How to find a paid link?
Author: Tim NashWell I got a little laugh when I ran a few of my sites through Talklinkcentre Paid Link detector thanks to fantomaster for pointing it out. Scarily the detector managed to completely miss any paid links and instead decided that links to Feedburner and Google were clearly paid for.
To make things worse they use scary statements such as
Paid Or Not
These Links Are Useless To SEO
Which is complete tosh, from what I can tell they simply decide any link with anchor text and is not a nofollow is a “paid link and or useless” but they did get me thinking how would I create a paid link detector?
Elements of a paid link
Lets start cooking to identify a paid link we need some tell tell signs such as;
- A dofollow full juice link
- Off Topic
- Associated keywords - sponsor, advertisment
- Neighbourhood checking
- Link viability
Walk with me,
So the first check is to see if a link is a full link i.e no use of the nofollow and that the link is external, this would be followed by some sort of relevancy check, and magic keyword check, this would leave us with 2 piles of links one lot we know or suspect are evil, the other we just suspect, so we then check each link against a list of known offenders looking for a match.
Getting into the logic
This is all pretty simple now isn’t it?
The two sticky areas are Link relevancy and the Evil keyword matching list, you see what is a relevant link? if I am writing a computing blog is an Apple an irrelevant term? We could perform some amazing Latent semantic Analysis (or swallow a really big thesaurus) to determine relevancy but could we get it anywhere near close enough? Without some sort of relevancy engine how would we know which links are paid for or not. Google and the other search engines must have this cracked (note that was a sarcastic comment) so let us ignore this small problem and go to the second one our Evil keywords. This is far more straight forward we simply look at anchor text, heading or div container that has terms such as Advertiser, sponsor,click here etc. Once we have amassed our list we pass our links and the surrounding code through them, just to be sure we better also have a flag system for terms such as Page Ranks as people who discuss such things must be selling links.
Ultimately when it comes to developing our paid link detector script we have hit a large problem without some sort of relevancy checker, and a huge database of known offenders we will be unable to catch those evil paid linkers damn. We could harness list where we do know their are offenders such as the Pay per post market place or Text Link Ads but certainly with the Pay per post we could get ourselves into a bit of hot water did the buyer pay for a link or a blog post or we could ignore this small problem.
How would you go about creating a paid link checker, the above is one idea its up there with writing “all those who have paid links please step forward” line but perhaps you could do better? maybe you think the guys at talklinkcenter got it right and if its an external link it should be nofollowed just in case?
Please note their was a certain level of sarcasm in this post, you may also note using the above diagram to try to create a paid links detector will not work nor will it help you take over the world.
Text Link Center
from Text Link Center2007-10-07 18:58:11
You have some interesting views on using link relevancy, but as you mention, this that is a tough route to go.
The problem with the Paid Link Detector is it’s name. It should be the “Useless Links For SEO Detector”. You may not agree with that statement. It’s a theory that will become more and more prominient.
The Paid Link Checker is looking for obvious signs of Agenda based links. These are links that Google will not count as votes (which is what a link is supposed to be in Google’s eyes). Agenda based links include links your point to your own sites, links you point to your buddy’s sites, or links you are paid to place up.
Tim Nash
2007-10-07 19:13:38
There are many links that are discounted by Google for one reason or another but your tool would on some basic testing appear to discount all out bound links, given I tested it on a site where I have at least one link that is being used for an alternate test to see how much weight can be brought to uncompetitive SERP I know that link carries weight your test says it doesn’t this I’m sure we could do a hundred times and the result would be the same.
You would have been fine if you hadn’t made the claim that such links are “useless” even a small change to these links could possibly be devalued would help but using such language in such a vocal community without demonstrating any methodology is just opening yourself for criticism and a little friendly ridicule.
Text Link Center
from Text Link Center2007-10-07 19:45:32
We are definitely searching for more than just outbounds, although that is one of the first criteria, obviously. We have debated just how much of our system we want to tell people.
More than likely, we will do this when Text Link Center officially launches. Explaining our methodology is a crucial part of the text link quality improvement that we think we can make with Text Link Center.
Brandon
Nico
from ONLIMA Online Marketing2007-10-07 22:38:58
I agree, detecting paid links will be a very difficult, if not impossible, task to accomplish.
So, how much did Google pay you for that link Tim? Do you think your friend Matt Cutts is using the tool as well, if he does he might penalize Google for paying for links, or will you get another penalty for selling links?
Steven Snell
from Vandelay Website Design2007-10-07 23:53:35
I hadn’t seen this detector before. I’ll have to try it.
Alex Sysoef
from WordPress Web 2.0 Guide2007-10-08 02:11:53
Veru interesting article. I find it funny someone would waste their time creating tool that clearly fails …
There are so many variations to link love on blogs, anyone trying to mark them as paid links is setting himself up for a total failure, which was clearly displayed by the tool.
Great article
Tim Nash
2007-10-08 09:00:40
Don’t worry its beta
a paid link detector would be harder to achieve then creating a search engine, the approach Text link Center claim to go down is even mharder in my eyes then creating a relevancy engine, they have no way of knowing how Google is determining in their words “These are links that Google will not count as votes (which is what a link is supposed to be in Google???s eyes)” and no plausible way to reverse engineer such systems.
Their tool doesn’t work, I doubt they will be releasing the methodology behind it and they would be wise not to. I would be curious to see what else they are doing other then discounting all outgoing links.
Now they are in damage limitation mode, they have 2 choices
But Tim you say they won’t do that they have their back to the wall and you telling them won’t help?
with allegations of paid links.
I know this and I’ve been very gentle to them but they may not meet me next time but a lawyer of a company they have slandered
Daniboy
from Blog Sites Online2007-10-08 14:33:03
I fully understand you here Tim and have even took time to have a look through their site and forum which is “Declaring a war on Paid Links”. Something says to me that once you find out all your relevant and useful links are “useless!” you will be able to purchase “relevant paid links” from them which are undetectable by Google! I’ll get more value from buying those e-books I got emailed about in my spam box today
Text Link Center
from Text Link Center2007-10-08 15:32:44
You should be apprehensive. We are the little guy. We are unproven. We would never recommend ditching relevant, useful links. (It’s tough to ever recommend ditching any link).
With that said, we may not agree on what makes a link useful.
The way I see it, if two links are equal, for all practical purposes, but one is easily detectable by Google, than the detectable link is with zero.
We have not yet properly explained our views, methodology, or test results. In fact, I just noticed that some of my code in the admin is busted! So, until we get all of these things worked out, there is no reason to take us seriously.
However, I believe our innovative ideas on link quality are going to make quite a stir in the next few months. I have to. I’ve put 5 months of non-stop work into this site…hahah
Brandon
fantomaster
2007-10-08 17:04:45
Quote of the year. And can be had for the asking.
If you really put “5 months of non-stop work into this site”, and this crap is all you can show for your efforts, perhaps considering switching to some other profession might be advisable? Just a thought…
Text Link Center
from Text Link Center2007-10-08 18:53:44
Well, I could blow smoke up your rear end all day long, but that won’t make you fall in love with us. The problem isn’t competence, it’s just time.
I would have love to have paid a pro dude to write the script, but it was worth me fighting through the php learning curve just to be able to quickly make changes to keep up with the times.
We’ll have all issues worked out by the time of our full launch.
Brandon
Olaf
from Website Templates2007-10-09 07:15:31
Great read Tim,
We all know that this kind of system will never work
If this was possible Google has created a logarithm to detect those links and has fired the people checking websites and forums to detect people selling links.
But anyway, with this kind of subject you’re able to get some free blog juice. Tim, I’m sure this post is a candidate to become one of the most popular on this website.
SiteVoter Link Community
2007-10-09 07:52:45
The Paid Link Detector some evil thing?
After the Google penalty for several sites because of selling links, we need this: the “paid Link Detector”. Next we need a bookmarklet for our browser tool bar that makes it much easier to report websites to the Google team. Wondering who need this…
Jab
from Jabz2007-10-09 08:29:06
Not so bad. Although your tool also gives out stupid information as well it is quite useful. It detected many of the links I bought for clients, but only the obvious ones.
However,…keep up the good work. I`ll be back.
Tim Nash
2007-10-09 09:20:51
Jab I presume that comment was at Brandon and the Text Link Center as we haven’t produced the tool I suspect he would be quite pleased with praise but you didn’t say how many false links it put out?
Anyway welcome to Payment Blogger, and Sorry Brandon I forgot to welcome you also ;)though I feel yours was more a baptism of fire
Jab
from Jabz2007-10-09 09:33:36
yeah,…when I realized it, it was already too late.
Sorry for that. How many wrong links it gave out? Depends, I checked many sites.
On my own website (linked with my name) the tool found mydomain.info not appropriate. On other sites, where I buy plenty of links the tool said the sites are clean. But ingeneral…and I do not want to get into details…the tool works good.
Tim Nash
2007-10-09 09:56:05
Nice to know Text Link center has one fan at least
Your sites main page is not exactly rich with external links is it
and you seem to contradict yourself I mean you say it didn’t pick up your paid links but the tool works great so we now have a delicate question “do your paid links carry juice?” or are they javascripts, nofollows, redirects etc
I would like poor Brandon to get something positive out of this grilling and since your the only person in this thread who and lets face it including the maker who believes this tool works you might be his best chance of having a smile at the end of the day?
Jab
from Jabz2007-10-09 12:49:13
Hmm,…I do not have one paid link, exchange link or whatsoever on my website (s.u.). But there are some other sites that I sell links on and there are customers I buy links for. Unfortunately I cannot name these sites. But to give you an idea: I buy between 20-50 links a day….and many of them were found by this tool.
Johnty
from SEO Forensics2007-10-09 18:54:19
Great and funny post,
I guess you can’t blame the text link center guys after all its in their best interest to tell you how naked your links are so you buy theirs
With regards to relevancy engine would if you were doing it use a system like tf-idf? or something differnt.
Text Link Center
from Text Link Center2007-10-09 19:44:57
I do believe the Useless Link Detector works at finding the “detectable” links.
Not everyone is convinced at what “detectable” or “useless” means. Our tests say that navigation style outbound links are out. They are losing weight dramatically fast and even some sites that sell them are losing PR (Stanford Daily).
I’m interested to hear more about your views on link relevancy, Commander Nash :), in regard to link detection. That one would be an enormous undertaking.
We finished the video last night that explains what the tool is exactly looking for, it’s not uploaded to Youtube yet, so I’ll basically say it.
Our tests have convinced us that outbound links in the navigation don’t count NEARLY as strong as undetectable links in the body surrounded by relevant content. The fact that Google is openly penalizing sites that are giving away “detectable” links as some interesting fuel to our fire.
We figure that some will be slow to share our views on extreme link quality and undetectable links, but we think our mission of extreme link security and extreme link value will pay off very shortly.
Someone mentioned about us charging for Text Link Center. We have no plans of ever charging for the buying and selling of links on TLC (I hate that acronym). We think there is a place for a text link ad broker that is HUGE on security, that has very high standards on link quality, and is completely free.
Brandon
Daniboy
from Blog Sites Online2007-10-09 21:28:31
Then why don’t you call your “useless link detector” a “detectable link detector!? Sorry to jump in with this, but a detectable link isn’t necessarily a useless link really…. is it!
I’m not trying to slate you here and I do understand where your methodology is… but if Google aren’t up to scratch (and believe me, they’re not) on detecting useless/paid/spam links, then a small tool like this certainly couldn’t come close to it. Take into account the complexity and required power to process the numbers in the algorithms at such a scale and Google haven’t got it sorted (lest to what they have you believe).
On the same note you state on your site:
Exactly this tool is, as is blatantly obvious, just a way for you to tell people their links are useless and to purchase them through yourselves…. Just a nice marketing gimmick, but unfortunately some of the smarter people out here can see through the gimmick.
I like people who are honest so it wouldn’t be for me and I’ll buy my paid links
elsewhere should I need any more. Mind you, you could still be on your way to taking a nice share of the paid links market, if people believe your tool, and maybe it’ll still work for you…. All the best with your business 
and just ignore me because ‘I noo nuffink’, honestly.
Akos
2007-10-10 08:44:56
Try the following scenario with your hypothetical detector:
- I link from a site of mine to my other site
- those sites are not relevant to each other
- I will put “Advertisement” over the link, so my visitors don’t get confused
- I will not put “nofollow” on the link, because, after all, no-one paid for that link and I can actually vouch for that links, so…
The detector will out that link as an evil paid link.
I understand that your detector is just their for demonstration. But Google’s detector is not, and I wonder how they can get around the above mentioned situation without getting a false positive.
I’m afraid they can’t, but that won’t stop them.
Tim Nash
2007-10-10 10:05:30
Google will have you as your deliberately manipulating the engine in clear breach of their guidelines
So to be fair while the link wasn’t paid the fact you chose to use the term advertisement meant you understood that the sites were not suitable. You might also like to read Melanie post on unnatural linking patterns
@Brandon - A relevancy engine would be an interesting task in fact I think I will take a stab at a hypothetical engine in a separate blog post as its an interesting subject not just over paid links but search classification in general.
@Johnty tf-idf is an up and over system it compares frequency of weighted groups appearing in document it would be part of a simple relevancy engine but without some understanding of word group patterns it on its own is worthless.
Akos
2007-10-10 13:12:11
It is an absolutely natural thing to link from one of my sites to my other site, even though they might not match topically. I am not manipulating, I am promoting my own properties through my own properties!
The fact that this can be considered manipulation shows how far Google has managed to instill its distorted world view in SEO people.
It is frightening how people increasingly start to accept that something natural is not natural anymore, simply because it interferes with the operations of a mega-corporation.
A real-life example: when you talk to someone about printers, and then you mention to him your landscaping business, that’s manipulation that should be punished? Because your landscaping business should only be promoted and get clients during landscaping conversations, every other way is unethical?
Tim Nash
2007-10-10 13:18:22
Calm down no need to shoot the messenger
You have absoultely every right to link to what ever you want, Google has absolutely every right to disregard any link it wants as the Google webmaster guidelines are written you have breeched them personally I can’t imagine they would for one minute do anything except that as you say you marked them as “advertisement” so in our hypothetical situation the solution is to call them something like “Visit our Other sites” and let Google decide if it wants to devalue them or not.
Google uses the term natural to mean links gathered because of the content matter, it is pretty draconian but then it can be what the hell it likes as its a mega corporation and is not answerable to you, me, or anyone but its shareholders otherwise it would have stopped this paid link fiasco ages ago.
Akos
2007-10-10 14:33:51
OK, I’m not ranting against you
But you are wrong in saying “its a mega corporation and is not answerable to you, me, or anyone”.
Exactly when a company becomes a mega-corporation, it becomes answerable to society at large. To you, me and everyone.
See Microsoft. Did they have every right to bundle their media player with their operating system? Basically, yes.
Still, they got f.cked legally, because when a company grows beyond a certain size, it cannot behave just any way it wants. Simple as that. And Google has already grown beyond that size.
Tim Nash
2007-10-10 14:44:33
Not wishing to completely shred your argument but does your version of windows come with an integrated media player?
Microsoft fell foul of competition laws people protesting had little to do with it, a judge(s) declared they had broken the law and forced them to pay a fine that would be like me paying for parking at the local car park more importantly did it change them or their attitude?
Of course not they simply brought out an “n” version with reduced functionality and charged a higher price for it. So now they can perfectly legally say they do offer an option without integrated media player and they are not breaking the law while still happily monopolising the industry in fact I think you brought up a good example of how mega corporations do walk all over everything including the law.
Google is a company you might not like it but it has no reason to listen to you what’s the worse that will happen you will stop using it’s search engine? Given that Google primary source of revenue is not Google search by not using it you are simple one less drain on its resource. If you want to get a site ranking well you can either choose to play by Google rules and live in a world where the goal posts are forever changing or you ignore the rules and if you get caught you pay the price the key here is simply not get caught.
Olaf
from Website Templates2007-10-10 14:48:14
Akos is right!
Google has created a whole industry around the PageRank. At the moment a webmaster will get a Google penalty because he added some unrelated link to his website the whole thing becomes bad.
As long as Google is showing unrelated results it’s not the time to punish people selling links.
They started as a free SE and now they judge link sellers because possibly Adwords is not growing fast enough…
Text Link Center
from Text Link Center2007-10-14 19:19:22
If you were running a search engine, why would you give any weight at all to a guy who simply “voted” for a bunch of his own sites especially through navigation. The fact that you mention “so my visitors dont’ get confused” suggests that the links have little to no value for your users, but you still want the links to have value for Google. Google has spent a lot of money to seem like the user.
You are not alone on this logic, but my tests have shown that undetectable links within the body are worth far more than any link found in the navigation. It doesn’t make sense to cast a vote with navigation.
I don’t agree at all. It’s not natural to cast a vote in this way. It’s natural for a person to want to vote for themselves, but we are not trying to measure pyschology here. We are trying to provide Google as close to a real vote as possible so our links we are buying and selling are worth more.
wmtips
from Webmaster Tips and Tools2008-01-10 12:08:10
Check out this another Paid Links Detector. It doesn’t detect manually placed links, but it’s more accurate for links added with automated ad code scripts. And of course it ignores nofollow and internal links, as you’ve described.
Tim Nash Assimilated - The Idiot’s Guide To Getting StumbledUpon - Hobo SEO UK
2008-01-13 22:48:34
[...] How to find a paid link (people took it so seriously) [...]