What counts as link spam under Google policy
Link building is not against Google's rules. Links created mainly to manipulate rankings are, and Google's spam policies list eleven examples, from paid links to forum signatures. Here is what the policy says, what it allows and where the grey areas sit.
In short
- Google's spam policies, last updated on 28 August 2026, define link spam as creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings.
- The policy lists eleven examples, including buying or selling links, excessive link exchanges, automated link creation and low-quality directory or bookmark site links.
- Paid links are allowed when they carry a nofollow or sponsored attribute, because Google treats them as advertising.
- The policy covers links from your site as well as links to it, so publishers who sell links are in scope.
- Google's manual actions help page still uses the older phrase link schemes for the same behaviour.
Link building is not against Google’s rules. A specific kind of link is. Google’s spam policies, last updated on 28 August 2026, say: “Link spam is the practice of creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings.”
Everything turns on the words “primarily for the purpose”. A link you asked for because your guide is useful to a site’s readers is fine. A link that exists only because money changed hands, and that passes ranking credit, is not. This lesson sets out what the policy lists, what it allows and where practitioners disagree about the edges.
What the policy says, example by example
Google gives eleven examples of link spam. We read the live policy page on 4 October 2026, and the table groups them by type.
| Group | Examples named in the policy |
|---|---|
| Paying for links | Exchanging money for links or for posts that contain links. Exchanging goods or services for links. Sending someone a product in exchange for writing about it and including a link |
| Swapping links | “Excessive link exchanges” and partner pages “exclusively for the sake of cross-linking” |
| Automation | “Using automated programs or services to create links to your site” |
| Forced links | Requiring a link in a terms of service or contract without letting the other site qualify the link |
| Unqualified advertising | Text advertisements or text links “that don’t block ranking credit”. Advertorials or native advertising where payment is received for articles with links that pass ranking credit |
| Optimised anchors at scale | Links with optimised anchor text in articles, guest posts or press releases distributed on other sites |
| Low-quality placements | “Low-quality directory or bookmark site links”. Keyword-rich, hidden or low-quality links in widgets. Widely distributed links in footers or templates. Forum comments with optimised links in the post or signature |
| Content made for links | “Creating low-value content primarily for the purposes of manipulating linking and ranking signals” |
Two details are easy to miss. First, the definition says “to or from a site”. A publisher that sells links breaks the same policy as the buyer, which is the subject of selling links on your own site. Second, payment does not have to be money. A free product in return for a linked write-up is on the list.
What the policy allows
The policy does not ban paying for placements. The same section says: “Google does understand that buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web for advertising and sponsorship purposes. It’s not a violation of our policies to have such links as long as they are qualified with a rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored" attribute value.”
So the compliant version of a paid placement is a labelled one. Google’s documentation on qualifying outbound links, last updated in December 2025, says to mark “advertisements or paid placements” with the sponsored value and says links with these attributes “will generally not be followed”. Our lesson on nofollow, sponsored and ugc explains how each value behaves.
Nothing on the policy page restricts the ordinary work of link building: publishing something worth citing, telling relevant people about it, asking for a credit where your work was used, or running digital PR that earns coverage. The policy has no rule against asking.
Link scheme: the older name
You will still see the phrase “link scheme” in older guides and in agency contracts. It is the earlier label for the same idea. Google’s manual actions help page, which we read on 4 October 2026, still uses it: buying links or “participating in link schemes” to manipulate rankings is described there as a violation of the spam policies. If a document says link scheme, read it as link spam.
Where the grey areas sit
The policy gives examples, not thresholds. Several common tactics sit on the line, and the wording explains why.
Guest posts. A guest article is not named as spam. Paid articles with links that pass ranking credit are, and so are optimised anchors in guest posts “distributed on other sites”. A single unpaid article for a relevant publication is a different thing from fifty paid ones with keyword anchors. Our page on guest posting covers the difference.
Link exchanges. The word that matters is “excessive”. Google does not define it. Two related businesses linking to each other is normal on the web. A programme of swaps run through a spreadsheet is what the policy describes. See link exchanges for how practitioners handle this.
Products for reviews. Sending a product for review is standard marketing. Under the policy, the link in the resulting review should be qualified if the product was the price of the link.
Directories. Only “low-quality” directory links are named. A curated trade directory that rejects listings is outside the wording. Mass submission packages are inside it. Old-school links goes through these one by one.
The honest line, as our research frames it, is less “built or earned” and more whether the site had editorial discretion and whether any payment was disclosed.
Policies next door that catch link tactics
Several other spam policies on the same page affect link work, even though they are not in the link spam section:
- Expired domain abuse covers buying a dropped domain to exploit its existing backlinks.
- Site reputation abuse covers third-party pages published on a strong host to borrow its ranking signals. Our lesson on the site reputation abuse policy covers it.
- Hacked content is defined as “any content placed on a site without permission, due to vulnerabilities in a site’s security”. Links injected into compromised sites fall here, and they are also a crime against the site owner.
- User-generated spam covers spam that users add to a site through comments, forums or profiles.
The page’s opening definition of spam was also widened. It now includes “attempting to manipulate generative AI responses in Google Search”.
What happens when you break it
The policy page says sites that violate Google’s policies “may rank lower in results or not appear in results at all”. For links, there are two routes. Google’s systems can simply ignore the links, which is the common outcome and means the money was wasted. Or a human reviewer can apply a manual action for unnatural links, which appears in Search Console.
The detail of both routes, and how to recover, is in Google link penalties and recovery.
How to use the policy in practice
Three questions sort most cases:
- Would this link exist if search engines did not? If yes, it is very unlikely to be link spam.
- Did the linking site choose to link, or was the link the thing being sold?
- If value changed hands, is the link qualified with sponsored or nofollow?
Many businesses still buy followed links knowing the answer to the third question is no. That is a risk decision, not a misunderstanding of the rule, and it should be made in writing by someone with the authority to accept it. Marketplaces that sell placements, compared in our link marketplaces guide, let you choose the attribute on many listings, so check before you order.
Where to go next
If you publish paid content, the seller’s side of the policy is the next lesson to read. Terms such as manual action and link scheme are defined in the glossary.
Common questions
Is link building against Google's rules?
No. Google's policy targets links created primarily to manipulate search rankings. Asking for a link, earning one with good content or buying a labelled advertising link are all outside the definition.
What is a link scheme?
It is the older name for what Google's spam policies now call link spam. Google's manual actions help page still says that buying links or participating in link schemes to manipulate rankings breaks its spam policies.
Are paid links always link spam?
No. Google's policy says buying and selling links is not a violation as long as the link is qualified with a nofollow or sponsored attribute. A paid link that passes ranking credit is link spam.
Are link exchanges against Google policy?
Only excessive ones. The policy names excessive link exchanges and partner pages made exclusively for cross-linking. It does not define excessive, so an occasional swap between related sites sits in a grey area.
What happens if you break the link spam policy?
Google's policy page says sites that violate its policies may rank lower or not appear in results at all. In practice the links are usually ignored, and a human reviewer can also apply a manual action.
