Talk:Link building

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination. no consensus, 4 June 2010 (UTC), see discussion. keep, 2 March 2010 (UTC), see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Marketing & Advertising High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Broken Link Building [1] ^{[searchengineland.com 1][1][1]}Makeraryaman (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Makeraryaman, want to try rewriting this to be a bit simpler, and look for an impartial source? Dead link reclamation as a white method is a fine strategy, but needs to condensed and simpler, and try to find the canonical term that describes the strategy (along with a citation). --FeldBum (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1.) I would like to add missing content in "Black hat link building". Suggested Content: "Exploiting [Domains]: Black hat SEO [[2]] may acquire expired domains that have existing backlinks and [[3]] them to their own [[4]] to [[5]] [engine] [[6]]. This [[7]] aims to inherit the link equity of the expired domain. However, search engines may penalize such practices if deemed manipulative."

2.) I would like to propose adding a new section titled "Grey Hat link building" between the "White Hat" and "Black Hat" sections in the Link Building article. This section would bridge the gap between ethical and unethical practices, offering a more complete perspective.

Suggested Content: "[hat|Grey hat] link building [[8]] occupy the middle ground between white hat and black hat practices. These [[9]] aim to achieve faster results than purely white hat strategies without being as [[10]] or manipulative as black hat techniques. While grey hat methods may not directly [[11]] search engine guidelines, they often [[12]] loopholes that could lead to penalties if [[13]].

Examples of grey hat techniques include:

Purchasing expired domains with [[14]] [[15]] and [[16]] them for new [[17]]. Creating Private [[18]] [[19]] (PBNs) where the intent is to [[20]] link equity without full [[21]]. Using automated [[22]] to [[23]] link-building [[24]] while [[25]] a human-like [[26]]. Offering [[27]], such as free [[28]] or [[29]], in [[30]] for backlinks without explicitly violating search engine [[31]]. While these techniques can [[32]] significant short-term [[33]] in terms of rankings, they carry risks. Search engines frequently [[34]] their [[35]] to close [[36]], and grey hat [[37]] can lead to penalties or [[38]] of [[39]] if deemed manipulative. Website [[40]] often use these methods cautiously, aiming to [[41]] a [[42]] between [[43]] and [[44]] with search engine [[45]]."

3.) Reference to Add: ^[1] Mescaronn (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not done for now: I would like you to have references included in your text and some more of them. We won't be adding a section on grey hat unless there are reliable sources about it. Ultraodan (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not done for now @Mescaronn: Please have a look at the text above – it is currently unreadable because you have misunderstood how to link to other Wikipedia pages (please follow that link which leads to a help page explaining how to do that). In any case, there are still no sources, as the flyrank.com link doesn't support most of the claims, and flyrank.com is clearly not a source that could be used anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ScienceBib (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I think there is one type of links missing in your taxonomy. Here is my suggestion for inclusion:

Citation-based link

In academic publications, a citation in the references list can be edited together with a link to the webpage where the cited article is originally published or to a summary, or a friendly version of it. Such link is usually prefixed as ‘Retrieved from’, while for summaries is anchored on the word ‘Summary’ or ‘Related article’. Since the webpage where the summary or friendly version is posted is not necessarily academic, the citation-based academic links can be used as effective link building by sites willing to post such content, if related to their niche.

Source: PhilScience Magazine. Jan. 2025. Citation-based academic link building. https://www.magazine.philscience.org/2025/01/17/citation-based-academic-link-building/

Thank you.

Kind regards, Mihail

 Not done: The page that you linked is a promotional source, as it explicitly invited readers to request "citation-based academic link building services" from the publisher. We cannot incorporate such references into our articles. Altamel (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I suggest adding a useful and relevant external link to the "External links" section of this article:

• (Redacted) – A professional platform offering manual link building services including guest post outreach, Reddit mentions, and more. Provides real, relevant backlinks useful for SEO practitioners.

Let me know what you think! Dmmd811 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but I have removed the link. We don't want to promote external links here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I searched Wikipedia for the concept of a "link-bait webpage".

A link-bait webpage is information-rich and citation-worthy. I found nothing and am wondering if this is a good page for such an idea to be added to?

Why do I want this? I'm constantly telling people no one is likely to link to their homepage or landing page and promoting to them the idea of "link-bait" and I'm hoping to legitimize the idea. Kevinbcarney42 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=searchengineland.com> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=searchengineland.com}} template (see the help page).