<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Unnaturally Natural Link Building Philosophy</title>
		<description>Discuss Unnaturally Natural Link Building Philosophy</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 15:19:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/268/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Mike Wilton says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1193</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Do you think the penalties for link velocity and anchor text are more industry specific? I try and stay away from this personally, but I see a TON of competitors getting away with it and they are grabbing hundreds of thousands of new links every month or so with almost all the same anchor text and seem to be successful. Additionally, do you think if a site has a spammy link profile, but isn't a spammy site or garbage site for its query that Google may ignore this signal because user engagement via the query is strong?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mike Wilton</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1193</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>iDCx says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1189</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I hear you - not had any warning on any of our clients but heck... i hear loads have. Your link velocity is def one to watch but then so too is the amount of links you buy - like you need a 100 when 12 might do it guys?!?! Ill throw a curve ball in - what says that these days a natural link building pattern isnt littered with spam - there isnt a site we propose for that hasnt been hit with some kind of spam directory submission or something as an attempt to call it link building... what says you that spam now has a natural roll in an organic off page portfolio? I say no - but fear that a yes is in there somewhere! nice read tho - lays it out - I would add - dont reply to the messages if you have got one. bad idea to confirm that you have any control over ho links to you site - heck you just ade the site to serve users right? right! Good post thanks for sharing Ant!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>iDCx</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1189</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Steve says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1186</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A thousand times yes! :lol: This is something I've strongly believed for a long time - at least a year, but more so recently. At the end of the day, it's common sense: if every link to a site ever has the anchor text "blue widgets" - and it's not in its domain, for example - then it's going to set off a few alarm bells. But if there's a big, broad mix of anchor text, it's going to look a LOT more natural and therefore acceptable. I agree with the link velocity theory as well, and even go as far as saying it probably ties in with anchor text. For example, I reckon that if you suddenly got a lot of links all with the same anchor text - e.g. "green widgets" - all in one go, Google might pick up on that, too. The best strategy - as hard as it might be - would be to build links gradually and diversely, with a mix of anchor text and for keyword anchor text to grow at a rate that might not be deemed too fast (and therefore: unnatural).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1186</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Carlton Johnson says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1185</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great post Tony. You make some excellent points. The point about the different c class domains and different domain links in general is something that has been widely known/suspected for a long time. Also the diversity of your anchor text, as you noted, is probably a fairly obvious trigger. With the anchor tex in particular, in my mind, it leads to the question, that if you are building links and you really diversify your link building efforts then naturally that is going to water down the amount of links you get for the specific keyword you are actually targeting. Therefore, that does that mean that Google is going to be going back to paying even more attention to on page SEO again, so that it can safely determine the keywords it thinks you should rank for. I would be interested in your thoughts on that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Carlton Johnson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1185</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mr. Hachis says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1184</link>
			<description><![CDATA[These days I no longer know which sites are good to obtain links from. Yesterday article directory links were cool but today it seems they are no longer too important.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mr. Hachis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1184</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Verre says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1181</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Eric, I don't necessarily think link velocity is a penalty on its own. Velocity is simply one measurement I believe Google is looking to determine manipulation. I really think that anchor text is key to how Google is determining manipulation. If you have a piece of content go viral, it surely will cause a link spike. The problem is not sustaining link acquisition (i.e. after the spike, your site's link acquisition falls off the map), and acquisition goes back to zero for an extended period of time. Looking at it from Google's point-of-view, a site that produces content should have some semblance of natural link acquisition constantly. That's where I think normalization comes into play.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Verre</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1181</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Scism says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1180</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Regarding link velocity, I've always thought it was somewhat of an unfair penalty. For instance you create some sort of outstanding piece of content and it goes viral then you've just thousands of links (hopefully) within a few days. That would obviously make your link velocity jump through the roof. I don't think you should be penalized or any alarm bells should go off for that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Scism</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1180</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Russ Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1179</link>
			<description><![CDATA[:D Great post. When we link build for a client, we keep constant look out on anchor text thresholds based on % of root linking domains, % of total links, and % of mozRank passed by links with exact anchor text. I consider it a must in preventing OOPs]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Russ Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120318268/Link-Building/unnaturally-natural-link-building-philosophy.html#comment-1179</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
