Link building has a reputation problem, and some of it is earned. A good deal of the work sold under that name is the exact practice Google’s policies describe as spam. The policy itself is more specific than the reputation suggests. It lists examples, says plainly what is allowed, and leaves a long stretch of ordinary promotion untouched. This article sets out what the documentation says, which habits it rules out, and how that shapes the way we approach links.
The test Google applies to links
Google’s spam policies for web search define link spam as creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings
. Note the two directions: links to a site, and links from it. The test is purpose. A link that exists because a person found the page useful is a different thing from a link placed because it was meant to pass ranking credit.
This is the question we put to any proposed link, and it is not unusual. Our Authority and Link Building service is built on quality, relevance and strategy, in that order. A single editorial link from a publication your customers read is worth more than a pile from places they never visit.
The habits the link spam policy lists
Google’s examples are worth reading as a list, because several of them are habits rather than schemes. They include:
- buying or selling links for ranking purposes, including exchanging money, goods or services for links or posts that contain links, and sending someone a product in exchange for a post that includes a link;
- excessive link exchanges, or partner pages created only to cross-link;
- using automated programs or services to create links to your site;
- requiring a link as part of terms of service or a contract without allowing the content owner to qualify it;
- advertorials or native advertising where payment is received for articles with links that pass ranking credit, or optimised anchor text in articles, guest posts or press releases distributed on other sites;
- low-quality directory or bookmark site links;
- keyword-rich, hidden or low-quality links in widgets distributed across sites, and widely distributed links in the footers or templates of various sites;
- forum comments with optimised links in the post or signature;
- creating low-value content primarily to manipulate linking and ranking signals.
The product example is the one agencies tend to miss: free product sent for a post, with a link in it, appears in Google’s own list. So does the press release carrying optimised anchor text. It is a good reason to ask where each link in a past campaign came from.
What is allowed, and the condition attached
Google also says it understands that buying and selling links is a normal part of the web’s economy for advertising and sponsorship. It states that this is not a violation of its policies as long as the links are qualified with a rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored" attribute value on the link. So the line is not between paid and unpaid, but between links that pass ranking credit and links that are honestly labelled as not intending to.
That is also why our authority work is not sold as packages. We set no monthly link quotas and no domain-metric targets, and we avoid volume targets, networks and schemes, irrelevant placements and anything we would not show you. Authority is built through digital PR, content and relationships.
Qualifying links with sponsored, ugc and nofollow
Google’s page on qualifying outbound links sets out three values. Use sponsored for advertisements and paid placements. Google notes that nofollow was previously recommended for these and is still acceptable, though sponsored is preferred. Use ugc for user-generated content such as comments and forum posts; Google adds that you might remove the attribute from links posted by members who have consistently made high-quality contributions. Use nofollow when the other values do not apply and you would rather Google not associate your site with the linked page, or crawl it from your site. Several values can be combined.
The page says links marked this way will generally not be followed, and that the linked page may still be found through other means, such as sitemaps or links from other sites. Two points follow in practice. First, the attribute governs a link on your site, so qualifying outbound links is partly a matter of your own templates, comment systems and any sponsored content you host. Second, an outbound link is a promise about its destination, which is why we built Link Signals to read every outbound link on a website and flag those that no longer belong. Our article on expired domains in outbound links explains one way those links go wrong.
What the Links report can and cannot show
When reviewing links to a site, the first-party source is the Links report in Search Console, and its documentation states its limits. It is not a comprehensive list of every link: it shows a sample. Tables are limited to 1,000 rows. Duplicate links are combined, and sites are grouped by root domain, with subdomains and subdirectories folded in. It includes links Google has found over time, which may have since been removed, and it does not say whether a link is marked nofollow. Top linking sites are sorted by count, which is not quality.
Google’s suggested use is modest: confirm that you recognise the sites listed, check that link text is what you expect and not spammy, and see whether sites important to you point to yours. For known spam sites it says Google typically ignores the links. Our reading of that, which is our inference and not a Google claim, is that a raw link count tells you little about whether any link does anything. The report also covers your own site only, so it says nothing about a competitor’s links. That is covered in our analysis-first guide.
Disavow is a narrow tool
Google’s disavow documentation calls the feature advanced, to be used with caution, and warns that incorrect use can harm a site’s performance in search. It says that in most cases Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most sites will not need it. You should disavow only if there are a considerable number of spammy, artificial or low-quality links and they have caused, or will likely cause, a manual action. The first step it recommends is to remove as many spammy or low-quality links from the web as possible.
The mechanics set expectations. A list applies to the property it is uploaded to, uploading a new list replaces the old one, disavowed links continue to be shown in the Links report, and it can take a few weeks for Google to incorporate a list. The tool does not support Domain properties. A routine disavow upload “just in case” is not what the documentation describes. Our article on why one-off link audits go stale covers the monitoring side.
Where this fits at Cultured Digital: reviewing links
Reviewing past link building is one of the situations our authority work is a good fit for, alongside a sound site whose competitors have stronger authority. The four methods are analysis first, digital PR, content-led acquisition and relationship-led outreach, and each has its own guide with the sources behind it. We can work in a white-label capacity or as a specialist input to an agency’s plan. We do not promise rankings or traffic numbers.