Take the 2-minute tour ×
Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. It's 100% free, no registration required.

While I was googling today, I noticed this site: http://linkpushing.net/ this ensure you to be pushed at the top of the google research's stack, by creating random reference to your sites on random blogs and/or articles.
I can't believe that Google doesn't do anything against techniques like this, and I would like to know from someone more able than me on SEO subject if it's really possible to tease the google service in this way. And if you suggest to use this tecnique to my site.

share|improve this question
add comment

migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 4 '11 at 20:16

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

4 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Fake

E.g. see Link Farms are potentially damaging to your SEO efforts

and from Wikipedia:

Search engines countered the link farm movement by identifying specific attributes associated with link farm pages and filtering those pages from indexing and search results. In some cases, entire domains were removed from the search engine indexes in order to prevent them from influencing search results.

and from The Register Google whacks link farms


Truth

Here's some advice from the horses mouth

  • Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link.

  • Offer a sitemap to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the sitemap is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the sitemap into separate pages.

  • Create a useful, information-rich site and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.

  • Think about the words users would type to find your pages and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.

  • Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognise text contained in images. If you must use images for textual content, consider using the "ALT" attribute to include a few words of descriptive text.

  • Make sure that your elements and ALT attributes are descriptive and accurate.

  • Check for broken links and correct HTML.

  • If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e. the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and few in number.

  • Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100).

  • Review our image guidelines for best practices on publishing images.


Reality Check

  • Google turnover is $5500000000, profit $1480000000.
  • Google's success depends almost entirely on quality (usefulness) of search results
  • Google can afford to employ the best brains on the planet.
  • Google have the incentive and the resourcess to penalise webmasters who harm Google by devaluing it's search results through fakery, trickery and deviousness.
  • Google have no incentive to make Webmasters need to employ expensive SEO services.
  • Google have every incentive to assist and reward webmasters who have useful content.
share|improve this answer
1  
Since when is Wikipedia (and Co) is an authority source in one of the most cryptic web practice? ;) And for God's sake, you trust public Google guidelines? If you were G, you would reveal the truth on your most valuable asset? This text above may make people sleep better at night, but in reality, as long as G 's algo counts links (wighted or not), it 's gamed. –  john Aug 4 '11 at 21:24
1  
"Google have no incentive to make Webmasters need to employ expensive SEO services." - Really?? If it was cheap to do SEO for #1 place, would people buy Adsense ads? C'mon guys, simple logic. –  john Aug 4 '11 at 21:33
    
@John: "If it was cheap to do SEO for #1 place, would people buy Adsense ads?" - yes they would, if 100 NY Pizza businesses miraculously paid only $1 to each get the maximum score in Google algorithm, there's still a random 90 of those businesses needing to buy Adsense ads to get on page 1 for "NY Pizza". –  RedGrittyBrick Aug 4 '11 at 21:47
1  
RedGrittyBrick: Exactly. And the only viable option to rank in competitive keywords organically is to pay a lot of money to a pro/company/whoever. Google could have easily undone this simply by rotating results. In competitive keywords, there are hundreds of relevant, quality, worthy sites to be displayed. But G will never do that of course. If you know you can't afford to rank organically (i.e. the situation now), it 's only natural to buy ads. So, it 's obvious. Google has every incentive for seo to be expensive as hell. Which is another reason to spread misinformation intentionally. –  john Aug 4 '11 at 22:10
add comment

You can get only short term success by using these type of services. and there is some inherent risk in using these blackhat methods. These service providers serve you well till you pay them. Once you stop using their service, they may even try to harm your site. There are many accusations against linkpushing for applying negative seo tactics against client websites after they stopped to use the, So better to stay away from them.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The way I understand it, google does double duty.

The number of references to your site isn't the entirety of the algorithm - The quality of references also matters - i.e. the number of references to those references. For example, if I create one reference on Joe Bloggs and Sally Susan's pages, as well as 50 others, I'll have a lot of references. Now if I were to create say 10 references on pages such as Mac Rumors, Wired, PopSci, PCMag (pulling names out of my... head) then they would be considered more credible and more useful in terms of my google ranking.

The other thing I'm guessing is that sites of "higher quality" are bound to be more picky about allowing random references in say, the comments, possibly using something like askimet to prevent link spam.

So bottom line, I'm pretty sure Google's algorithm is much more complex than simply the number of references and a site like linkpushing may have some but not much effect.

EDIT:

However, after googling around about link wheels, I found numerous pages about how well they work, as well as proven examples. It seems that by exploiting automatic posting sites such as Squidoo, Blogger, Wordpress, etc. which are already highly ranked in general, you can create "quality references" fairly easily. See drawbacks and advantages of link wheels. So from that angle, it seems google can be "cheated", but they have some ways to figure out fake backlinks.

share|improve this answer
1  
Linkwheels is just one small part of the black/gray hat toolbox. Not that I recommended it of course. –  john Aug 4 '11 at 21:29
add comment

I use it for all my sites and that works like a King. The process involves Article directories, Web 2.0 sites, Social bookmarking sites, Micro blogs and doc share sites as well as a private network.

It's not a linkwheel but a much different process that does not leave a footprint which makes a big difference.

Post Panda, it is still a great service and the main one I use to rank my sites.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.