Subscribe: Comments on: Text link broker woes: Google’s smart paid link sniffers
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
buying  don  google  karen andrews  linking  links slowly  links  page  paid links  paid  review  search engines  sites  text  works 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Text link broker woes: Google’s smart paid link sniffers

Comments on: Text link broker woes: Google’s smart paid link sniffers

If you've read my articles somewhere on the Internet, expect something different here.

Published: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:43:00 +0000


By: rtt

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:40:31 +0000

I think TNX is overrated. They claim they like security but their website does not use SSL to login. Their system works in a way that's obvious a "programmer" made it, and is very inflexible. It's hard to say if it works, there are so many text link sellers, but they have an advantage over TLA. Recently we noticed all their so-called PR4-5 links are actually PR0 and more are dropping like flies.


Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:01:05 +0000

It's very hard to outsmart Google these days. While it is lucrative to buy links, it is probably in everybody's best interest to just play by the rules. I'm a bit surprised with TNX's responce that they don't want to pay for a negative review. As far as I'm concerned, this is an excellent review that points out some major flaws in their network which need to be addressed.

By: Bountiful Buffet of Bookmarks :: JMorris Online

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:20:34 +0000

[...] Text link broker woes: Google’s smart paid link sniffers - After the recent toolbar PageRank massacre link brokers are in the spotlight. One of them, TNX beta1, asked me to post a paid review of their servic… [...]

By: Lucia

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:22:58 +0000

Sebastian's thought process for diagnosing paid links sounds about right to me. That's one of the reasons I think those buying links are going to need to a) be patient and b) do some hand screening of blogs where they buy links. You don't want your ads to appear on blogs that 'obviously' runs loads of ads. You don't want to have too many appear in a clump.

By: Karen Andrews

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:43:02 +0000

Jeff, I have developed links for my end users not to game the search engines. I make linking decisions based on what benefits my end users (for example I link up with low PR sites if they offer content that benefits my own users). You can bet search engines trend how often sites obtain links. Since my linking strategy is defined to obtain links slowly in a natural method, I will never be "slapped". Or it would have happened already. That is undeniable proof that link exchange works when you maintain control over who you link to, and keep the volume slow and natural. Those who disagree probably have little to no experience with link exchange link I do. It's how you conduct the camapign that matters. I think Google is more concerned with fully automated link networks where there is no editorial control and when links are obtained very quickly. they can spot the difference. I will continue to link exchange for my end users in natural volume.

By: Link Building this Week (Nov. 9) |

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:20:48 +0000

[...] Sebastian explains why it’s pretty easy for Google to spot the pattern of a large link network [...]

By: Jeff Kansky

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:46:35 +0000

All of you guys are talking about Google PR here, but non of you ever mentioned the fact, that you don't need any PR to get to the Google TOP-1 results by eny keyword. It is all about links. More links point to your page with the set keyword, your page is going to have top positions in SERPs by that keyword. Karen Andrews, you built 800 link in 8 years ... that is great, but once Google slaps you for no reason, or for the link buying reason you will understand that you wasted your precious time for the full 8 year period. It is not easy to cheat Google, but following its rules will definately not lead your business to success.

By: Sebastian

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:43:44 +0000

Brian, used to dig quite deep into such things, I can tell you that not everything works like it seems to work. Look at a paid link's life cycle. After the first fetch by Googlebot, esp. when found on a page (A) not yet known for the appearance of paid links and cleverly integrated into the page's look and feel, or, even better, put within the textual contents and not on a sidebar or other templated page area, it will most probably slip through if the link's destination is not yet known as link buyer. Then this link appears on another page (B) where the Webmaster doesn't care that much about link placements, and gets identified as paid link. Now link (A) passes link juice, and link (B) does not. Next Google identifies another paid link (C) on any page on the Web. Unfortunately link (C) can be found on page (A) too, so that this page gets flagged for paid linkage because it links out to two URLs owned by a link buyer. The result is that page (A) loses its ability to pass PageRank with its links, without (!!) any change in its toolbar PageRank. It might even get a raise with the next toolbar PR update, because the green slider visualizes the power of incoming links only (exept when Google finds too much paid links and decides to express their lowered opinion about that page with adjusted green pixels). Most probably only the identified paid links respectively the block carrying them will no longer pass PageRank in this stage, but I want to keep the example simple. Also, Google possibly gathers more evidence than just two links, and is smart enough not to rely on URLs alone, which could appear in natural links too. This method scales extremely well and can be applied to the linkage of the whole Web. Compiling the seed is a breeze thanks to paid link reports and staff doing research on the Web since Google exists. With every caught paid link the algo produces better results. Of course it can't catch every paid link, especially not most privately traded links, but it will discover all large networks because those produce link patterns which are detectable with statistical methods. I agree that mass text link selling is not dead. Actually its extremely profitable at the moment, but that's due to the credence of the masses, backed by short-term successes here and there, not because it indeed works on the long haul, or even in the medium term. Here is more food for thoughts: Nobody questions any more that Google penalizes exessive crosslinking and massive artificial linkage to some degree at least, because we've seen the evidence years ago. Now tell me why Google shouldn't be able to identify paid link networks which basically leave the same patterns. All systematic link patterns are extremely risky with Google, regardless whether the links are paid for or not.

By: Brian Cook

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:16:20 +0000

Very thoughtful review of the dangers involved in link buying. However, I think it's way too early to announce the death of paid linking. Google's recent actions have frightened many webmasters into chopping their text link ads, but the fact remains that text link advertising still works. I have no doubt that Google has many people much smarter than me working on it, but they haven't solved it yet and I don't think they're particularly close. Until there's firm, irrefutable evidence that text link advertising has an adverse effect on a site's rankings, text link brokers and their clients will continue to prosper.

By: Karen Andrews

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:58:59 +0000

great review and article. thank you for taking the time to illustrate why these paid link networks are so dangerous. I think webmasters are going to start getting back to basics and stop playing all of these link buying games. For example, I have been link exchanging with sites relevant to mine for the past EIGHT years. Over these years, I've developed over 800 inbound links through traditional reciprocal linking with sites related to my own. I use sites like seoelite and to find relevant links. I use linksmanager to manage my links. I get one way links just from webmasters filling out my suggest link form. I decide who I link to, not an automated network. My results? about 40% of my traffic comes from my link exchanges. My rankings are solid. I am in the top ten for all of my keywords in all of the major search engines. If and when my rankings change, I have my inbound links to produce traffic for me. I suspect webmasters will go back to the basics of link exchange as link buying games continue to come into the spotlight. No games or secrets here. I build links SLOWLY over a long period of time. You can fly under the radar if you make linking decisions that generates links slowly.