Run of site text link ads: Good or Bad?

[hugoguzman]

A lot of people are expressing concern with "run of site" text link advertising. They are alleging that those kinds of links do not get completely indexed by Google (or not indexed at all), that the links do not pass PR, that they can cause you to be penalized by Google, or that the sites that sell the "run of site" ads will be penalized.

However, plenty of webmasters are still offering these sort of link ads.

Share your opinions on run-of-site advertising with us.

[eadpro]

I go for single page links (home page is best)

[yellowsubmarine]

I'm hearing a lot of people complain about getting banned for buying text links. I'm kind of scared off by that. Should I bother getting any kind of text link ad?

[hugoguzman]

Text links are the backbone of the search engine optimization. Focus on acquiring inbound links from related sites (sites that share the same theme/subject as your site). This rule applies whether you're exchanging links or getting one way links.

Don't be afraid of paying for links. Just make sure that the site your working with is reputable and that their content is RELATED to your site. (I would stick with single links as opposed to run of site links, but that's just my humble opinion).

[joker]

Never heard site being banned for purchasing of BL. It may be filtered, but not banned.
Also, some groups of site's with enormous PR don't pass PR to their advertisers.

[yellowsubmarine]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to do some more investigating, but I think I'm on the right track.

[joker]

Good luck and don't forget to check whether the site you want to purchse link advertising is in http://www.blockedpr.com/ or not ;)

[hugoguzman]

I respect textlinkbrokers.com, but I still have yet to see enough empirical evidence of site's having their PR blocked. It's one thing to have your PR go down to zero, quite another for your site to have PR, rank well in SERPs, yet not pass PR.

However, I am intrigued by this phenomenon, and I am working hard to produce some tangible evidence.

In fact, I am planning on writing a research paper on how the power of a backlink (bought, traded for, etc...) should be measured in terms of the link page's SERP position as opposed to the visual PR on Google's toolbar.

[joker]

In fact, I am planning on writing a research paper on how the power of a backlink (bought, traded for, etc...) should be measured in terms of the link page's SERP position as opposed to the visual PR on Google's toolbar.
It's a great deal Hugo!
Also, please, play considerable attention to links anchor ranking - it will be very interesting to know your opinion concerning this. ;)

[hugoguzman]

Thanks for pointing that out. I will consider allinanchor: rankings as well.

[joker]

BTW, is allinanchor: still working in Google. I've tried it for several times last week and it shows me rather strange results.

[TheBadAstronomer]

I have a couple of sitewides, but I prefer to just keep it to the main page and a few subpages. That's better for the sponsor anyway; most pages have low PR, so they don't help much. Also, it mixes up the linking a bit and makes it more likely someone will click on the link.

[hugoguzman]

Welcome aboard TheBadAstronomer!

Thanks for the contribution.

All of you newbies on this forum: make sure to listen to what BadAstronomer has to say.

He's a pro.

[TheBadAstronomer]

All of you newbies on this forum: make sure to listen to what BadAstronomer has to say.
He's a pro.


Oh, I wouldn't say that. I actually know very little about SEO. My site is popular because I did things the old-fashioned way: created good content, and then just lasted for a long time. I've had the domain name since 1998, so there has been a lot of time to build up back links. ;)

Thanks for the welcome!

[hugoguzman]

So you're saying that you kept things simple, didn't resort to spamming, built good content, and acquired a ton of relevant backlinks...

That sounds like good seo to me!

It seems like too many webmasters/seo's get caught up trying to figure out whether or not Google, etc.. is changing their algorithm or they get caught up changing metatags one way then switching to another way, etc...

These individuals are all trying to find a shortcut because they don't want to accept that building content pages and acquiring relevant backlinks, though difficult, is the only proven way of establishing a lasting internet presence (Unless you have a big television advertising budget like Web MD or Expedia.com!!!).

[TheBadAstronomer]

Well, yeah, but getting those backlinks takes time. I have 4000+, but it's taken years. Many people would rather not wait that long, and would rather buy text links. Who I am to turn them down? 8)

[hugoguzman]

You misunderstood me. I'm all for buying text links as long as they are relevant.

When I mentioned "short cuts" I was referring to trying to overoptimize metatags, content, etc...or using black hat techniques like cloaking, redirects, etc...

[yellowsubmarine]

I just did an seo consultation were I had to explaing that although a particular url had a relatively decent number of backlinks (100+) in Google, most of those backlinks were from the same domain (run of site links).

I explained that until they acquire inbound links from different domains (instead of getting 100's of links from the same domain) they will continue to rank poorly in the SERPs.

[Cibok]

I belive the key is to get lots of links from as many different domains as possible.
And I have also heard some talking about that the links need to be from different IP addresses, is this true?

[hugoguzman]

Links from that come from different IP "C-blocks" are benefiicial. Google gives more value to "non-network" links (meaning links that don't come from sites that share your IP address).

[luxfast]

Yes, because google have system and data counter. SO we can buy TLA but with different site. So we can get link as much as we can.

[hagiwhat]

hugo the tragedy.. :(