how fast is too fast for building backlinks?

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

You cannot pass Toolbar PR. That's just another SEO myth.

I just wanted to take a minute to once again point out the new multi quote feature in vBulletin...it keeps you from having to double post when responding to two different posts... it also keeps the mods from having to repeatedly merge double posts...

[dazzlindonna]

/sigh...

Ok, first let's grab a couple of definitions from Google for [anecdotal evidence]:

# Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically.
http://www.nechakowhitesturgeon.org/...sary/index.php

# Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Now that we've got that out of the way, let me respond to this statement from MM:

so one particular anecdote isn't sufficient proof of anything. And the problem with anecdotal evidence for these kinds of conclusions is that the anecdotes are incomplete and many possible explanations make it impossible to nail one down.

My response to that is well, duh! Hopefully, there's not a soul reading anything I've written that thinks that I absolutely, positively know exactly what Google is doing at any point in time. Everything, and I mean, everything that we EVER post is based on anecdotal evidence. Heck, even something like PageRank, which Google has basically given us the algo for, STILL isn't something we can say is 100% absolute fact. They could have changed the algo umpteen times since then.

So, just to be clear...anything I've written in the past, and anything I post in the future, is and always will be based on anecdotal evidence. No need to point it out. Sheesh! For future reference, add IMHO to the end of everything I post, k?

[pittbug]

I haven't seen any type of penalty associated with building links too quickly. I think the key is the type of link and it's quality/relevance.

I gained a ton (relatively speaking for me) of backlinks to my blog in a very short amount of time recently and got a boost in rankings, rather than any type of penalty.

It'll be interesting to see how these rankings shift around as time goes by as activity/backlinks decline.

</anecdote>

[debram]

In the spring of 06 I monitored a client site that decided to buy sitewide links in an online publication in their business niche. This publication is a (moderately) well known rag, you've probably seen it in the check out line of your grocery or drugstore.

If memory serves, the magazine site had about 200-250 active pages (not archived) and about 2/3 of those were in the index of G, M and Y. The buy was done for a multitude of reasons, link pop being one. We used a kw anchor for the link (was 2 word),paid for a six month run and pointed the link inside. Here's what I watched: (remember, this magazine has an off and online presence)

Toward the end of every month when the new edition was published, I saw a large jump in site traffic from the sitewide. It lingered for five days to a week and then steadied off. New street edition was published, repeat of traffic pattern.

During the contracted time, we saw the site climb in rank for the anchor text phrase in G and M appreciably - but not Y. In Y it went up a spot or two, never more.

At the end of the buy, the ranking in M fell back to where it was when we started (for the anchor text phrase) but in G it stayed in place for about 3 months. The two word phrase we used was 'less' competitive but still a relatively common phrase given where it was advertised.

One last fact: There were about 12 other links along with ours, so if you looked at it with a practiced eye (like we SEO's do) you'd know it was sold space.

Ok, here's where the shoe drops.

The client was happy with the results and decided to do it. Same bat links, same bat station, same bat channel except this time, the promotion tanked from an SEO perspective. Traffic was still great, but the rankings never made it out of the bat cave.

Conclusion? Search engines have long memories. I think it worked the first time because everything was in correlation (traffic was up, links went up, content had been added...) but the chances of that happening a second time, or leaving the same footprint twice - wasn't natural so poof! No link love for us.

Would I do this advertising promotion again? lol - well I have but not in "typical" sitewide locations

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Wit

Hehe MM, I need more than that.

Although I'm sure this is a language thing rather than a difference of opinion

Well, if you feel there is a credible, intelligible explanation of how any page can pass Toolbar PageRank (which is a proxy value that is itself derived from Internal PageRank), please post a link and I'll be glad to look at it. But I ain't ever seen any such explanation, and I've ready plenty of them.

It would take a real crackpot to argue that a derivative approximation is being passed around by Web pages.

Originally Posted by dazzlindonna

Now that we've got that out of the way, let me respond to this statement from MM:

so one particular anecdote isn't sufficient proof of anything. And the problem with anecdotal evidence for these kinds of conclusions is that the anecdotes are incomplete and many possible explanations make it impossible to nail one down.

My response to that is well, duh! Hopefully, there's not a soul reading anything I've written that thinks that I absolutely, positively know exactly what Google is doing at any point in time. Everything, and I mean, everything that we EVER post is based on anecdotal evidence...

Not in my case. I quite frequently cite reputable, authoritative sources. In fact, I feel like a broken record in citing those sources, as I have cited them so often.

There is a great deal of anecdotal persuasion in SEO forums. I don't have a problem with the practice. But there is plenty of fact-based discussion, too. I know I have participated in quite a few fact-based discussions, on both the receiving and sending sides.

Um, I was just testing the multiquote thing in any event.

[Wit]

I'm not suggesting that the toolbar PR itself was passed. Sorry if my post was misunderstood. Like Donna, I'm not 100% certain about how Google works (although I won't add a virtual IMHO to all my posts hehe). But I DO know that any site with decent nav will soon have the same (or at least SOME) toolbar PR showing for ALL its inner pages, regardless of their having external (i.e. inbound) backlinks of their own.

Now if ALL my inner pages have a pagerank value that is in the same LEAGUE as my homepage's - i.e. PR 2 or maybe 1 - and that single page hs PR0, then I can't help smelling a rat. Or a fish.

So - even if this spreading of toolbar PR throughout a site is artificial as well - I'm still certain that the PR of the page I mentioned was artificially lowered, either by a human or using some freak linking warning/penalty algo.

FTR, I wholeheartedly agree that toolbar PR is not something that Google uses for its internal maths...

[dazzlindonna]

I cited a Google engineer. That's as reputable and authoritative as I can ever possibly cite. If that's not good enough, dont read my posts.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

Well, if you feel there is a credible, intelligible explanation of how any page can pass Toolbar PageRank (which is a proxy value that is itself derived from Internal PageRank), please post a link and I'll be glad to look at it. But I ain't ever seen any such explanation, and I've ready plenty of them.

It would take a real crackpot to argue that a derivative approximation is being passed around by Web pages.

A simple rounding off of a value hardly warrants the air of mystery you are attributing it. Yes, PageRank is in a state of flux, and yes, what we see on the toolbar is not to the same decimal precision it is when the actual weight factor is calculated in ranking... but the two are still identical in the very essential factor that you and every other person who tries to sound smart by differentiating between the two seem to miss. It is a linear value that we are talking about here.

If we were talking about the fact that Internal PageRank is made up of, say, x amount of Blue Mana, and y amount of Red Mana, and z amount of Yellow Mana... and the toolbar was the conglomeration that was only expressed as a color you could in no way shape or form garner the true importance of from because it only shows a single value, then you would have a point. But it's not like that. It is still simply a scale from 0 to whatever, and that's it. It doesn't measure relevancy, it doesn't measure competition, it doesn't measure age of site, or take into account algorithmic penalties... so what it does offer in the way useful information is not as straight forward as many would make it out to be... but what it does show is there to be seen.

Pages do pass PageRank through links. The toolbar is a representation of that PageRank, albeit just a snapshot in time.

Say that X is 8.7, and Y is 7.8, but since we are only shown floor(X) and floor(Y). Essentially what you're saying is that there is no way to evaluate if(X>Y), because the values are derivative approximations of the real values.

-Michael

[A.N.Onym]

You guys are funny. I thought it was well known that there are several PageRanks and the Toolbar PageRank has the least resemblance of how much links the pages have. Given that the total amount of links really doesn't give that much info on how good your site is or how much traffic you get, the PR value is well near zero to me.

Also, Wit, it is quite natural for a well structured website to have its internal pages to have a homepage PR-1 value. However, when you see a page with PR0 on the same site, it means its PR was not updated and should be in three months. Now, if you have seen a well interlinked page not get a PR value in more than 6 months, that's another matter altogether.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by A.N.Onym

You guys are funny. I thought it was well known that there are several PageRanks...

Where'd you get that from?

-Michael