<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Buying Links Could Cost You</title>
	<link>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: aaron wall</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/#comment-125</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/#comment-125</guid>
					<description>I think most good websites link at least slightly off topic once in a while. That isn't really going to hurt you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think most good websites link at least slightly off topic once in a while. That isn&#8217;t really going to hurt you.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Matt DeAngelis</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/#comment-124</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:58:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/#comment-124</guid>
					<description>Very interesting.  

While I think this may catch the blatanly paid-for links, what about links that are off-topic but relevant to the blogger?  For example, I am putting a link section on my link pages for non-marketing related sites that I like.  

And I think this actually makes it worse.  Many of those characteristics apply to non-paid links as well.  As I said on SitePoint, the only person who should decide link relevancy on my site is ME.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting.  </p>
<p>While I think this may catch the blatanly paid-for links, what about links that are off-topic but relevant to the blogger?  For example, I am putting a link section on my link pages for non-marketing related sites that I like.  </p>
<p>And I think this actually makes it worse.  Many of those characteristics apply to non-paid links as well.  As I said on SitePoint, the only person who should decide link relevancy on my site is ME.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: aaron wall</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/#comment-123</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.affiliateblog.com/2006/03/buying-links-could-cost-you/#comment-123</guid>
					<description>How Google may detect paid links:
-Typically paid links are not exceptionally topically relevant.
- Typically paid links have the keyword topics in the anchor text.
- Typically sites that are heavily buying links do not have that many natural inbound citations.
-Often paid links are sitewide or in a large section of a site.
-Paid links are frequently not near the page content, and may even be in a block of links that are close to one another.
-Many people selling links sell them to sites that are obvious buyers.
-Many people buying links buy them from sites that are obvious sellers.
-Google can sorta cross reference the two and figure out many of the most obvious link buys from that.

Most sites that sell paid links do not lose their own authority or rankings in Google. What Google usually does is not allow those sites to cast outbound votes for anyone (ie: none of thier outbound links count in the relevancy algorithms). 

Although Google will index links to pages they find from sites that have their PageRank blocked those same links will not pass link authority.

While that may sound harsh at first, if a site has great readership then some of those readers will probably link at the most useful resources referenced on the more popular site that may have had its ability to pass PageRank blocked for selling links.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How Google may detect paid links:<br />
-Typically paid links are not exceptionally topically relevant.<br />
- Typically paid links have the keyword topics in the anchor text.<br />
- Typically sites that are heavily buying links do not have that many natural inbound citations.<br />
-Often paid links are sitewide or in a large section of a site.<br />
-Paid links are frequently not near the page content, and may even be in a block of links that are close to one another.<br />
-Many people selling links sell them to sites that are obvious buyers.<br />
-Many people buying links buy them from sites that are obvious sellers.<br />
-Google can sorta cross reference the two and figure out many of the most obvious link buys from that.</p>
<p>Most sites that sell paid links do not lose their own authority or rankings in Google. What Google usually does is not allow those sites to cast outbound votes for anyone (ie: none of thier outbound links count in the relevancy algorithms). </p>
<p>Although Google will index links to pages they find from sites that have their PageRank blocked those same links will not pass link authority.</p>
<p>While that may sound harsh at first, if a site has great readership then some of those readers will probably link at the most useful resources referenced on the more popular site that may have had its ability to pass PageRank blocked for selling links.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
