Does Google really penalise a site for having many backlinks, just because they all consistently use the same keyword(s) in the anchor text?
I have just been here ...
http://www.weboma.com/receive-traffi...t-one-of-them/
Half way down the page the author states:
"2- Google can easily understand when a webmaster tries to make an artificial link popularity for his/her website. Google likes websites to look normal and natural and the links they receive to be natural and organic too. When you try to increase your website link popularity by exchanging links or submitting your website to tens of web directories, your website backlinks don’t look natural and organic because most of them will have the same anchor text. ( emphasis mine )
This is good to have the keywords in the anchor text but when your website has a lot of backlinks with the same keyword, it means someone has tried to increase your website link popularity artificially."
This concerns me a little because I am NOT a big fan of reciprocal linking. I believe in the "organic" natural process of linking, BUT I also help people create links to my site by requesting they do so by using certain keywords that would be of most benefit to me.
The end is result is that most people creating "organic" links to my site do so using the keywords I have requested, ( usually by using the html code I have provided which includes a banner graphic. )
Question: Does Google penalise a site for having many backward links ( even non-reciprocal links ) that all utilise the same ( or very similar ) keywords in the anchor text of the link?
I've just discovered the following additional comment further down in the same aforementioned article...
"For example your website will be banned by Yahoo if most of the backlinks are reciprocal. This is what that MSN does too. Google doesn’t ban such websites but will penalize them in the way that they can not be seen on the first pages for any of the keywords. It means Google just indexes such websites but doesn’t rank them."
Surely not!
I would appreciate your comments on this.
More...