Link Networks: Don't put together Your SEO Strategy on a home of Cards

Links are essential for rankings.  We all are familiar with that.

Though, in the hurry to get those rankings (that lead to converting traffic of course) webmasters and business owners can be tempted to take shortcuts for simple wins.

One of the most trendy (and dangerous) ways that you can grab up a bunch of links rapidly is by using a link network (also called a blog network, site network, or sometimes article network). It's one-stop shopping for links in big quantities.

Sounds great, right? You deal with one individual, give them the keywords you want to rank for, and you can get 500 links tomorrow.

Yet again, an easy win – until you keep in mind that in link building, there really are no easy wins.

Here's how you can well again understand what a network is, how to recognize networked sites, and whether those easy links are too fine to be true.

What is a Link Network?

It seems there is mass uncertainty about link networks. Heck, even in my own office, we'll irregularly argue about whether we've in fact found a true network, and if we have? We will dispute about whether it's a bad one.

Simply, a link (or site/blog/article) network is a collection of sites that are connected. They can be owned by one person or several people, their connections can be as understandable as a badge displayed that proudly identifies the site as a member of X network or as covert as a footprint exposed by lots of digging.

From my knowledge, there are many instant sites tell that indicate a site may be a associate of a network:

Language on the site. From "Proud partner in ABC Network" to "See our other networked sites" the key here is the wording regarding networks.

Network badges.

Page that lists a ton of other sites. This can be connected with the anchor "Friends" or "Partners" and doesn't always point out a network, but it does indicate the need for concentration.

There are a few others that need some digging once you think sites are connected as network members. I point out these because my experience has been that many webmasters won't be upfront with you and will offer you link on a variety of sites while swearing they aren't connected in any way.

Same or very comparable template used for multiple sites.

Same Google Analytics number or Google AdSense number used. You can use whois for this.

Same site owner for loads of dissimilar sites.

Same IP address. This one is tricky in case there's shared hosting occupied but it can be useful. It just doesn't guarantee that the sites sharing the same IP address are networked of course.

There are also instant webmaster tells if you're in contact.

Email signature lists 10 or more other sites.

Webmaster contacts you and says he has some great new sites for you to look at.

Webmaster sends you a list of sites he owns without asking you.

Current Issues with Networks

Go search for [network penalized] or [network de-indexed] and see those results. Scary stuff isn't it?

Networks can get de indexed or their links can be devalued, which is the equal result for you if you're basing your link foundation off those sites.

My biggest concern with networks is the excellence, though. Unless it's a really good one, the quality of the sites connected tends to be pretty low. There's a lot of copy content, excessive cross-linking between sites, and duplicate social signals.

Another giant problem? Networked links aren't free. If you get fixed using them, you're getting caught for buying links, basically.

What Does Google Think About All This?

Let's not remember to check Google's Webmaster Guidelines, which, as they associated to links, seem to be getting tighter and tighter. They warn against the use of link schemes and entirely mention “using automated programs or services to generate links to your site.”

Getting links on a network takes very little time and is clearly quite not natural. If that's not a scheme, I'm not sure what is.

Even if you aren't commerce with a true network (and are instead dealing with a lone webmaster that has an illegal one where he just happens to own 100 sites and can rapidly add your link to each one) the key here is the shortcut taken to get links.

Many times you'll instantly know that the sites putting up your links are members of a network simply because you've contracted with someone for that exact service. However, as with anything, there are unscrupulous companies who will simply not notify you that the sites they're getting links on are networked. Therefore you need to ask questions and do your own research so that you aren't solely relying upon the word of someone who may not have your best interests at heart.

Now, I have no problem with people understanding risks and asking for risky techniques. My problem is with client’s not understanding risk and getting talked into doing something detrimental without being correctly informed of the danger.

Just as it isn't sufficient to say "buying links is risky" it's not enough to say that networks can be risky. Clients need to be informed of what can occur if the networks hosting their links get caught and de-indexed.

My link building agency runs into networks every single day. Some of them are first-class but many of them are bad if not downright dangerous.

Many potential customers still ask for that kind of service, too, despite all the publicity surrounding some of the big ones getting caught. I'm much less paranoid about the ones we encounter doing discovery than I am concerning the ones that come to my link builders in a giant spreadsheet, unsolicited.

In my mind, the most terrible networks are a house of cards. Think about what would take place if your site ranked well off a network that got de-indexed or penalized.

I've known people with sites made up of links that mostly came off a network and when it got hit, they lost a lot of money. Fast forward a year and some of them are still stressed to get back to where they were.

Link Networks: The excellent (Or OK For Now)

As I said, some of them look ok for now. I do worry about the future in case they get nailed, but it would be silly to say that all networked sites are worthless or dangerous.

Members of the network are indexed in Google, ranking for key terms and their brand, not extremely cross-linked to other network member sites, don't share the same ip address with the majority of the sites, aren't all owned by the same person or couple of people, and don't seem to exist just to sell links. There isn't a giant master list of members posted on every networked site. The greater part of the sites has decent Google Toolbar PR. Searching for the network name doesn't generate tons of negative results.

The Not-So-Great Link Networks

A few of the members of the network are not indexed in Google. Some of them don't rank for any conditions that you can find. Many of them share the same ip address. Searching for the network name generates lots of negative results.

The Really Bad Link Networks

Most sites have no Toolbar Page-Rank, are not indexed in Google and if they are, they don't rank for the brand/URL or any snippets from the homepage. Most sites post a list of the other members and link to them. Duplicate or very thin content is obvious. Wording on site is badly done.

Bottom Line

I am absolutely very paranoid about networks and have become much less broadminded of them over the past year, but I do understand that getting a link from a few networked sites here and there isn't going to critically hurt most sites that have decent links for the most part.

The real risk lies in only working with networks. Some sites may not be a member of a network when you secure a link on them but get bought and added, so it's not something that you can completely control, either.

Just be alert with networks, as they can be too good to be true. Just remember that whether you think a blog network is good or bad, it doesn't mean that the search engines will agree with you. What they think is the bottom line when it comes right down to it.