Is link building unethical?
July 7, 2008
A thread got started at a popular marketing forum recently, and one poster (who appears to be pretty new to Internet Marketing), stated that my 3WayLinks.net link building service was "dishonest", "immoral" and "unethical." Those were his exact words. He didn't say that he "felt" it was that way, he applied an across the board, no-contest judgment regarding the service.
I responded with a series of questions asking whether or not he felt writing articles to get backlinks is unethical, or posting comments to blogs was unethical, or using social bookmarking sites for backlinks was unethical. The user never answered these questions, so I can only assume that he was unable to do so without undermining his original argument. He continued, however, with a series of arguments which I responded to and, in my opinion, debunked. Numerous other users chimed in to support and agree with my position, but there were some on the other side of the fence as well.
I felt there was something to be learned from the debate, and I wanted to share my perspective on link building with my readers here. Your position may be completely opposite, or you may be somewhat in line with my opinion or somewhat out of line with my opinion. But here's how I feel about it:
The basic argument from the other side of the debate appears to be that any "artificial manipulation" of the search results is dishonest, including link building. I can't say this absolutely, as the other person refused to answer my questions in order for me to have a completely clear understanding of their point of view. However, it certainly appeared that this person felt anything even remotely appearing to violate Google's Webmaster Guidelines is morally wrong.
I've heard this argument before, and I disagree with it for a number of reasons.
Problem #1: Defining "the rules"
First of all, in order for something to be unethical, you have to have a consistent set of standards by which to judge the action. To make this clear, let's use an unethical act that I think everyone will agree on: theft.
Theft is defined at Dictionary.com as "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny." Simply put, if somebody has something that does not belong to you, and you take it without permission, it's theft. I don't think there are many people who would disagree with that.
Let's contrast that with link building, using Google's Webmaster Guidelines as our "rules." Here's what Google suggestions you do in terms of building links:
- Have other relevant sites link to yours.
- Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
- Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
Notice how vague these guidelines are. Let's go through them one at a time.
1. Have other relevant sites link to yours.
Okay, the problem here is the lack of definition of what constitutes a relevant site. For some, it would mean only sites that are based on the same subject matter. That is, if you have a site that is generally about arthritis pain relief, they feel you should only get links from arthritis-related sites.
The problem with that point of view is that it fails to take into account the vast range of subjects that fall into that category. For instance, as was shown in a previous blog post, such diverse subjects such as swimming, cycling, weight loss, vitamins, different types of fat, comfortable furniture, etc. can all be related to arthritis pain relief. So is it okay to get links from weight loss sites or furniture sites to your arthritis pain relief site? Given the lack of specifics, that can only be labeled a personal question, not an ethical one.
2. Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
Again, vagueness is the culprit here. Frankly, since I know that links from other sites are what rank my sites in Google, I'd like every site to know that mine is online! That means getting links from as many sites, in as many categories as possible. Without a better definition of what Google means, it's impossible for everyone to share the same viewpoint of this recommendation.
3. Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
The same problems that exist with #1 and #2 exist with #3. What defines "relevant"? What defines "industry-specific expert sites"? From what we're given by Google, it's left for us to decide.
So, in contrast with the pretty straightforward unethical act of theft, link building can hardly be considered an indisputable breach of ethics. Now, it certainly can be relegated to a decision of one's conscience. If a person doesn't feel that building links would be right, they certainly have the option of not doing so — and I don't advocate doing anything that doesn't sit well with your inner radar. However, to claim that others are dishonest or unethical because of link building would not be appropriate, because the standards put in front of us leave a huge amount of leeway for interpretation.
This is true in many aspects of our everyday life, too. For example, we've all been taught that we should be "kind" to people, and most would agree that we should. But to what degree, and in what situations is left up to our own conscience to decide. In the end I believe we will find out whether or not we did what was right from a higher authority, but to try and group building links to your website into a great moral or ethical issue is nonsense in my opinion.
Problem #2: "The rules" aren't rules!
The second big problem in the "unethical linking" argument is that the "rules" everyone refers to aren't rules, and Google never calls them rules. They are referred to as "guidelines." Guidelines are generally much looser in their approach then rules.
For instance, "the speed limit is 30 m.p.h." is a rule. However, "you need to drive slowly" is a guideline which relies on your own personal view of what "slowly" means. There is a point at which virtually everyone would agree that another person is not driving "slowly" in a given situation, but there's also a lot of gray area where people would disagree.
Google can't call their guidelines rules because they are intentionally vague. Google seems to feel that creating too strict a set of rules would give away too much information about how their algorithm works, and so they make vague statements bordering on being almost useless.
Problem #3: I can design my website any way I want to.
The third problem with the "unethical linking" argument is that it fails to accept the fact that, as a webmaster, I have the right to design my site any way I see fit. Just as taking an object out of my house can't be considered stealing (since I own the object), the act of adding links to my site to whatever other sites I choose cannot be considered unethical.
This third point is really where the "unethical" argument breaks down. After all, as webmasters we have not entered into any kind of agreement with Google. We have not agreed to abide by their guidelines. We have signed no contracts. Google has not requested our permission to crawl and index our sites, and they do not give us any kind of compensation for the act of doing so. What Google does, Google does of its own accord and without permission.
Granted, it's in our best interest to be indexed and rank well in Google, so we want to try and do what we can to that end, but they have not asked our permission and give us no direct compensation for using our content.
So if a group of webmasters setup their sites in a way that they know will help them rank well in Google, and Google crawls those sites, counts those links and ranks those pages, can that be defined as unethical? Google has made the choice to index and rank the sites. They don't have to do so, and if they change their minds about it, they can always remove sites they feel should not be in their index.
I see services such as 3WayLinks.net like a farmer's co-op. In a farmer's co-op, a group of farmers join forces to be able to have more buying power and get cheaper rates for equipment and supplies. It's in a smaller farmer's best interests to join so that they can compete with the "big dogs" of their industry and not be priced out of the market.
My linking service serves the same purpose. The "big dogs" of the web can afford to get huge numbers of links aimed at their sites through a variety of means (some Google sanctioned, some not). 3WayLinks.net is a "linking co-op", where the smaller guys can join forces to help each other compete with the larger sites. You may or may not agree, but that's how I see it and why I created it.
Problem #4: We have no relationship with Google.
A webmaster's relationship with Google cannot be equated to a user's relationship with a site for which they have an account. When you create an account with an interactive site, you usually agree to their terms of service, and so any actions you take interacting with that site must abide by those terms. Thus, when MySpace sued a spammer, they won, because the spammer had violated the terms they agreed to.
However, we've never "created an account" with Google. We never invited Google to our site. They just assume you want them there (and who doesn't?) and so they crawl and index the site. But if our site is doing something Google doesn't like, we have not violated any kind of agreement, and they have no right to take any legal action.
From my perspective, all search engine optimization is a risk/reward scenario. You have to be smart about how you interpret Google's guidelines, because they certainly have the right to remove your site if you're doing something they don't like. But as the owner of the site, you have the right to create it and link to it in any way you see fit (as long as you have permission to put links where you are putting them — more on that in a bit).
Problem #5: What are the real "rules" anyway?
Also, I don't think that Google's Webmaster Guidelines are what define the real "rules" of Google. They can't, because they're far too vague. The real definition of the rules is Google's algorithm. The problem with these "rules" is that they are constantly changing as the Google team modifies that algorithm. So what works well today may not work well tomorrow. That's why it's so important to diversify your search engine optimization and link building methods, which will help insulate you from future changes that are sure to come.
I can't tell you how many threads on webmaster forums I've read where people are crying that they "did everything right" and Google obliterated their rankings in a major update. So is it really Google's Webmaster Guidelines that sets the rules, or is it their algorithm?
This behavior on Google's part has lead some to abandon the "white hat" theory of search engine optimization all together. Personally, I don't wear hats. Let me tell you why.
I don't wear hats: white, gray or black.
You've probably heard of the three "hats" of search engine optimization. They are generally thought of like so:
- White Hat - You do everything Google recommends in their guidelines.
- Gray Hat - You don't do what Google recommends, but you don't misuse other people's web sites for your own gain.
- Black Hat - You don't do what Google recommends, and you don't mind misusing other people's web sites for your own gain.
The "white hat" is a fantasy, some great ideal held up before people that doesn't exist. How can there be a true "white hat" when Google does not give specifics in their guidelines, and does not publish their algorithm? Also, since Google's algorithm is always changing, today's "white hat" is tomorrow's "unacceptable practice." To make matters worse, since we have no specific rules from Google, all webmasters have to go based on their own interpretation of Google's vague guidelines, so at best the hat is "light gray."
I don't like the label "gray hat" either, though, since that assumes that you are doing something "sorta" wrong by ignoring Google's guidelines, but you're not. You have the right to build your site any way you want. Of course, Google has the right to penalize or remove your site from their search results, but that's a quality decision, not a moral judgment.
I do, however, believe in the "black hat" label. Using other people's web properties without their knowledge or consent for your own selfish gain is very unethical in my mind. An example of this is blog comment spam. Stuffing thousands of comments into unsuspecting blogs in the hope that you can get some back links from those comments when you've never even read the blog posts is unethical to me, and I would never engage in such a practice. So I don't wear that hat either.
The difference between using an unsuspecting blog for comment spam, and designing a site to rank well in Google, is that Google comes to you. Google crawls and indexes your site of their own volition. The blog owner does not come to you and ask that you put comments on their blog for the sole purpose of your personal gain. Google, on the other hand, wants your content and indexes it accordingly. One similarity between the two, though, is that the blog owner can make the decision to delete a comment they feel is inappropriate for their blog, and Google, too, has the right to remove sites it feels are not of the quality they want in their index.
The Bottom Line: It's your decision.
I don't believe in the mantra, "it's not personal, it's business." I strongly believe that your personal ethics and beliefs should very much effect every aspect of your life, including your business. That said, there are situations that are simply business decisions. There are risk/reward decisions that every business has to make. "Will this advertisement help me make sales, or hurt my image?" Those kinds of decisions have to be made all the time, and there are good and bad consequences associated with those decisions.
To me, as long as you're not doing anything that steals links or content from other web sites, search engine optimization is a risk/reward decision, not an ethical one. "Will this hurt my rankings in Google, or will it help it?" There's always risk involved.
Google used to love reciprocal links, and so people got reciprocal links. Then Google changed their minds and decided one-way links were more valuable, and a lot of those reciprocally linking sites fell out of the rankings. Was Google right in their determination that one-way links are better than reciprocal? It doesn't matter, because it wasn't an ethical decision on their part — it was a business decision, and they had the right to make that decision.
Were the owners of those sites who linked to each other reciprocally "unethical"? My opinion is No, because it wasn't an ethical decision on the part of the site owners either, but a business decision which they had the right to make.
What about being a part of the very successful 3WayLinks network, or writing articles for backlinks, or creating blogs and posting to them for linking purposes, or posting to social bookmarking sites for the purpose of traffic and links? Are those actions "unethical"?
The real question is, "What do YOU think?" Please post your thoughts and comments below.
Comments
166 Responses to “Is link building unethical?”
"Google can't call their guidelines rules because they are intentionally vague. Google seems to feel that creating too strict a set of rules would give away too much information about how their algorithm works, and so they make vague statements bordering on being almost useless."
Not only that, but they're able to arbitrarily apply said rules to any situation they see fit. Like you mentioned later in the post, one day they like something and it's A-OK, the next day it's an offense that'll get you dropped from the SERPs.
Link building is not only ethical it is the only way to assure long term traffic short of paying for it all of the time.
Any internet business owner who is working to get visitors knows the importance of building backlinks anyway they can.
Anyone arguing with you over this fact will not be in business next year unless they are buying their traffic another way.
John,
Great post. I really have to agree with you. It's up to us how we use our time and websites. We all need links and as long as you are not abusing someone I say get all the links you need however you can without exploiting someone else.
Links bring rank and visitors to our sites. Without them why should we even build a site?
There is more to the internet than Google and more places to get traffic. Places like 3way links actually help webmasters build their business.
John thanks again and great post as always,
Michael
Yes sir! Tell like it is Jon! Right on as usual.
Buddy
Hi john,
I agree…How can you "follow the rules" when they are not well defined and changing daily.
There are some ways of getting SEO that are pretty black hat where the actual purpose is only to fool the search engines "while they can", but on the subject of relevant links…many things are related and relevant without being obvious.
Your example of Arthritis…is a very good one.
How can you effectively debate a subject if the opposing side will not answer your questions?
That seems like a better question than…"is using back links unethical?"
Thanks for the information!
Scott
I personally believe that you have an ethical and moral responsible to yourself and your family to avail yourself of all reasonable (not illegal) means of promoting your website, including three-way linking.
You eloquently wrote what I have thought for a long time. Great article.
You're spot on, Jon! As I see it, your service and others like it are a voluntary means of building backlinks to their sites. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, not even Google. We live in a gray hat world, and the fact that Google offers only guidelines is license enough in my mind. Spam is one thing; using co-ops, articles, social posts and more is another. The whole point of the social web is to get your message heard in as many places as possible, so get to it!
Thanks Jonathan.
My only problem with 3-way-linking is what if Google devices a way to find out about them (not too hard imho) and does the same thing to those sites that are using 3-way-linking that they did to the sites that used to use link-farms - devalue them and show them no where in the search engines?
Thats why I prefer link baiting techniques over any other link building tactics. Create a free widget that people will link to.
Johnathan,
As usual, you've made a very compelling case for your side. I agree wholeheartedly that we are free to do what we want with our own websites and are free to interpret 'guidelines' or 'rules' from search engines like Google.
Unfortunately, the most vocal participants in online communities also tend to be the most close-minded! The person accusing you of being "dishonest", "immoral" and "unethical" is not very bright.
Ever notice that the loudest complainers are the least successful?
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
– Mark Twain
Regards,
Jim
Google is extremely vague, and you really don't know what you've done that is right or wrong in their mind. My top site has been penalized in Google, and it happened in March of 2008. I have even hired a consultant to help me find out and fix the problem, and I have yet to get it fixed. I have links from social bookmarking sites, web directories, links from other blogs, and some from article directories. What happened? I can only assume that Google manually reviewed the site and did not like it. But have I built links unethically? Doubtful, I have done what any webmaster who wants to succeed does, get links!
By the way, anyone that knows anything about Google penalties would sure make a friend if they could help me out here.
I love it. You put it right on the mark. Way to go Jonathon.
I am not sure any one could have put it any better.
Have a good one and thanks for the read.
William
If link building were unethical Google would not have built there entire business model on this concept. They made the rules and published white papers telling us to actively look for relevant links and to try to have related sites link back to us.
I think your poster is simply 'winding you up' and is not worthy of an answer!
Jon, you pretty well hit the nail on the head here.
Google does NOT own the internet, nor are they the "moral guardians" of what's right & wrong when it comes to getting high rankings in any search engines, including theirs.
We let them spider & index our content for free, with NO expectation that we will be given any compensation for it, in the hopes that we will somehow gain some good rankings for our site, and get traffic (for free) from them.
That's the deal we all work under, but it's all unofficial - there's no contract, no law, and no moral judgement on high for this situation. It's just a business arrangement that works for some and not for others.
Just because the Postal Service delivers your letters, doesn't mean it's illegal for you to manually deliver your own mail to whomever you wish to receive it. That's a ridiculous idea, yet this person seems to be thinking similarly…
At the end of the day, you can easily block your site from any search engines if you want - that's your choice, just the same as it's their choice to delete you from their index.
There's no moral issue here, notwithstanding the black hat scenarios you mentioned, so perhaps your writer just needs to take a chill pill and realise the true facts of this situation.
People believe many things that turn out to be wrong, for any number of reasons. This is one of them, along with the earth being flat, at the center of the solar system and honest politicians
Eran Malloch
AdWords Management Services
Ankesh:
Now YOUR response is a well thought out business decision. While I feel that I've made the 3WL network incredible difficult to detect or "algo-out" of Google, it's a risk/reward decision.
And yes, link bait is great! Of course, the person who was on the other side of the debate would probably call it "unethical."
I believe that one-way links should have a higher value than reciprocal but admit that all website promotion teams want to be number one in google.
Google have an extremely tough job to try and get the most useful sites in the top of the search engines.
Cheers
Mally
If I was the most knowledgeable person in the world on dog training issues but didn't do basic SEO tactics on my blog, didn't do any keyword research or ask my visitors to vote for me on Digg and other bookmarking sites and networks….
If I didn't promote myself in any way and just worked on the "if you build it they will come" principle it wouldn't matter how brilliant my content was because nobody would ever see it.
So, QED as far as the anti-link lobby is concerned, asking for a vote on Digg, using 'All In One SEO' plugin on Wordpress and trying to get a good 'title' to your blog post so people might choose to click on it is also immoral, ungodly, yadda yadda?
Why are we even discussing it - the world is full of guys such as this ( who, if he has a site or blog, appears on page 437 and can only envy my SE rankings and readership).
Sweet!
"3. Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites."
How did they become industry-specific expert sites? That's right - by getting links.
I haven't looked at your link building setup. I am not writing to agree or disagree with the concept. I do however disagree completely with "Make Money at Home." I will definitely be in business next year, and have been making 100% of my real estate income from my web sites for years.
I do not ask for links, give links in exchange for links, or pay in any way to somehow build links. I also do no Adwords marketing. The goal of Google and all other search engines is to further the most important feature of the Internet…information exchange. When links from one site to another do not take a visitor to HIGHLY relevant content, they are not furthering the goals of the engines. That's why they are constantly attempting to uncover link exchange schemes and devalue those links.
I get links, including some from very high profile sites like Realtor.org, by writing content to which they believe a link will benefit their visitors directly. The content exists, they see it, and they decide to link to it or comment on it. In turn, when I find content of interest, and think that it will benefit my readers, I write commentary and link to it, with a text link in a post or article. This is the basic premise that makes for a highly beneficial web experience.
I would not call anyone's practices dishonest, unethical or immoral. I will say that I think any links not done in the context of commentary and highly relevant material are not a service to the visitor who may click on them.
Right On Jonathan.
There was nothing in your linkbuilding post that I thought was unethical, let alone immoral.
Guidelines are just that, guidelines. Just like you most marketers are ethical and are just trying to increase their SE rankings within Googles guidelines. And let us not forget that if you are doing something wrong, Google will definitely let you know they don't like what you are doing.
So I intend to continue posting on blogs and using social bookmarking sites in order to build incoming links to my sites and blogs until Google says you can't do that anymore.
Hi Jon, what's the difference between paying for your link service, and buying advertising? (adwords)
They both are basically buying links, and Google makes 95% of their money that way.. Something to think about..
Hi Jon,
I'm so glad that we were all able to gain valuable information from what must have been a frustrating one-way argument from the internet marketer you mentioned.
How does anybody expect to be taken seriously when they try to accuse you of things but won't respond when asked about the charges?
Great stuff as usual, Jon.
Jeff
I think the argument claiming link building to be unethical is made by folks that just don't understand web development and marketing.
I link to your site because it is a place that I think is a good site and related to mine, how is that wrong? Perhaps it can be scene as self serving, but really, you also benefit the site you link to.
If you had a brick and mortar business, would it be unethical to notify your customers/clients of other businesses that have a similar product/service?
Thanks for the great article.
Jeromy
Just as you said - You're linking with people who agreed to participate in the program, and you're not misusing anyone's else's site without permission, and Google is voluntarily crawling and indexing sites as they see fit. No one is violating any agreements. Google is a business, not a religion or moral philosophy. Calling link building dishonest or unethical is simply silly.
I agree with you 100%. Some people love to act superior and judge other people.
If something were CLEARLY unethical -like some sort of law or something then you can call it that.
For example- lying is unethical. Who's lying with your 3 way link building? No one. That's more like partnering up with someone for mutual benefits. Is that wrong? Absolutely not.
It irks me that some people just love to point the finger at others without evaluating what they are saying.
all the best,
Eren
If you count the number of times a Wikipedia link is quoted on a unrelated website you'd have to declare WIkipedia unethical. Don't even get me started on Googles antics for ranking…maybe that should be the topic of unethical…
From a purely "religious" point of view, of course link building is not dishonest, immoral, OR unethical!
However, from a systems point of view - there *may* be something unethical or dishonest in obtaining links for the sole purpose of obtaining links, If the link doesn't ADD value for the majority of visitors, it certainly will limit the value of that link. Eventually, all links will be suspect, and Google would have no choice but to remove links from their pagerank algorithm.
For example, if everyone who sold account LEDGERS linked to your site just because your last name sounded like their product… your pagerank might do very well, but would you really be receiving targetted visitors through those links? Not really - and once Google noticed that, they'd most likely slap you and reduce your page rank accordingly.. so really, what did you gain except a temporary bump?
HOWEVER, well thought out link building will most certainly help your pagerank, AND drive targetted traffic to your site. And I see nothing immoral, dishonest, or unethical about THAT! In fact, you're a hero for providing another high quality site for your targetted traffic.
So, Jonathan - how's it feel to be a hero?
Hi Jon,
Really liked your article. Google has become the fed. gov. of the internet. We have to follow their rules or face the consequences.
How many lawsuites has google faced for copyright infrigment and other things. Because they are the power brokers of the internet they get them buried and keep on with their practices but they then try to tell us what we can or can not do or they will put us in their sand box.
I feel that as long as we are not doing anything unethical or moraly wrong we should get links we can.
If an unethical marketer pay his money to google adwords his ad is at the top of the list. Is this fair, they may not be the best source of a product or program but money talks.
Sorry for the rant, have a few bones to pick with google I guess.
Herb
Jonathan,
I think each time I hear you explain your position on this I agree with it a bit more. I think I really get it now and you "FarmersCo-op" example really did it.
Thank you for sharing this forum hubub with us!
Alex Newell
I don't see anything unethical about 3-way linking per se. Your plan seems like a good one, except of course for the price tag.
I would love to see the kind of service you offer for a lower price.
A link is a link is a link. However they are aquired is up to the individual. If they want to manually get links to their sites, let them. I will blow them away in the search engine ranking. I believe in working smarter, not harder. So in this case, I have an account at 3waylinks. I firmly believe my affliliate sites would not be raking in the cash the way they do now if not for the 3waylinks service. The service is worth it in my opinion, and I thank John for creating it. I also hope you keep raking in the cash with it, so you are motivated to keep the service on top of changes SE's may make!
I also pay for the services of others at the DP forums to submit my websites to directories, blog posts, etc. to get as many links as I can. What is the difference between this and the 3waylinks service? NONE
Way to go, Jon!
Why do you worry about a "heckler" who, because of his lack of response to your challenge, appears to be just attention seeking.
Google will soon let you know if you're doing anything dishonest or illegal.
*******************
If you ate today,
thank a farmer
*******************
I strongly object to the fact that Google uses Backlinks as a guage of a sites worth at all ! This is especially true in the retail and
services trade. Why in the world would I want to provide my competitors a link from my site to theirs ? Answer: Only because
at this point in time it is forced upon me by the search engines.
Here is where it is at:
Manufacturers and distributors will only provide a link within their
Dealer Locators, if they have one - If they provide a like for my site,
then they are obligated to do the same for all of their dealers or
risk losing their business.
There are a few trade directories out there, but they are not providing any "authority" only a directory which in many cases
requires a link back to them to get listed, or they charge a fee
for the link. So the actually provide no real indication of my sites
content!
Dealers competing within the same market will not provide one way links, as it can only harm their business and cannot possibly help them.
So when it is all said and done, we all play a game of reciprical linking on a page within our sites that hopefully no one but Google
will ever find ?
Even the suggestion of getting links from Yahoo and the Open Directory make no sense - Yahoo will list almost any site that is willing to pay the $300.00 fee and open directory is and has been
for as long as I have been involved in internet marketing, so far
behind in processing and evalulating submissions that by the time they get around to you, you have died, gone out of business,
or are sucessfull enough thay you really don' t care about them any more.
While I am letting off steam here, if the Google's algorithm is so great, why every time I search for a product do I have to wade thru
all of the "garbage" like bizrate, ebay, and a whole bunch of other
Directories - that contain no content whatsoever? If I wanted to search somewhere else, I would have done so, I do not need Google to provide sites the simply make me start the search all over again!
The fact is, if nobody knows your site exists, who will visit? No links equals no traffic… no traffic equals no links from other web masters who find your site is relevant and of interest to their visitors.
If nobody built links, Google would have to put their algorithm back 10 years and all of that quality search goodness would be undone.
We all agree that Google is a important factor in the internet world today, but many people think google is master of the univer eehhmm internet. It is not. Of caourse we do things to rank better because it is important to us or because we built our businesses on it. But what if another company took over the leading role? One with another algorithm? Would then what is now "ethical" be unethical because the rules have changed with the market leader? No, I don't think so.
What is ethical and what not is something you have to make out with your conscience and not with what other forum posters or google say.
Nice Article, Jon, Thanks
John,
I am not concerned with your including your links to 3way in your posts. BUT I am REALLY incensed that you would go to that person's house and FORCE them to click on your link. LOL
Is this for real?? With all the legitimate scams on the Web, he picks a spat with someone as upfront and ethical as you?
Well, keep up the good work.
Tim Cumberland
Link building is the current state of play. If link building is the currency of traffic in this day and age, who won't follow suit other than the web masters who are happy with unranked web sites?
Hi, Jon,
You're absolutely correct in that Google's policies are deliberately vague. I would go so far as to say that they are that way not only for the reasons you stated, but also because it makes it easier for Google to arbitrarily decide a web site doesn't meet their guidelines. They are free to interpret them as they choose at any given moment, so the same should be true for us. We're the ones taking the risk of being slapped, however.
A friend of mine has recently run afoul of Google on two of her sites. She asked what it was they didn't like about the sites and was only told that the landing pages "did not provide a good user experience" or words to that effect. We can speculate all day long about what went into making that decision, but ultimately, it simply means that Google can and will slap any site it doesn't like for whatever reason it chooses.
The point is that any attempt to follow "rules" that vague is an exercise in futility. It simply points up the inadvisability of relying on any one strategy, especially when that strategy can be invalidated at the whim of Google.
Google tells us to get high quality back links to our site for them to be indexed higher in the searches. You are right on spot. If you have a good way to get links and everyone benefits wahoo. You go Jon.
Frank
Looks like the guy "attacking" you has the philosophy of "build a better mousetrap and the world will come". I don't think so. I KNOW it's not so. One has to promote. There are likely many great sites with no links that, because no links, no one knows about. There are obviously lots of crummy sites, with links, that one finds whenever they do a search. We, naturally, think our sites are great and so are deserving of rank. Conscious link building, with services such as yours (Jonathan's 3waylinks) are obviously a necessity unless one is just posting/writing just for ego-boo.
I do wonder, though, if the increasingly popularity of 3waylinks will eventually lead Google to track them down and slap sites using them.
So, I hope that Jonathan gets a good return from his efforts, but not an excessive amount of attention. Except from my affiliate links on other sites to him, of course.
BTW, if you ever get up to multiple sites of your own, maybe you could do a little 3way of your own with them, to avoid, say, 50 of your sites linking reciprocally to each other.
Regards, and thanks Jonathan
Realistically, ethics has no part in any of this. Different search engines value different factors. What is fine for one isn't always for another. Ethics are often down to the perception of harm… If your content is quality driven, why would it be unethical to direct visitors to it?
Jon
I think the poster on the marketing forum may have be confusing 3waylink with either a “link farm” or that 3waylnks “sold “ links. Of course this is not correct.
Without being a full member and using the system first hand, I can see how, at first view he may have been mistaken.
The sprit of reciprocal linking was original based on; I like your site, so I link to it, if you like my site, please link back. There was some personal value implied in the linking process.
3waylinks does away with the personal value. I pay 3waylinks as a service provider to supply me with 250 one way links, in return I will provide 3waylinks use of my web site to attach 250 one way links, plus a fee. I have no personal interaction or veto over the 250 links, there is no personal value. This could be corrected.
3waylinks, could first suggest the 250 links I might like to link to, giving me the option to veto any of the suggestions, and once I agree, then start linking. This does give the opportunity to provide some personal value. I think it puts the sprit of reciprocal linking back into the process.
Auto marker on the other hand is quite different. In order to vote on a post, I need to take personal action, I need to click the vote button. I also have the full control if I wish to veto a suggested post. To me this, this is very much in the sprit of the personal value link.
Both systems work in a co-op manor. Both systems work on the basis of a small number of people helping each other. So long as no one pays for links, ( Google does not accept link buying for other sites, only from Google ), and the systems do not spam links, then I see these services as providing a legitimate course of action to reciprocal link building.
Nicholas
@Jon - I absolutely agree with you from start to finish - guidelines are not rules and the only had that truly is bad is black hats.
I would even go one further saying that buying links from high ranking web sites is not a crime either; not for the buyer or the seller.
Great article!
I agree wholeheartedly with your article {snip: no personal promotion please}.
Link exchange is the lifeblood of the Internet and at its core, even Google is nothing but an automated link exchange system. Its revenue comes completely from brokering an exchange of links between webmasters. It can place my link on your site or your link on mine when we are part of it. And beside, Google is a "big boy" and can alter their algorithms any time they want (which they do).
I've had some call my system a "link farm" but I will only allow my directory on sites with quality content. It becomes a benefit to their site. The fact that Google likes it, indexes it, and uses it to find high quality human edited sites show it is not a link farm. Google, despite how awesome its algorithms are, is still dependent on human review for their search listings but their main use of them is to make sure they don't put Victoria's Secret Links on a church site. LOL
They make their money selling ads and their search engine is their algorithm testing ground and that's all.
We teach all kinds of link building as a means of getting traffic to one's website. Back links are not just for Google PR, they also are a legitmate way for people online to find your website.
We do not teach spamming, or comment spamming or any similar method that can be considered unethical.
Social Bookmarking, blog posting, article submissions, and directory submissions are all valuable AND ethical methods of creating backlinks.
And so are third party sources such as the service Jon provides
at 3waylinks.net
Thanks again Jonathan for all the serices you do provide to the Internet marketing community.
We all are farmers in the 3WL town. We all work hard on our little farms so when Mr. Google comes to visit, he likes our produce.
(Ok, i am a city girl, i know nothing about farms
I think that as long as your site is full of meaningful content there is nothing wrong with getting together and helping each other.
"First of all, in order for something to be unethical, you have to have a consistent set of standards by which to judge the action."
That's the most important point to me. Rules can't be broken if they're not defined.
If Google wants to give detailed, clearly-defined rules (and expose their algorithm), I'd be happy to follow them.
WAY TO GO JON!
At age 70 I rarely get into many freys anymore. Verbal or otherwise.
But when someone is being falsely accused of something, it gets my dander up. I have no idea who this person is, that made the statement. Nor would I want to know him. I can say that I know Jonathan Leger through two and a half years of dealing with this man. And I have made several purchases, all of which I still consider to be worth more than I paid. Having said that. The thought comes to my mind that there are a lot of "Marketers" on line that will "pedal garbage" and call it marketing. And the same can be said for the "Product Pimps" than have no qualms about taking your money for worthless junk and call that "marketing" I make no accusations toward the person in question. But it does seem strange that someone with such a high standard for "ethics" would not even answer your query, hhhmmmm………..makes one wonder doesn't it? It sorta smacks of jelousy to me!
Keep doing what you are doing, Jon. .
Hi Jon, All,
It's pretty sad to see that many people have relinquished their moral rights and obligations to a corporate entity like Google. Believe me, if I had to choose an arbiter of online moral behavior, I wouldn't pick Google. Having said that, I believe Google is providing a useful service by taking large amounts of the worlds online data (without explicit permission) and has monetized it in an extraordinary way. They have established a self-imposed rule upon the online world through the age-old means of conquest. They can impose tyrannical rule (as they have on occasion) or they can make efforts to promote a fair, even-handed approach (which we have also seen). Whatever they choose, they cannot choose themselves as online potentate for us. We as individuals must choose within the realm of common law and the law of the land, to either side with the conqueror as a collaborator relying solely on its strengths for our benefit or to side against the conqueror, leveraging both it's strengths and weaknesses to our own ends.
Jon, brilliantly argued!
For years webmasters collected as many links as they possibly could, then everyone started getting removed from the index so they made a blanket statement that link building was BAD!
So many bad decisions in history have been built on faulty logic and invalid assumptions that it amazes me sometimes that society still exists.
It's obvious that link building still works if you look at the top ten in almost every 3 word search term. For someone to say that it is unethical shows there ignorance and their inability to search for the truth on their own.
Thanks for the glimmer of light called Truth!
Well I just couldn't see the point of even starting a website if I accepted that 3 way link building, bookmarking and article writing were unethical ways to build traffic and rankings.
We are operating under search engine guidelines that are constantly changing and determining what will send us traffic and what will not.
They *have* to be moving in an effort to combat the crap that's being built out there that just barfs up a copy of everything that's gone before….with no soul or personal flair.
And because the target is always moving no matter how straight laced we think we are…..if we want traffic we have to be realistic.
We are competing against huge numbers of outsourced people doing nothing but bookmarking all day long…cranking out mostly crappy articles..submitting them 3 and 4 times per day to every ezine and article directory.
How am I, working at my desk…alone…writing articles that actually make sense and SAY something and take 40 minutes to write even be FOUND in the first place unless I begin to use the same tools…?
Gimme a break. Whoever made that comment in the forum must have nothing else to do because he has NO TRAFFIC- NO INCOME.
I think the real argument doesn't even tie into what Google thinks or not. The complaint was based on what is "unethical, immoral and dishonest" which doesn't have anything to do with how Google handles your site.
Dishonesty doesn't necessarily cross the boundaries of Illegal. So it wouldn't make sense to try and argue the point of opinion to the point of Google's rules.
I wouldn't even have bothered to debate with him using Google's Guidelines because his initial argument is based on personal opinion. Which obviously has nothing at all to do with what Google considers to be Acceptable and / or Unacceptable.
If we're focussing on 3WL, the only "gray area" if you wanted to call it that could be considered in Google's Quality Guidelines (which are pretty much their core rules to prevent from being removed by google) is the link scheme. And that would be the "Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging" and that isn't completely accurate to how 3WL operates. So its not clear-cut even in Google's guidelines like you stated.
I don't doubt that Google monitors what is and isn't acceptable on a very regular basis considering the nature of Social Networking sites and how popular they become every day. The very operation of such communities is based upon linking to and from public websites.
The only thing I would disagree with you is your part about "The rules aren't rules" though I agree to the deceptively cryptic way Google has outlined them, they clearly state that failure to pay attention to the "Quality Guidelines" may lead to penalization or complete removal. Which in essence would be Google's Rules to maintain a positive website to google relationship. They do get VERY specific with what you DON'T do in order to prevent from being penalized or removed.
Otherwise, I think the argument as a whole is a complete stunt to arouse attention. There are MANY things I would consider unethical in the "online business world of internet marketing" but 3WayLinks is not one of them.
Take Care,
Gary
Link building is really nothing more than a form of advertising, when it comes down to it. Your link, wherever you may end up putting it, is promoting your site. As long as it isn't spam or illegal, what does it matter how many or where you put them?
Jonathan, you actually missed one of the issues with "Problem #1: Defining the rules", and that is that Google is not the only search engine. Therefore if a website owner complies completely with Google's webmaster guidelines, then they may end up violating another search engine's guidelines.
Clive:
Excellent example you give there regarding a "dog training" website!
English Coast:
Too true. So it would be "ethical" for one search engine but "unethical" for another? Nonsense.
Steve:
Some VERY interesting observations regarding using linking at all in the search engine algorithm. Admittedly, in general it does appear to work better to prevent spamming than other methods, but it's far from perfect, as your point brings out.
I wonder how long before the "next big thing" in search engine technology comes out?
Nicolas:
I can understand why somebody might get that mistaken impression about 3WL, too, but this person's handling of their response to it was completely unreasonable and illogical. It's one thing to have an opinion, another entirely to play God and make judgments of other people's ethics while refusing to answer their questions or rebuttals.
Victor:
Thanks for your long-time support!
Pat London:
The person who made the comment is, in fact, a newbie to internet marketing, and self-admittedly hasn't accomplished much.
Gary:
Thanks for the detailed response and good points you make. I've ended my participation in the thread because of the person's complete lack of willingness to answer any of my questions, and stated plainly that I find it highly unethical for him to make accusations while refusing to respond to rebuttals.
Thanks for all the comments guys! Keep 'em comin'.
Way to go Jon. Logical, clear and to the point. I can only wish that your detractors were as logical…oh, but if they were, they wouldn't be detractors! Hmm!
Keep up the clear thinking…I can only wonder whether the same people who say you are immoral hold any number of REAL immoral positions themselves - on matters that really count!
Let's keep the categories straight people.
The problem is that you are conspiring to fool the public. It is immoral because that is your intention. You are actively seeking to fool people, which is a form of lying, into thinking that your sites are more popular than they are. Your intention is dishonest, so your act is dishonest. You don't want people to know the truth. Google is merely your means for spreading false information, and consciously so. But your target is the public at large, all of us.
You are right, this is not a black -v- white subject. What I can tell you is my experience of doing the slow, steady link building is rewarded far more by Google than the fast and heavy route. I have multiple sites on line going back to 1999 and up until this year I took a really slow steady campaign of building links. This year, February, I launched a new site both as a dot com and a dot co dot uk. (hosted in their respective countries for added protection). I approached the promotion of those site in two totally different ways. The dot com site was heavily promoted mainly by listing in every possible directory that could be found, it also got some good quality press through some of the big names, USA Today, Forbes, Money etc etc. The dot co dot uk was left to find its own way into Google, no link building of any sort. While both sites appeared very quickly in the Google rankings it was not long before dot com virtually vanished (into the sandbox). Dot co dot uk continues to rank very well. I have appealed to Google but to no avail. Now I am not saying that Google should be the judge and jury in these matters but, if you want to be in their index my opinion is go slow and steady and build your links over many months if not years. JMHO
Hi Jon,
I wanted to commend you on your ability to remain cool and professional with regards to your handling of your debate with this possible "newbie". It sounds like he wanted to discredit you perhaps under the guise of a "newbie". I remember a post on your blog here a while back with some arrogant and bullish reader who simply wouldn't relent with his negative thoughts on 3waylinks/linking etc. Mayhap it was that intellectual midget. Whoever it was, they obviously don't know you or your ethical practices like we do, this is there loss and our gain.
Reign on Jon
Aha! At last a dissenter:
"The problem is that you are conspiring to fool the public. It is immoral because that is your intention. You are actively seeking to fool people, which is a form of lying, into thinking that your sites are more popular than they are. Your intention is dishonest, so your act is dishonest. You don't want people to know the truth. Google is merely your means for spreading false information, and consciously so. But your target is the public at large, all of us."
This is precisely the kind of illogical statements that the other guy was making. Here's the problem with your argument David:
1) You claim that it's my intention to make sites look "more popular than they are."
That's not at all my intention. It's my intention to get the sites ranked in Google, nothing more, nothing less. If I wanted to make my site "look more popular" than it is, I would put up bogus visitor counters or something like that. So right from the get-go, you're mistaken.
2) "Your intention is dishonest, so your act is dishonest."
Seeing how you have my intentions completely wrong, that is not a judgment you are able to make with any authority.
3) "You don't want people to know the truth."
The truth of what? You are setting up illogical straw man and ad hominem arguments (arguments attacking a position I do not hold, and arguments attacking my character rather than my position, respectively).
My only intention is to get ranked well. There's no conspiracy. There's no "hiding of the truth" involved.
4) "Google is merely your means for spreading false information, and consciously so."
False information about what? You make it sound like ranking well in Google is some kind of governmental conspiracy!
The Google TOS can be interpreted in so many ways, mainly because the are so vague. That opens the door to alot of people doing things that they feel will help their sites that they may not do if Google would be alittle more specific and address newer technologies. In the long run however Google usually catchs on changes algorithms and webmsters lose in the end.
Alls fair in love, war and business!
Google is not my friend - they have their own agenda which makes them a lot of money by changing the 'rules' to suit their best interest not mine! I have no problem with this, that is the nature of business.
IMHO if your adversary in the link building debate doesn't like what you have created then he/she shouldn't use it. End of debate!
Phill
P.S. Did you notice that I and everybody that has posted here and on any of your other posts are actually sneaking links onto your blog? Please don't tell
Hi Jon,
I am just starting my sites and am not yet at the stage that I can use 3waylinks. But I can certainly see the benefits it offers. I don't understand the reason for that post against it. To me, 3way links is a smart business idea that responds effectively to the needs of internet marketing.
HiJon,
I totaly agree with your detractor !
Beginners should not enter in links schemes.
They should not post comments on blog, bookmark their sites, write articles in directories and post videos on youtube.
It's a shame !!
Shame on us …
That's true….
I have a familly to feed and I don't want so many competitors
By the way,.. I am very happy with your services, but I won't repeat it. It's a promise :-)))
And no, Big Google doesn't own the web
Alain
Six months ago, I would probably have been on the other side of this debate. But as I have become more informed, I have modified my position.
For a long time, I just built really great web sites. People loved them…I got a lot of traffic, and I made a little money with AdSense. Then web spammers (MFA site builders…as the term used to be applied) came in and spoiled the AdSense opportunity to some degree, but manipulating every possible variable of the system, while not providing any real value or uniqueness. As a result, even the income I had been making (which I had grown to depend on) was cut in half or even more.
Now that I've started paying attention to search engine rankings in an attempt to compete with other sites…I realize how ridiculously mercenary this whole system is. What exactly makes buying links wrong? What makes article marketing more noble?
Simply stated…if you're going to compete, you have to "cheat" on Google's guidelines. Why? Because their system (as superior as it may be to all others out there) is pretty lame. They still rank sites that should never be ranked…and de-rank people who should never be de-ranked…and they won't even talk to you about it. In fact, while humans are corruptible and fallible…it's the LACK of them that makes Google so problematic in determining search rankings. A human can tell within 60 seconds if a site offers real value, but an algorithm cannot. Without humans…or way better algorithms…the system does not…and cannot…work.
When Google gets its act together, I'm ready to play by the rules. I always have been. But I can't get adequate traffic by just building great sites. "Natural linking" (of which I've always been a beneficiary) CANNOT compete with artificially-gained or purchased link campaigns. By not policing its own SERPs more effectively, my hands are tied.
I believe I'm at liberty to ADVERTISE my websites anywhere I please. While I do not pay for text links, I even believe Google is way out of line going to war against those who sell them. But, even that isn't a question of ethics or morality. It's simply that it seems to upset Google's algorithim apple cart. I don't believe Matt Cutts ever characterized paid links in terms of ethics.
If I pay AdWords to advertise my site, I'm a hero in the eyes of Google's shareholders. If I advertise my site through a three way link setup, article marketing or on Squidoo and the like, I rank better, and bring my message to some who, IMO, will benefit from it. It's the way of capitalism - it pays to advertise. It's the way BUSINESS is conducted on the internet throughout the world.
Wow, Heck of an argument. I have to agree 100%, until Google figures out what their rules are and release's the algorithm information we are left to determine for ourselves what they want and what they expect.
Thanks,
Bill
Jonathan, thanks for providing some good food for thought.
Personally, I see it a number of ways.
Linking is vital as that conveys the idea that others value your site.
Links are simply doorways to more relevent information.
If the links are not relevent then I've, most likely, wasted my time.
Google increases its usefullness by returning the most relevent search results to a particular query, but as this is a new frontier, it must be mined from the billions of searches that happen daily.
Spammers have created this need for relevency by gaming the system to increase their traffic.
Now, I'm not familiar with your product but, if the three way links have some connection then the product has a benefit to the user.
If I'm looking for seat cushions and Google takes me to a site that sells bumper cars I'm gonna be ticked.
Bumper cars have seats and they might even be cushioned but, that site is useless to me.
So, I think Google is trying to increase search relevence and the consequence is they get more traffic and users.
By creating your own authority site in your chosen niche, you increase relevent traffic to your site because google sees relevent links and rewards you with high placement in their engine.
Refining is the art of removing impurities and leaving concentrated value intact.
James
Google is attempting to build a
Jon,
First of all, I have to say that internet forums are a breeding ground for people trying to make certain arguements in order to increase their post count and make their signature links appear more often…especially controversial topics.
That being said, anyone doing this is an outright hypocrite if they are trying to say that link building is immoral or wrong in any way. This is exactly what THEY are doing.
Anyhow, as an article marketer by trade, I know for sure, first-hand and confidently speaking that Google does not frown upon link building. If so, they would have found my websites by now and banned all of them from the SERPS. Quite the opposite, my sites are ranking very well, including the ones that use your 3WL.
I don't have much more to say. I know you must have taken the forum thread a lot more bitterly than I, since it is your business in question…but I really wouldn't worry about it. Until I see a change for the worse, I will continue link building and recommending 3WL to all of my clients and website visitors. And I am sure that there are thousands more out there who will do the same.
Respectfully,
Allen Graves
Great article Jon.They say it will be about how old your site is,should we just go out and buy lots of domains? We do what we have to and this man, newbie should and probable will give up internet soon.
Three points.
A) Google, et al. *use* us to sell advertising. If we we not around the search engines would have little to nothing to present in search results, would sell no advertising, and would not exist. When was the last time Google or Yahoo sent you a thank you note for providing them with all of that wonderful, spiderable content?
B) It is generally useless to "argue" with someone operating in "holier-than-thou-tunnel-vision" mode. A couple of years ago I was doing some programming work for a hospital. One of their requirements was to have information pop-up in a browser window for their patients/users. I made the sad mistake of going to a few "forums" and asking if there was any way to detect and/or circumvent pop-up blockers (for a very legitimate reason, which I explained). I swear I had third-degree burns after the flames started - I was called every name under the sun (plus a few more).
C) In the strictest sense, *any* SEO is unethical. Google has created this unattainable, idealistic, "we want *natural* search results" paradigm - theoretically all you have to do is build content and let them find it. "Don't worry, our spiders will find everything that is of value". Yeah, right.
I've been following the debate on the "popular marketing forum" for the past couple of days. It's been quite entertaining to follow this debate.
I agree with you 100% on your view points about building links. The person on the forum thinks it's unethical to build links because Google wants our sites to be so incredible that people somehow find our sites themselves and then link to our sites from there own blogs or sites.
What kind of fantasy world is he living in? If you put up a site and just wait for the traffic to come, you're going to wait forever. And about the whole "natural linking" thing, I imagine that most of the people who visit my site and like it, don't have a site or blog of there own to link back to mine.
The only semi-valid point that the person you've been debating with is when he says that it's like a reciprocal link being represented as a one way link and they feel that this is dishonest. My response to that is who gives a @$%#!
Like you said, if Google doesn't like it they can de-index your site. Until then, keep making as much money off of Googles traffic as they do off of your content.
in my mind , the dude who wrote those idiocies ….well he's just jealous of your success and instead of learning from you he justs gets up at the barricade and accuses you….OR maybeyou frigging hurt his business and he is so frigging pissed off at you..lolllllllllllll and he wish he had your success….unbelievable what jealousy can do
anyone that has ever competed in anything knows about rules. rules are made to draw a line…as a competitor you know exactly how far you want to push the lines.
There's a adage in racing…"if ya ain't cheatin…ya ain't tryin hard enough…"
Well the Internet is pretty much the same way. Do you need a drivers license to drive…I think not…only to show a cop to get your ticket…
another cool thing bout the Internet is…if you own the site…you make the rules…so get your own site and be finished with it…
gourmet coffee snob
always drink better coffee
I do believe that the original ebay site in America is linked to its daughter ebay sites in foreign lands. The same is true of the original Amazon site and its foreign daughters - and this is qute acceptable to Google.
What do you think would happen if I linked several of my own personal domain owned sites together and google found out - I would be blown out of the water!
The internet is full of inconsistensies - we have to make the best of it by being reasonable.
If you link your personal site to a hub page you have created and a squidoo page, you have thrown up, then its ok, because you don't own hub and squidoo. See what I mean by inconsistensies!!
However the greed of men and their low standards at times creates a backlash from Google and sites like Ebay as ebook sellers found out so well.
By being reasonable and not abusive and providing quality output -there will be plenty of pie to go around for all.
I have no problem with 3 way link building and as for Google they do not own the internet, however they are a force to be reckoned with and it is advisable to play their game even though they are not entirely selfless.
Well, well, well. So Google own the internet and we have to do what they require or else.
Hmm, let's see. I can't have paid links - that would interfere with Adwords revenue for Google.
I can't get better search engine results through incoming links, because that might interefere with the results shown at the very top of the results page. The ones that Google have taken money to show at the top of that page.
Hmmm.
Google are concerned with the quality of the experience searchers might have - that's why they allow almost anyone with a credit card to bid on any keyword they like to force their way into the results pages. Hey, if you pay enough you can get on the top.
At some point the entire world seems to have swallowed the myth that Google are now the world internet legislature, judiciary and executive branches all rolled into one.
There is good web traffic to be had from Google, but let's be clear: Google would not exist if we did not allow them to plunder our content and sites for their index. They exist because of us - not the other way round.
Can you imagine the reactions if I started putting other people's content on my site - without permission? Even snippets would be a problem.
Google is the biggest paid link farm in the world - and they make billions off it.
If link building is unethical we should start with Google - do you know how many Google toolbars have been downloaded? Talk about linkbait!
An excellent overview Jon. No-one has to play the (Google) game, but if they do, then play by the (Google) rules. The Google rules allow all the little dodges that you advocate, so why not?
It is a complete fallacy to believe that Google is some all-knowing and benevolent God. Importing 'ethics' from the outside world is a nonsense. This isn't a matter of internet ethics or about morality or anything else. It's about psychology - some folks just blindly accept authority figures as people to be obeyed, and usually also hold some niaive belief that they will prosper if they obey the rules. It may work with religion (we'll only ever know if we get reports back from the afterlife) but it certainly isn't true in real life, and folks like this are probably going to dire disillusioned. Sad but true. Life isn't fair, and you don't always get rewarded by doing the 'right' thing…
Hi Jon,
I followed the debate for a while and soon realised that the other party was not educated on the subject.
To question your ethics and morals is the sign of an ignorant person in my opinion.
You showed great leadership and composure. ( And got some great free advertising)
Cheers mate,
Craig McPherson
I have thought about these issues myself on more than one ocassion.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Good post Johnathan.
Hi Jon,
Excellent article on the "ethics" of link building to get sites to rank well in the SERP's - not to mention excellent defense of your 3 Way Link service.
As an affiliate marketer who relies on articles, authority sites and social bookmarking, my objective is to (1) create high quality content for the people in my niches; (2) get targeted traffic to my content ; and (3) make money providing solutions that help the people in my niches.
Google plays by their own rules - which, as has been pointed out, are vague at best, so I have no issues with leveraging sites that Google loves or manipulating their "rules" to accomplish my objectives.
.
Hello Jon,
I fully agree with you and the way you have handled on the 3 way linking matter.
Like you said Googles rules are vague and we don't fall under Googles because they are constantly changing.
The poster you are talking about probably does not have any kind of business website and has no clue as what 3 way linking or linking in general is all about.
The poster could not answer any of your questions because it sounds like to me he/she is all mouth and a know it all and arguementative.
Jon, I stand behind you 100 %.
Good job.
Wow that was a long read, bet I must say a important one as keeping up with google and ways to get your site out there are so important. I gave up my membership to 3 way links a while back and I think I might test it out again.
Thanks again for helping us reach our goals,
Sean Dell
I think that all that things with google is too much. Google have too much control over our lives. Google should be split in few indenpendent Companies while that looks like to me that few people controled all population. How can I know that all decisions from google are right?? Who give to google right to decide that link is good that back link is spam, today that algoritam, tomorow another algoritam and so on….
One more thing. if Google declared that all link building was against it's guidelines and would be detected in it's algorithim thus de-indexing the majority of listed sites, you still would have a problem.
Face it, some topics or themes are much more likely to stimulate"natural" links than others. A story about Britney Spears' latest late night escapade will draw a ton of "natural" links. My site geared to selling ball bearings doesn't stand a chance by comparison, even if I write Pulitzer Prize worthy ball bearing content for the site. I'd have to figure out how logically to tie Britney Spears to ball bearings.:)
Hi Jon
On the basis of these extracts from the Google guidelines you have quoted your 3 way linking can hardly be regarded as outsie them irrespective of any ethical position.
1. Have other relevant sites link to yours.
2. Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
Getting relevant links to your site and linking to other sites surely falls within 1.and in 2. making sure other relevant sites know about yours presumably happens as part of your membership. Your members are not likely to create irrelevant links as that would be counter-productive.
The real issue is not Google's guidelines. The issue is really one of the optimum benefit for the Internet user community.
The ideal is to have the most useful and informative sites come up in the search engines and the assumption is that what is useful and valuable is universally recognized and will automatically generate the most links and traffic without any link manipulation.
This concept is obviously false in that most article value decisions are subjective. Additionally, due to arbitrary algorithm limitations, a perfectly valid site might not get traffic. It is therefore valid for any site to take any steps necessary to gain visibility short of deception, larceny or spam.
In short, I agree with Jon.
From all that I have read and studied on SEO over this last couple of years, I can think of nothing that would go even part way to refuting any of the points you bring out here, Jon.
An excellent blog post .. beautifully crafted and your reasoning is backed up by irrefutable logic.
Thanks
Dale
Hi John
With you all the way on this mate. I'm relatively new to internet marketing but you seem to have got it spot on. A well reasoned argument.
Google give guidelines, not laws or ironclad rules. The power is always in their hands. If they don't like what you are doing , they can always remove it.
It seems to me that forums will always throw up those with an axe to grind, rarely justified and often insulting. Ignore it.
I've learned things from your response that I wasn't aware of, and I'm greatful for that. If your critic read your comments all the way through a couple of times perhaps he'd learn a few things as well.
Keep up the good work.
Michael
Now I know why my Dad used to always rail against people talking about "business ethics." There is no agreed business ethic and there is no agreed internet ethic. Not to say I think everything is a free-for-all. Like you, I draw my own personal line at abusing other people's resources; I have no qualms about gaming the search engines.
it is good,tobe succsess
Hello Jonathan,
According to my opinion, the definition of business ethic is running the business without disconnecting our good relationship with others. In other word, it can be said as win-win solution, no other persons feel as loser. For me, white hat and grey hat are ok.
Great write up! Link builing is an essential part of gaining traffic. Like you said..Google doesn't come and ask to index every website on the web.
People who don't understand lin kbuilding and think it is unethical are probably jealous or annoyed because their own 'misguided' attempts have failed.
Great post! Keep it up!
Long Live Backlinks!
one of the best thing about doing business online is there's not much rules.
lets keep it that way.
there's too much rules, too much politics in this world…that it limits creativity and only benefit certain parties.
-vv-
Hi Jonathan,
I agree with you, I think what ever work or system you use to obtain the desired results, this is your reward.
I wonder! Have they reported every single penny that they have earned on their taxes?
i believe link building is OK. However, it is not good for spamming on dropping links, or create useless webpages for Internet surfers etc.
>> Are those actions "unethical"?
No
Link building is just common sense. Links are incredibly important to online businesses and anyone who doesn't realize that won't do well.
Look at how many bloggers are turning their blogs into "do follow." They realize that anyone taking the time to add valuable content to their site should be rewarded with a link.
As one who is new to internet marketing I can't tell you how much I have appreciated your posts, Jon. Link building, in my mind, only makes sense. Link building brings in traffic and traffic brings in revenue. At least we hope it will!
Thanks for the clear and concise explanation!
Belinda
Hi John. I am retired in McKinney, TX, just up the road from you. Even as an IM newbie, I realize the utmost importance of positive leink building as an outstanding tool for getting SEO results.
Done correctly, well within the SEO, Google or any other Serch Engine rules & guidelines link building is legal, ethical & a good busienss builder.
We have started an Affiliate Marketing Meeting Group in Plano/Dallas. Will you come to a meeting as a quest speaker on the subject of Affiliate Marketing. You can offer your wares to all of us newbies. Thank you in advance. Hope to hear from you soon.
Best regards,
Texas Jim
Good post as usual. I have used 3waylinks for about six months now and it is awesome for ranking well with long tail keywords.
I think if one doesn't go for link building then even if he has the greatest content that is available no where, his site is never going to show up in search engines. Ultimately the whole purpose of a site to me is that it should reach all those who are in need of it. Whether you monetize or not is secondary. So any process done ethically should be supported and accepted.
I don't know how any one can reach their audience or customers without going for link building.
Hi,
Hi i totally agree with you. There is no rules from googles in link building. So why some people bother so much on how other people try to rank their. For me as long as you don't make spam or do anthing illegal.
Thanks for this interest post, quite interested on your 3 way links network…can you let me know how do it works?
Hi Jon,
Yes, you express my opinion, exactly. In my eyes,
link building is an ethical way of promoting a
website. It is part of online marketing procedures.
And, anyhow, since when did Google become the
Law and Order guys of online activities?
Google's guidelines are just that . . . guidelines -
they don't necessarily have anything to do with
ethics.
Keep up the excellent posts!
All the best,
Laurie
I don't use 3waylinks but it seems kinda foolish to call it unethical. And What realy seals it is your pointing out that it's the search engines choice to crawl and rank your site.
I was unsure about links until I read your post. It cleared up a lot of questions I had. You did a great job in pointing out the fact that google has guidelines and not rules written in stone.
Thanks for the great post
Terry
Hello Jonathan,
According to Google linking to sites similar to your own is the thing to do. Here is a copy of their guidelines on this subject:
When your site is ready:
Have other relevant sites link to yours.
Submit it to Google at http://www.google.com/addurl.html.
Submit a Sitemap as part of our Google Webmaster Tools.
Google uses your Sitemap to learn about the structure of your site and to increase our coverage of your webpages.
Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.
Thanks for the post, Jon. Clearly, this and other dissenting voices have no idea what true link building is. 3WayLinks is an integral part of my link building efforts. I don't know where my sites would be without it.
Your co-op analogy is spot on. Your service really does help the little guys compete online.
Kind Regards,
Paul
Thanks Jon,
Google has no rights to decide how the internet should work.
The internet is a network which completely dependant on linking and without linking it would collapse.
Google as search engine categorises all those links using its own internal algorithms and if it lists my websites, thats fine with me. After all I do have the option to tell google to leave my site alone if I choose to using a robots text file.
As Jon says I have no legal obligation to google but I do have an obligation to other internet uses and that obligation is to ensure other internet users can find links to the products and services they seek.
Google has automated its own link processing servers, so I believe we can also automate some of our server functions, which would include the processing of link exchange.
Keep up the good work Jon.
Jon,
Wow what a long, great post
I feel the same that Google almost always define vague guidelines so that they can alter the situation or "guidelines" as they see fit.
Whether or not doing something is ethical or unethical is subject to the person interpreting it. People have different opinions and they can think and feel what they want. No contest about that.
If the poster feels that link building is unethical, then don't do it.
If somebody else feels that it is ethical, then by all means do it.
My 2 cents.
Welly Mulia
There are always debates going on the forum about anything that is successful, I know the forum you are talking about, there are people who are envy of others. The person who is telling it he is also "unethical" in any or the other way if he does backlinking. We are here to get traffic in our sites, whichever way it comes its all upto us.
I think it all clear now.
Google cannot tell us what rules we will follow to invite relatives to our home.
Thanks for this post!
I agree with you.
The most important thing to me you brought up was your personal integrity and how you see what's white, gray or black.
Personally I think of it from the perspective of how I would like to be treated myself - the old "do as you would be done by".
Another way to think about this: "is this something I would like my best friend to mention in my obituary at my funeral"?
Or could I walk up to persons like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa (please choose your own heroes), look them in the eye and explain myself and be proud of it?
Could you look your children in the eyes, tell them what you did and be proud?
Or are you there just to rip off money from your visitors knowing that you don't have a good product or service and you really don't care? So you can pay your Ferrari (which will be pretty useless soon as the gas price goes higher).
The Engines all make it clear that a site needs links if it is to get good rankings (at least in competitive fields) so they "make" businesses seek links. Of course the "correct way" to get links is by offering truly good content, but for some this is difficult and they don't have the resources to create that "pot of gold" for all to link to.
No, instead they have to rely on SEO types to build their