Bad & Toxic Backlinks You Should Avoid

Link building is a complex art form with various tactics and approaches.

Despite being a well-established process in SEO, there is still much debate about what constitutes a “bad” or “good” link building strategy, including the balance between effectiveness and risk, and which tactics Google can detect or penalize a website for.

This article will help you identify what to steer clear of when engaging in link building or evaluating the strategies of a new service provider.

I’m not here to settle any disagreements, and if you’re an SEO professional who enjoys experimenting, you may find this article slightly conservative.

As is common in the industry, there is often a discrepancy between what Google recommends and what actually works, and there is value in those who test boundaries and try new things.

However, I am taking a cautious approach that closely follows Google’s guidelines for two main reasons:

• This article is aimed at readers seeking reliable and sustainable strategies. I do not recommend using experimental or high-risk tactics in link building if you are not well-versed in them and aware of the associated risks.
• You should view the guidelines as a statement of intent, rather than absolute or current truth. Even if a link building tactic that goes against Google’s guidelines yields results now, it is likely that Google intends to address it in the future.

Types Of Unnatural Links

An unnatural link is any link created to manipulate search engines or that violates Google’s spam policies.

Below are some common types of unnatural links.

Buying Or Selling Links

There is nothing inherently wrong with paying for a link or exchanging a product or service for a link, as long as the nature of the relationship is disclosed and the links are not for SEO purposes.

Buying, exchanging, or trading links for SEO is where the issue lies. SEO links should be based solely on the content of the page.

If people choose to link to your content because they find it valuable, then you should reap SEO benefits.

When money or value exchanges are introduced, it disrupts the intended purpose of SEO links and opens the door to manipulation. In such cases, Google requires that the links be marked as rel=nofollow or rel=sponsored to ensure they do not pass SEO value. As long as this practice is followed by you or the linking parties, there should be no issues.

Here is an example of implementing nofollow and sponsored attributes:

<a href="https://example.com" rel="nofollow">read our guide</a>


<a href="https://example.com" rel="sponsored">read our guide</a>

There are several ways in which buying or selling links can violate Google’s spam policies:

• Text advertisements with links that pass SEO signals because they are not marked as “nofollow” or “sponsored.”
• Paying for articles that contain links passing SEO signals.

Another form of buying links is paying someone to create them for you. As long as this service provider does not engage in unethical tactics and does not provide you with links on their own domains, this practice is acceptable.

It’s important to note that the definitions of “buying” and “selling” are not limited to monetary exchanges. It includes any exchange where something is given in return for a link, such as a product.

As Matt Cutts explained in 2014, Google closely follows the FTC on what constitutes a “material connection” between a link provider and recipient:

• If a party receives enough value to potentially influence their behavior, a material connection must be disclosed.

  • A pen or t-shirt may not influence behavior (unless given for the purpose of reviewing/linking).
  • A direct payment for a link, a gift card, or a high-value product may influence behavior and incentivize a link.
  • A loaned item has different implications than a given item.

• Consider the target audience: if items are given away for reasons other than acquiring links (e.g., as part of a conference attendance gift), disclosure may be necessary, but marking links as sponsored may not be mandatory if people choose to discuss them.
• Consider whether a link relationship would be surprising: it is understandable for a movie reviewer to receive a free movie screening. However, it would be less expected for a tech reporter to keep a laptop they are reporting on without disclosure.

Link Exchange Agreements

Link exchanges are akin to buying links as they involve a value exchange.

Organic mutual linking is not problematic, as it is reasonable for certain websites to link back and forth.

However, be cautious of any formal agreements. Engaging in a “link for link” arrangement is not advisable, as it can be easily detected if done frequently.

Any time a link is given or received for reasons other than its value and relevance, it becomes noticeable – perhaps more so than you realize.

A bit of reciprocal linking occasionally is not a major issue. When faced with multiple website options to reference, it is logical for individuals to choose those they already know or have relationships with.

This is generally acceptable.