yourself, not all traffic is created equal. Some people get 100% conversion, some get 0%, and everything in between.

And if you have invested your time and efforts into getting all this free traffic from the SEs, then when an algo changes, you are up sh!t creek without a paddle. And you and MikeB are in the same boat together, frightened in case anyone links to you.

That's always been the case since the first person tried to artificially influence their rankings on a SE, nothing new there and I'm not scared of people linking to me, where did you get that idea?

[grynge]

True but you said that gaming the SE's and getting traffic weren't the same thing. If you're gaming an SE, what else would you be doing it for? You can get traffic without gaming SEs but you there's no point gaming an SE unless it's for traffic.

I can think of a couple of reasons to game the search engines and not for the traffic

"Reputation Management" giving bad reputations or good reputations through the search engines is getting to be a very big commodity.

"Information/DisInformation" governments, people selling various drugs (illegal/legal), lobbyists, various groups of all persuasions.

I am sure I could think of more as well.

[Kay]

I'm not scared of people linking to me, where did you get that idea?

It originally arose from your comment here:

I'm starting to think more and more that Penguin was aimed at SEO's because it's hurt so many link builders. Like mikeb, I've suspended all link building.

and then the subsequent discussion moved on to the threat of people linking for negative SEO purposes.

As for the "linking to game SEs/linking to get traffic" debate: in set theory terms, gaming the SEs is a subset of getting traffic, not an identical set, so they're not the same - A ⊂ B, not A ≡ B. But in the same posting that you claimed they were the same thing, you also said this:

Then you should be ok with links intended for humans to see, it's the links we build that are only intended to increase our rankings and that we wouldn't build if there were no search engines that we need to worry about. Telling them apart or acquiring the latter that look like the former is the hard bit.

So there clearly is a difference between linking to game the SEs and linking to gain traffic direct via those links.