All SEOs Do Paid Linking & Google Doesnt Care
Ok, technically anyone who hires an SEO to do link building is doing paid linking. They are paying someone with expertise and dedicated resources to do link building and much of the time it is specifically to manipulate Googles search results. It does not make good business sense to rely only on organic links to compete for search results. This may work for Brand related searches. If you are interested in ranking for any generic terms however, you will need some help or to spend your own resources doing the link building; neither of which is free. Paying someone to do link building is different than paying for a link, but both have the same goal.
While Google may want all links to be organic, I believe that they know that is not even close to within the realm of possibility. They know that non-organic link building will always be a part of the search landscape and have begrudgingly come to terms with the issue. Understandably however, Google has to draw a line somewhere. Its up to us as SEOs to understand where that line is and for the sake of our clients, not to cross it.
So where does Google draw the line?
Normally I would say intent. This is the ad hoc metric Google uses to determine whether something is evil or not. If the intent is obviously to manipulate their results, then more often than not it gets a busted. However, since almost all link building is done with the intention of improving a pages/sites position in search results, intent cannot be that line.
Par for the course with Google, the line is a little fuzzy. They can tell us something is not acceptable on one hand then on the other, SEOs show us that it clearly has impact. Google does not think it is fuzzy at all by the way. They tell us what they expect and lead us to believe they have the technology to enforce it. SEOs have shown over and over again that their enforcement tends to have holes.
Examples on both sides of the line.
The recent J.C. Penney paid linking issue uncovered by the New York Times was an instance where the intent was obviously to influence rankings. Its a great example of either not understanding where the line was or not caring if it was crossed. The search firm who handled the Penneys site either allowed the creation of or actively created thousands of links using paid link networks. With what I personally consider a gross disregard for the basic principles of link building, these links were place on totally non-relevant sites which was the cause of the overall JC Penalty debate started in the New York Times. Google has told us that paid link networks were stepping across the line over and over again.
When was the last time you saw traffic from the Yahoo! Directory in your sites referrals? Thats a $299 a year link and the only reason most people even bother anymore is because of the strength of the site and the potential link juice it can pass. I just checked, those links are still without the no-follow tag. How far would the sales drop if Yahoo! decided to add no-follows; pretty far I am guessing. Quality directories are a rather safe bet from a paid linking standpoint. When a directory is hand edited and is full of useful links across its categories, Google will normally see value in a link on that site and give it a pass.
How to deal with the line.
Lets face it, many clients and unfortunately many SEOs dont have a clear understanding of how much work goes into building quality links. Its a time consuming and expensive process. Remember, I said quality links, sure you can get links cheap, and paying for links is an easy way to get the job done efficiently, hence its popularity. But in this case, cheap and easy usually equal dangerous and risky; just ask J.C. Penney. The tactic of quantity over quality is not viable anymore.
Dealing with the far side of the line is easy. Just stay away from link networks and brokerage houses. If a company has a List of Publishers you can choose from then its most likely not a list you want anything to do with. If a company has an exclusive network of sites, they are probably not sites you want anything to do with. Use common sense, any service that automates a link is probably not a service you want anything to do with. Quality link building is neither cheap nor easy. If a company or service disagrees with this, assume they are on the wrong side of the line.
Draw your own line.
A few weeks ago, Michael Martinez of SEO Theory wrote an article similar to this one. It was somewhat tongue and cheek, but focused on the point that since all linking is paid, its hypocritical to allow some and not others. And it may be, but there is a point at which Google decides that SEOs have gone too far and its at that point that the site or page gets slapped. As SEOs its up to us to decide for ourselves how close to the line we are willing to venture and since its a fuzzy line its a subjective decision. Some SEOs dont mind pushing the limits while others stay as far from the line as possible. In the long run its up to us as SEOs to draw our own line remembering that in most cases it is not our sites which will be in the Google crosshairs if the line is crossed.
Personally, my line was pushed to far beyond my comfort zone where I was before, I am glad to be at a place like SEER where the line is mine to control once again and all the people around me have the same regard for the clients and their sites as I do.
This was my inaugural post here on the SEER blog. I am glad to have both the time and a place to write about the industry I love once again. If you are coming over because I mentioned this post on the SEO101 Radio show, thanks for dropping by.
Posted: 02.21.11

Alan Bleiweiss:
John,
I <3 the enticing title. I came here expecting an article claiming all links are okay, regardless of source or method, and was pleasantly surprised by the content. It really is a matter of semantics in many ways, and more important, that unknown Google threshold, which itself keeps moving.
So now based on your reasoning (and it's very sound reasoning), we can safely say that Seer paid for the link to the radio show, since, I assume, you work for Seer, and I also assume you get paid for your work :-).
Pashmina:
So when do you think the time will come when, we’ll be saying something like “The search landscape is so oversaturated with paid link building that Google is lessening the influence of links and relying more heavily on other factors for ranking such as [insert other SEM tactic here].
jay:
Worthless fluff post!
Ruud:
Thanks for the insights. I totally agree with you. Every sort of linkbuilding is paid linkbuilding. Even a linkbait campaign that focusses on getting links is something that costs money and is made for getting links.
I think that you really have to look at the linkingprofile of your competitors en don’t do something totally different as them. if they have a very organic linkingprofile then you have to get this profile, if they have, say for example, a lot of links from blogposts you can also afford getting more links from blogs.
John Carcutt:
@ Alan, thanks and I guess you are right, I’m going to have to send a bill to Webmaster Radio now. :)
@ Pashmina I am already saying that to some degree, but the “[insert other SEM tactic here]” is “Social Media”. I personally believe that as more social factors enter the algos, link factors will be taking the hits. But thats a whole separate article.
@ Rudd I agree to a point, but just because a competitor has crossed the fuzzy line, does not mean it’s OK for you to do so. I have seen many instances when one site can “get away” with something and the next site to try gets hammered.
Rafael Montilla:
Good one John!
There is not Free Quality Links, as you said “anyone who hires an SEO to do link building” or invite a webmaster of a particular Website for Lunch or some beers.
To get Quality Links , Must to spend time & $$.
The are so many SEO companies & SEOs getting good money from their link networks but their clients do not know what is going on. Their clients Websites rank very good but for how long?
Only Google knows!
Adrian Drysdale:
I like to think that Google rewards good natural link building and ignores the spam side of things. If they start to punish unnatural links then wouldn’t you be able to use this on your competitors? Great blog as usual John, keep em coming.
Mik Pam:
Just to add my .02 this is a good read heck it got me out of my hole and commenting :). With all the talk about JCP and Overstock crossing the lines I cannot help but ask myself how far will an SEO company go to get great rankings (I say great not good) ? I particularly look at overstock.com and found their solution creative albeit very wicked in the eyes of the big G. I wonder had they put in a lot more variance in the anchor text would that have changed their fate ? If they didn’t get all those links from .EDUs would that have made a difference?
SEO Carl:
Nice post John that ‘line’ is certainly blurry, in many cases i call buying a link paid advertising where i am putting my client in front of a related audience with a logo and a link. Google expects me to tell the site to no follow the link , am i doing this? of course not … Everyone is ‘buying’ links at least Social Media has put a new game on the table.