<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SEO MythBuster Revisited: Inbound Links</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/</link>
	<description>search engine optimization information from our seo blog and seo forum</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:22:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Seo Design Solutions</title>
		<link>http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-38945</link>
		<dc:creator>Seo Design Solutions</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-38945</guid>
		<description>I have to agree with Hamlet on this one. It's really about the link profile of the page in question and the rate in which they acquire links. For a site that has a proven diverse fundamentally sound range of IP diversity and anchor text in the links originating from non-linked IP addresses, you can essentially mix this with others types of link building to put on thousands of links in a few weeks with no penalty.

Granted, if you have been steadily building your link momentum and velocity as a result of ramping up. This is like a scraper from blog spot trying to oust the original site for keywords from reproducing an article and lay claim to the keywords and tags. Eventually the algorithm determines where the fluke is, pulls a highlander on them and puts the authority where it belongs. At least, in the examples I have seen on a daily basis for spammy sites trying to throw monkey wrenches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with Hamlet on this one. It&#8217;s really about the link profile of the page in question and the rate in which they acquire links. For a site that has a proven diverse fundamentally sound range of IP diversity and anchor text in the links originating from non-linked IP addresses, you can essentially mix this with others types of link building to put on thousands of links in a few weeks with no penalty.</p>
<p>Granted, if you have been steadily building your link momentum and velocity as a result of ramping up. This is like a scraper from blog spot trying to oust the original site for keywords from reproducing an article and lay claim to the keywords and tags. Eventually the algorithm determines where the fluke is, pulls a highlander on them and puts the authority where it belongs. At least, in the examples I have seen on a daily basis for spammy sites trying to throw monkey wrenches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blogs for Money</title>
		<link>http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-23855</link>
		<dc:creator>Blogs for Money</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-23855</guid>
		<description>I believe recently someone from Google acknowledged that although difficult, it was possible to trash someone elses rankings this way :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe recently someone from Google acknowledged that although difficult, it was possible to trash someone elses rankings this way :(</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MPrough</title>
		<link>http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-20580</link>
		<dc:creator>MPrough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-20580</guid>
		<description>I totally agree, these links don't hurt websites...webmasters hurt websites.  The only occasions I believe there can truly be any damage is the case above where the sites might be on the same C Block....and in the case of site wide ricip links.  One recip link might escape the radar...but site wide will probably ring the bell!

There was only one time I asked for a link to be removed...One of my sites was picked up by a porn crawler, and they linked to my main page from over 1000 pages.  They hit on a keyword "Baby" in their crawling algo.  

I have no idea if there would have been actual damage, but I asked them to remove it for prosperity.  I saw the link pretty quickly and they reacted in the same manner....not trying to prove of disprove that theory with a site that's doing very well. =-)

Melanie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I totally agree, these links don&#8217;t hurt websites&#8230;webmasters hurt websites.  The only occasions I believe there can truly be any damage is the case above where the sites might be on the same C Block&#8230;.and in the case of site wide ricip links.  One recip link might escape the radar&#8230;but site wide will probably ring the bell!</p>
<p>There was only one time I asked for a link to be removed&#8230;One of my sites was picked up by a porn crawler, and they linked to my main page from over 1000 pages.  They hit on a keyword &#8220;Baby&#8221; in their crawling algo.  </p>
<p>I have no idea if there would have been actual damage, but I asked them to remove it for prosperity.  I saw the link pretty quickly and they reacted in the same manner&#8230;.not trying to prove of disprove that theory with a site that&#8217;s doing very well. =-)</p>
<p>Melanie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-19791</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:27:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-19791</guid>
		<description>I read in a SEO/SEM magazine that link farms can cause an issue like this and to stay away from them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read in a SEO/SEM magazine that link farms can cause an issue like this and to stay away from them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 4eyes</title>
		<link>http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-19286</link>
		<dc:creator>4eyes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seorefugee.com/seoblog/2007/07/26/seo-myth-revisited-inbound-links/#comment-19286</guid>
		<description>Skitzzo
"any logic even" - all the logic you need is there.

The fact that you don't know how to do a tightly controlled test is not suprising.

I get increasingly frustrated at newbies posting poorly researched nonsense as linkbait, and have little interest in training you up on SEO in general, so why not jsut go straight to the source:

Quote from Matt Cutts:
"piling links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "

This topic is now officially dead - next linkbait please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Skitzzo<br />
&#8220;any logic even&#8221; - all the logic you need is there.</p>
<p>The fact that you don&#8217;t know how to do a tightly controlled test is not suprising.</p>
<p>I get increasingly frustrated at newbies posting poorly researched nonsense as linkbait, and have little interest in training you up on SEO in general, so why not jsut go straight to the source:</p>
<p>Quote from Matt Cutts:<br />
&#8220;piling links onto a competitor&#8217;s site to reduce its search rank isn&#8217;t impossible, but it&#8217;s extremely difficult. &#8221;</p>
<p>This topic is now officially dead - next linkbait please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
