InLinks Launches. Here We Go Again.
Yesterday the blogosphere began buzzing with the news that Text Link Ads had launched a new product called InLinks. It’s the latest in “undetectable, non-fingerprint-able” link buying networks and so far it’s been mentioned on TechCrunch, SEOmoz, SEOBook, Shoemoney, Search Engine Roundtable and at Michael Gray’s house of mayhem. Which means Google totally hasn’t heard about it and isn’t watching it like a hawk. There definitely aren’t flocks of Spam team members dissecting the thing as we speak. No way.
As Rand very smartly notes in his post, if the program is designed to be “under the radar”, perhaps being outed by TechCrunch isn’t such a swell idea.
TechCrunch shines a huge light on InLinks, describing it this way:
It’s fairly straightforward - advertisers who want their sites associated with specific keywords simply buy ads. Links to those sites are then added to publishers sites whenever those words pop up in content. These aren’t ghost links like Kontera and others include in content - they’re full blown links without any notation (like a nofollow) that they are advertisements meant primarily for SEO juice.
Here’s my favorite part of that definition: They’re selling “full blown links without any notation (like a nofollow) that they are advertisements meant primarily for link juice”.
First of all, if it’s meant for link juice it’s not an “advertisement”. If it was an advertisement, aka intended for branding and to drive traffic, you’d nofollow the link and be done with it. This is a link to manipulate rankings. No judging, but let’s call a spade a spade here. It does no one any good to paint unicorns and rainbows on it.
I think Google’s been pretty clear about how they feel about these types of programs. They don’t like them. They’re on a hunt to seek them out and annihilate them. In fact, Matt Cutts emailed Michael Arrington and said essentially that. He then brought up the whole “buying links goes against FTC recommendations” thing. Personally, I’m going to ignore that element because I think it’s somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that as under the radar as InLinks wants to be, Google is going to find a way to break this network and then they’re going to penalize you for participating. And yes, they are going to penalize you.
Google is not the government. They can’t tell you how to run your site. They can’t guilt you or scare you into not buying links if that’s what you want to do. But they do own their search engine and they can very much not let you be part of that if you don’t follow their rules. End of story.
We Build Pages has changed its stance on buying links because we’ve seen the negative impacts that buying links can have on sites. As under the radar as you think you are, Google knows. And they may not just discount the links, they could penalize your site. Either Pat, Jim or myself will be commenting on We Build Pages’ new stance on link building very soon, however, with the whole InLinks controversy, I did want to say that.
Products like Text Link Ads’ InLinks violate Google’s Terms of Service. There is potentially a high level of risk associated with using them. Know that.
And on another note, InLinks have actually been around for almost a year for high volume customers (I used it for a while…before I got pounded like those gophers in the gopher hammer game and penalized).
It’s my opinion that Google has already penetrated this network and is sitting around waiting to put the foot down on it’s users.
“Under the radar” means not using a network and buying links the old fashioned way; aka 1 to 1 communication.
“Google is not the government”
Not so fast. In regards to how they have maintained the position of being the number one destination on the net time and time again, coupled in with the money that pumps into their systems, they might as well be the “Government of the Internet”. When they say jump, the majority of the web development and SEO community tend to jump on cue. TheMadhat has gotten it right; Google has already nixed the system, I used it about 7 months ago and we got a womping in the serp’s. I removed the site from the system and things went positive.
I think the “Google is not the government” thing is more a comment about how it’s not *illegal* to buy links… it just doesn’t make good business sense when you consider the impact of getting whacked to the back of the SERPs.
Dude… I LOVE that game. I used to “cheat” by wielding the official gopher-basher in one hand and using my bare fist with the other hand. I would destroy my hand… but it was a small price to pay for being the champ.
Lisa,
I just wanted to mention that inlinks is a clone of http://www.linkxl.com which we have been running and promoting selling links in content for almost two years. It is really odd that no one mentions this in their posts. You were even at the last pubcon a few weeks ago where I spoke about LinkXL and selling links in existing content.
I was shocked. honored, and pissed at the same time that a large venture capital company ripped my idea.
Oh well, I guess well be the under the radar links in content seller.
Here is our 2+ year old profile at cruchbase http://www.crunchbase.com/company/linkxl-com
-John
John,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate you mentioning LinkXL. I’m quite uneducated on the topic of buying links so I didn’t realize that InLinks could be a mirror of yours. I’m sorry for not catching it.
I went over my liveblogging coverage from your session and don’t recall hearing too much (if anything) about your program during your presentation at PubCon. In fact, I believe you wished in the comments that you had pimped it more.
Thanks for the link above. I’m off to go check it out.
Thanks again for commenting and for a great presentation at PubCon!,
Lisa
DSlatten: You’re a special, special young man, aren’t you?
@John Lessnau - I thought your comments were interesting. I stumble through all the link companies for links here and there when a customer REALLY wants them. I’m familiar with your products, along with most of the other notable ones.
I have known of your service for a few months but didn’t really use it. Created an account and fumbled around with it.
Another notable service I’ll admit to using here and there is LinkWorth. They’ve had this product up and running for what seems like 2 years as well. So rather than making this a “he said, she said” episode, I used the miracle of the internet to research.
Linkxl - John says 2+ years, based on his crunchbase profile
I found a press release you issued on May 21, 2007 right here.
Understanding that ‘maybe’ the release was some time after a beta period, I went over to archive.org and researched the linkxl.com just to kind of prove your timeline.
On March 21, 2007, linkxl is a FFA directory site.
On May 1, 2007, linkxl appears different, as you have it now.
linkworth - another place I know runs these type of links
I found a press release issued on April 30, right here.
Looking at linkworth on archive.org, I see the change on their site here:
On April 8, 2007, there is no listing of this product on their site.
On May 7, 2007, the site mentions the product.
My point of this research? John seemed very stolen from. It’s very possible your idea had nothing to do with it. Maybe they took the other guys idea? Maybe they took a little from both of you. It’s only been out there for 1.5 years and the first appears to be linkworth, then linkxl. However, based on the pub inlinks has been getting, I’d say they did it wrong. Why tell the world how you cheat?
I really haven’t done much with this product because of the thing some people have spoken about. If the link was inserted upon publishing, it would be great. Since you’re plugging a link on content that’s probably been cached, it’s pretty easy to spot.
spanks
[...] more comical effect — got schooled by Cracked. Stealing is bad, mmkay? Then there’s InLinks, who get how the Web works, but are flying in the face of Google guidelines [...]