Link Building by Buying Web Sites

It's impossible to exhaust all the creative methods of getting new backlinks. A WMW post, Link development by buying competitors, highlights a lesser-used (but powerful) link building method:

My competitors in my business are in 90% of the cases unprofessionell and I just had the idea of increasing our links by buying their websites.

What would be the best way to get their links directing to us? Should we redirect their domain or should we put a bunch of our links on their website?
Any other ideas?

I like this method for several reasons:

If the site you're buying has decent, relevant backlinks, than this will be a good Hilltop-type link to your main siteYou can surround the link  to your main site with links to other authoritative sites, thus putting your main site in a good neighborhoodSince you control the entire site, you can put in tons of intra-content deep links (sorta like the Presell pages from WeBuildPages)Of course when buying and selling assets (and this includes Web sites), I have one golden rule: Buy Cheap, Sell High. If the price is right, go for it! If not, go back to writing high quality content (or comment spamming).  ;-)

Aaron Wall on the Hyperlink Hot Seat

Aaron Wall writes (that is, wrote, and continually rewrites) the most well-known search engine optimization ebook on the Web. He is also the man behind Search-Marketing.info, which, while lesser-known than SEO Book, is a great source for instructional SEO articles.

1) Yahoo!'s search algorithm: Closing in on Google, or 18 months behind?

I think they are closing, but when they started they were far more than 18 months behind, and as they draw closer they reach more toward a point of diminishing returns. I recently interviewed NFFC and he stated:

"This is what I think, SEO is all about emotions, all about human interaction. People, search engineers even, try and force it into a numbers box. Numbers, math and formulas are for people not smart enough to think in concepts."

and that if he worked at a search engine

"I would look to give good things a boost and stop focusing on finding bad things to penalise."

In the past Google was able to give people more reason to give back user data (ie: toolbar and PageRank), Yahoo! is trying to catch up with their My Web idea, but even though they allow users to block sites and share them I still feel none of the competing search services have a brand that can compete with Google, and none of them make users feel like they own and help improve the results.

Look how Google launches other products: Gmail, Orkut, using other brand names. Google wants their name to be synonymous with search. Yahoo! wants to be synonymous with everything, and that thins the brand. Owning content networks means having internal customers, and that creates a biased search service which some people will question the relevancy of.

Google has also bought Urchin and may be creating a payment system to help create the micropayment business model or get more end to end consumer behavior data. As far as collecting user data I think Google has the competition beat, but there is only so much you can do with the data before the focus on more data creates algorithms which resist innovation and change.

I think most of search distribution is down to positioning and who can lock in more users with their other services. The search service which makes you feel like you own the service will be the one that wins in distribution. As far as quality goes I think NFFC was right on that, whoever focuses more on signs of quality than reasons to penalize will win. Adding more human interaction to the algorithms would help a ton as well.

2) NickW: Highly entertaining SEO personality or rebel without a cause?

Based on regularly linking at his site and posting comments to it I obviously like it. My opinion does not matter that much though in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the more official type links, he has got blogrolled on sites like Search Engine Watch, Yahoo! Search Blog, Ask Jeeves Blog, has been Slashdotted a few times, and has had press mentions from sites like Guardian, Slate, etc etc etc.

My site is not on any of those blogrolls, has had little mention in any traditional type of press, and has had limited reach outside of the search community, so I would say in that regard he is doing a much better job than I, especially when you consider that he gets away with far more cursing than I do :)

Even when he calls people out, like ClickZ recently, they still feel the need to comment on his site, so that is fairly impressive. In less than a year his site has probably moved into the top 10 search related sites in terms of quality inbound linkage data, and with modern search algorithms it is all about linkage data.

3) SEOBook: Reached its peak, or just getting started?

Will steal a line from Larry Page at Google's recent quarterly conference call. It is still in the first inning.

4) Do you think the guy that posted here (and in subsequent comments on that thread) is really GoogleGuy as we know him (aka Matt Cutts)?

You don't know a person for sure based on a few heated forum posts. I am not sure if that was GoogleGuy or Matt Cutts. Rumour has it that Matt loves tomatoes though.

5) If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy!

Never been in the Sears Tower. Do not plan on going. I am a HUGE FAN of the dummies crashtestdummies.com/ though. Luckily I was able to link your question to that great band, or there would have been no link based Q&As

Rotating Links

This thread at WMW caught my interest. The question: do rotating links help link popularity? Crush replies with what also happens to be my initial reaction.

Crush: works for now but I think SE's are working towards killing rotating links. Like I say for now fine but may have less effect.

I'm not sure about this one though. LBB readers, tell me what you know!

Outbound Linking - Underrated

We post a lot on our blog about how to best aquire valuable incoming links, with nary a peep about the power of outbound links. Our unequivocal opinion is that good outbound links are a good thing, both for users and for search engines:

For Users

Helpfulness: Users will leave sooner or later. If you help them as they leave, they are more likely to return.Perceived Authority: Not sure if I've ever used the word "authority" in a non-SE context... but if a site links to other HQ sites, in my mind, that makes it more trustworthy to users.

For Search Engines

Hilltop Hub Points: If you link to topical authorities your site may get "hub points" from the Hilltop algo (or similar algo's)Good neighborhood: As martinibuster has said, your neighborhood is important to modern SEs. Outbound links may be as important in this as inbounds are.

Bottom line: good outbound links = good for your site.

Todd Malicoat on the Hyperlink Hot Seat

Todd Malicoat aka Stuntdubl works as V.P. of Sales and Marketing for We Build Pages. He also maintains a widely-read weblog on internet marketing, self-titled Stuntdubl Internet Marketing Consulting.

1) Google Sandbox: myth or reality?

Sheesh...start me off with a trick question. I was thinkin' maybe I'd get to tell you my life history about "falling into SEO by default" after being a web designer/developer like everyone else. I think the sandbox is a name given to a variety of different ailments, and provides a good excuse for those not ranking. There is so much talk about sandbox, filters, and penalties that it has really become overwhelming. I think Google has learned their lesson about being too open with SEO's. I don't blame them a bit for ambiguous guidelines and subtle disinformation tactics. SEO's make their living manipulating their algorithm, which isn't in the best interest of their users. There is something that was implemented in late 2003/ early 2004 that was much more time based. Using a great line from "Things to Do When You're Dead in Denver"..."Give it a name"...call it a filter, call it a penalty, call it the sandbox...the simple fact is if you are a good SEO you will diagnose the problems and get the site up the rankings.

You really have to play the "best practices" to beat the sandbox (and other filters for that matter). I'm often pointing people to your guide to beating the sandbox on WMW . The age type filtering has really made SEO much more complex, and I'm sure personalization implementation will only continue to increase the complexity of learning to rank well on Google.

2) Link building: love doing it or hate doing it?

Link building is a necessary evil. I still love PARTS of link building. It's exciting when you know you got a very valuable link for next to nothing. I think the low barrier to entry in SEO is what has made it so attractive to people offering the services. That barrier is rising, and link building is getting tougher. Tools are getting better, but it really comes back to personal relationships with other webmasters. I think link building has really become the red headed step child of SEO that most companies don't want to do anything with except ship off to the neighbors. It's difficult to put a revenue model around it that is beneficial to both the provider and the consumer. The models that DO work are abused by everyone and ultimately cut off at the base by the big G-monster. It's great to see the results of link building and that's what makes it fun. It can be quite disappointing when you put in a ton of time though and don't see highly tangible results.

Even more than link building now, I enjoy tryin' to find older sites to purchase more bulk advertising and presell pages from. It's a little trickier than getting just a plain link, but it's more worthwhile as well.

3) TrustRank: implemented now, or next year?

I think there are definitely elements of Trustrank in play now which we will only see increase. We all know now that leaving an unattended ballot box is going to result in ballot stuffing. Humans are a better determinate of quality content than artificial intelligence (at this point anyhow), so combining as much carbon based intelligence into the search algorithms as possible would be a priority for the SE's I think. It would make logical sense that the data Yahoo and Google are mining from personalization will eventually be rolled into the criteria for rankings. The add/block feature on MyWeb 2.0 is about the best spam-reporting feature out there, because Yahoo doesn't have to pay anyone to use it. It would be silly if they DIDN"T use that data. Of course it can be manipulated by the uber savvy blackhats, but it's still a step in a good direction for them.

I think Trustrank will start to affect the SEO/SEM community more and more. It will just change the game like so many things in the past have. There will always be best practices for marketing a website and that's what we will continue to do. Rolling with the changes is part of what makes SEO services valuable. I did an overly dramatic article on Trustrank and personalization that details why I think it will spell the end for a lot of the crappy SEO's we've seen start charging for BS services in the last few years.

4) Will blogs still be "in" next spring?

Ugh. I sometimes cringe at the thought of myself being a "blogger". Bloggers as a whole are really quite an annoying bunch of blowhards that have become full of themselves because someone actually listened to what they had to say. I think they will be around next spring, and will probably evolve in some way. Chances are they still will be the in thing because I think as a society we like hearing the inside scoop about a company. It's the whole Cluetrain thing...having an open dialogue with customers is the only way to conduct business effectively these days. Blogs provide a nice form for communication. I blog for a couple reasons...firstly to give away information to people that I think would be valuable when there is no way I can really take them on as a client myself. I want to be helpful to those who are interested in learning for themselves the same way folks at WMW and other forums have helped me to learn so much. The second reason I blog is to have a nice timestamp for when things happen and reference points to go back and use. The last reason would be to communicate ideas and methodology to existing clients. I think all these are valuable and valid reasons beyond just yapping about rehashed news because someone might listen.

It's pretty easy to skim 50 or 60 blogs in a day if they all only have a couple of posts. The good information will rise to the top of the stack and the way it is presented to users is just kind of a formality I think. Blogs will be probably by "in" on MTV soon which I suppose would make it "out" in our early-adopter type circles. Blogs with information rich content and good value for a reader's time will be something I'll be happy to learn from for a long time to come.

5) Sometimes I lie in bed and surf the Web with my laptop sitting on my chest. Do you think this could give me cancer?

Much better your chest than your lap. Gotta watch out for your neck and back....more likely to jack that up lookin' at a laptop all day and night. Since you're an internet marketing geek like me I suppose you see the sun about the same as I do so I'm sure it all balances out.

Interlinking sites... Again... Ugh

I've seen a lot of threads about interlinking over the years, and frankly, I'm tired of reading/talking/hearing about it. In case you're "new here" and want to hear the latest pundits on the issue, check out Threadwatch and WMW.

If you want to save yourself some valuable time, here is my answer (in a single sentence): If interlinking your sites is good for your users, do it!

Mr. Ploppy's Press Release Tools

Stuntdubl's blog continues to dish out the good stuff. Today it's Mr. Ploppy's Monday Morning Tool List Volume XVII - Press Release Tools. It's got a great list of free newswires - crucial if you're trying to quickly build permanent oneways to a new domain (on a budget... and aren't we all). Don't just read it, bookmark it.

I am wondering though, who is this Mr. Ploppy? Is it Todd's alter ego? His imaginary friend?

This Just In: PageRank MATTERS!

I guess I should share the blame here: I've been saying "PageRank
doesn't matter" for some time now. I remember the old days (2003). The
toolbar had made us all obsessed with green; in fact, we were fixated
on it, when we should have been looking at other link metrics along
with it.

And thus started the myth that "PageRank doesn't matter". I've heard
pretty much every expert weigh in on the issue, and make the same basic
point. Mike Grehan is only the latest to do so.
What's more, one question I was asked last week had me slightly
dumbfounded for a moment: "If you're saying I can't value links that I
buy based on PageRank, how do I value how much I'd be prepared to pay
for them?"


This is the stark reality: People still actually buy and sell links valued against Google's PR score. Which is ridiculous.Let's step back a bit. Is
PageRank "ridiculous" as a useful link popularity metric? What is a
better metric to judge "rough" link popularity/power? Yahoo backlink
count? That says nothing about the importance of a page's backlinks; it just gives you a count, and the sites themselves. Of course, you could go to each of those sites, and count their backlinks. But that's just a recursive link popularity algorithm--umm, PageRank?

I'm not saying PageRank is the end-all or the Holy Grail. It isn't.
It's just a starting point. After checking out a page's PR, I look for
authority backlinks (.edu, .gov, DMOZ, topical authorities), I look to
see if the backlinks are mostly on-topic, I look to see whether or not
its links have been obtained organically vs. rented or traded, etc. But
I do start with PageRank.

Let's be honest: PageRank still matters. And it will for a while--unless, of course, Google stops showing it ;-)

Do Links from PDFs 'Count'?

This is something I've wondered about before, but never pursued much: Do links from PDF's count towards link popularity?

I can't say that I know for certain. I do know that Google often caches an HTML version of a PDF document, converting URLs and links within to normal HTML links--so, my guess would be, that links from PDFs do count.

The question was asked at High Rankings in Worthy Links In Readable Documents, Links in PDF's:

If a client produces numerous PDF Fact sheets that are available for download from their site will links to URLs in the PDF's have any weight when it comes to link popularity?

xScottx replies with some good, hard evidence:

...when searching for backlinks in Google for some sites, PDFs sometimes show up....so it seems that the links in PDFs do count for link popularity.

And fathom seems to agree. Does anyone know for sure, either way? Feedback appreciated...

"Link Building Makes My Brain Hurt"

Sometimes I think the SEOs who win out in the end are those with the will, rather than the skill. I have a million things I could be doing for a lot of my sites, but in truth I really can only summon the energy to go "all out" for two or three. And I suspect that those two or three will make me more money than all the rest together, in the long term.

We all get exhausted by the many necessary tasks involved in building sites, from time to time. Especially with link building. Let's be honest: it's often tedious and annoying. It can also seem like a lot of work for low return (although I will argue that link building almost always has a spectacular ROI). This is the topic in this WMW thread, titled Just can't get myself to do link development. One_on_One posts:My brain hurts just thinking about link development...it's such a tedious, boring process. How do you guys do it to drive traffic to your sites?My brain hurts just thinking about his brain hurting. ryan26 has a short reply but I think it's a nugget of wisdom:Dirtiest job in SEO but the most important. Try and think out of the box. Press releases, RSS feeds, PHONE CALLS. Every small step forward is a step in the right direction.Of course you can take the easy way out and just rent links, but experience tells me this won't work well unless you have a decent underlying base of permanent links.There are no freebies in life! Unfortunately that goes for link building as well...

20% Off SES San Jose!

LBB Readers, the Text Link Ads crew will be exhibiting at the upcoming SES San Jose Show August 8-11.  Please follow this link (pdf file) for a 20% off coupon for any conference pass.

We are also excited to announce that Danny Sullivan has added a new session: Buying & Selling Links that I will be speaking at.  Thanks Danny!  We are looking forward to meeting everyone in person in San Jose.

Can't Think of a Witty Title for This One

Thanks to SEOmoz for pointing out this thread at WebHostingTalk:IMNSHO, paying for pagerank v. seeking out legitimate links is the
difference between meeting someone, falling in love and getting married
v. paying for a hooker.I guess that makes the nofollow tag a contraceptive! *zing* (groan)

Are Directories On Their Way Out?

Noted spammer DaveN asks an interesting question in Did Google just target Directories at SEW Forums:I have been collecting quite a bit of data just recently and noticed
that some WH sites got canned the only thing I can find is a large % of
their IBL's are from directories.. is this the end of the road for
smaller directories ..


DaveN
DaveN is well known for being 'in the know', so if he asks a question like this it is not to be ignored. Marcia's reply gives us link builders some more food for thought:You know, if we look back at the first post, what Dave was saying is
not related to the directories themselves, but that sites with a large
% of their links from directories took a hit.


I think the engines probably have more serious challenges than the slew
of little directories out there - but the issue is whether those types
of links, especially if they comprise the majority or IBLs to newer
sites that aren't established, in great numbers and accrued quickly,
really have any value as far as algorithmic link analysis is concerned.
Do they represent genuine links that reflect relevancy or importance,
as would a link from a page from a related, on-topic site?
My .02: I think Google may be nuking low quality directories with tons of spammy sites listed, so a listing in those types of directories may not have much value going forward. From a relevancy perspective however a listing in a quality directory such as GoGuides probably will help a site in the SERPs, since that directory actually makes an honest attempt to categorize quality sites and rejects many low quality sites, and as such who it links out to is actually useful data for Google.

In any case, obtaining 100 directory links is no longer a short and easy route to high rankings. That said, when I'm trying to get a new site established I will still be submitting to my shortlist of HQ directories.

Ian Turner Safe and Sound!

We can all breathe a sigh of relief :-)

Coverage at WMW and Threadwatch.