You know what a ‘balanced’ link profile looks like? Cool, mind sharing it with us?
No problem. It looks like something that would happen naturally. You said it yourself. A little of everything as it were. IMO an unbalanced link profile stands out like a sore thumb, screaming manipulation. Now who do we know that really hates that? It’s not rocket science. Just use your gray matter.
lol ok, just checking you weren’t one of those one line wonders. However, check post No 21 in this thread where apparantly your incoming links can never hurt you (or a competitor can never hurt you with links) and therefore there can never be such a thing as an ‘unbalanced’ link profile right?
your incoming links can never hurt you (or a competitor can never hurt you with links)
As much as I hate to say it. I’m not so sure about that any more. In a perfect world that would seem to make a lot of sense, but from what I’ve seen by personal experience and a few hints by some old time pros lately, I’ve started looking closer at that “rule of thumb”. But that’s a different subject than what Google might consider an “unbalanced link profile”. For instance what if all or most of your IBLs were a combination of thousands of links with just one or two anchor texts along with a myriad of forum links? Or a situation where most of your links are from link exchanges? I believe that the engineers at G. are plenty smart enough to be able to flag that situation as not looking natural, thereby possibly branding that site as as one trying to manipulate the algorithm.
Me neither. I’ve never seen Google deny that links can hurt you and if you can hurt yourself then competitors can hurt you. I don’t see how else it’s possible.
It’s important to get a variety of links whether they be follow, no follow or whatever. Also don’t believe people that say getting links from non relevant sites wont increase your rankings because it will.