Are links between .com sites really valued less by Google?

Why does Google differentiate between links from non-ccTLD sites?

Non-ccTLD domains (.com, .net, .org, .io, etc.) are not tied to a specific country, unlike ccTLDs (.fr, .de, .co.uk). This geographic neutrality makes them attractive for international site networks, but also for artificial link schemes.

Google has been observing massive abuses for years: .com PBN networks, cross-link exchanges, content farms. The statement confirms that the algorithm applies a different weighting to links between these domains to detect and neutralize manipulations. Let's be honest: a link from one .com to another .com has never carried the same intrinsic value as a contextual editorial link from an established media outlet.

What is an “editorial vote” according to Google?

An authentic editorial vote is characterized by a link placed naturally within content because the source deems it relevant for its audience. No financial consideration, no reciprocal agreement, no automatic exchange plugin.

The problem is that between two unknown .com sites, Google struggles to distinguish a true editorial link from a negotiated or automated link. The algorithm thus integrates contextual signals: domain age, diversity of outgoing link profiles, thematic coherence, temporal patterns of link creation. If these signals are weak or suspicious, the link loses its weight.

Does this rule apply equally to all .coms?

No. Google does not treat all .com sites uniformly. An established .com with history, documented organic traffic, and recognized editorial authority (like media, institutions, publicly traded companies) maintains high PageRank transmission strength.

On the other hand, a new .com with little direct traffic and a suspicious outgoing link profile (many links to sites with no thematic coherence) will be scrutinized. Linking between such domains likely triggers algorithmic filters that devalue the link or even ignore it entirely. Google does not systematically penalize, but applies a discount.

• Links between .coms are not all equal: the authority of the source domain remains decisive.
• Google looks for signals of naturalness: diversity, context, thematic coherence, natural anchoring.
• .com site networks are particularly monitored: repetitive patterns, common IPs, similar templates trigger alerts.
• Caution is especially required for new domains: a .com under 6 months old exchanging links with other young .coms risks devaluation.
• ccTLDs enjoy a presumption of geographic legitimacy: a .fr to a .de looks more natural than a .com to a .com with no territorial anchoring.

Is this statement consistent with on-the-ground observations?

Absolutely. Since several updates of the link spam detection algorithm, practitioners have noted that .com PBNs are gradually losing effectiveness. Sites that relied on dozens of anonymous .com backlinks are seeing their organic traffic stagnate or decline, even with an increase in link volume.

Empirical tests show that a link from a relevant ccTLD (.fr for a French target, .de for Germany) often generates a measurable and quicker impact than an equivalent link from an unrecognized .com. Google seems to apply a higher trust coefficient to geo-targeted domains because they are harder to manipulate en masse: obtaining 50 quality .fr domains takes more effort than acquiring 50 expired .coms.

What nuances should be added to this rule?

Google does not claim that all .com to .com links are suspicious. A link from the New York Times (.com) to TechCrunch (.com) retains enormous value. The statement targets configurations where the engine cannot easily verify editorial legitimacy.

Specifically, if your .com site receives links from established .coms, with real traffic, recognized authority, and thematic coherence, there’s no issue. The problem arises when your incoming or outgoing link profile shows statistical anomalies: spikes in creation, over-optimized anchors, low diversity of TLDs, low diversity of Class C IPs. [To be verified]: Google has never published a numeric threshold, but on-the-ground feedback suggests that a profile with over 70% of backlinks in .com, without known brands, triggers increased scrutiny.

In what scenarios does this rule not truly apply?

For established global brands in .com, this rule is nearly ineffective. Amazon, Netflix, Salesforce, HubSpot: their outgoing links retain their strength because Google has multiple trust signals (brand mentions, massive direct traffic, age, traffic source diversity).

Similarly, in certain highly niche sectors (B2B SaaS, fintech, edtech), the main players are almost all in .com. Cross-links among them remain valuable if the link graph reflects the reality of the sector. Google knows that an article from Stripe (.com) citing Plaid (.com) is legitimate because the two companies share a real ecosystem, documented by hundreds of third-party sources.

What concrete actions should you take to secure your link profile?

First action: audit the diversity of your backlinks. Use your usual tools (Ahrefs, Majestic, Semrush) to extract the TLD distribution. If over 60-70% of your backlinks come from .coms without recognized brands, you are potentially exposed to algorithmic devaluation.

Next, prioritize acquiring links from ccTLDs that align with your target markets. A French site benefits from obtaining .fr, .be, .ch. A German site focuses on .de, .at. These links not only transmit PageRank but also enhance geographic relevance, which is an increasingly important signal for Google. And that's where it gets tricky: obtaining editorial links from ccTLDs requires a relationship-based approach, quality content, and time.

What mistakes must you absolutely avoid?

Do not multiply link purchases on generic platforms that sell anonymous .com backlinks in batches of 50. These networks are known to Google, their footprints are mapped. Even if the link appears in your tool, it may be completely ignored by the algorithm.

Avoid also creating your own network of satellite .coms with cross-links. Google detects technical footprints: same host, same plugins, same templates, circular linking patterns. If you really want to build an ecosystem of sites, vary the TLDs, hosts, CMSs, and above all: create real audiences on each property. A site without direct traffic is an automatic spam signal.

How can you verify that your linking strategy stays compliant?

Monitor your organic traffic metrics after each significant link acquisition. A stagnation or drop despite an increase in backlinks likely indicates devaluation. Compare the curve of referring domains with that of organic traffic: if they diverge, investigate further.

Also analyze the distribution of your anchors. A healthy profile shows a majority of brand anchors, naked URLs, and “click here”. If your exact match anchors represent more than 20-30% of the total, you are over-optimized, especially if these links come from low-authority .coms. Rebalance by obtaining natural mentions, brand citations, and contextual links with varied anchors.

• Audit the TLD distribution of your backlinks (goal: less than 60% in anonymous .coms)
• Prioritize link acquisition from relevant ccTLDs for your target markets
• Verify the real authority of source domains (established .coms vs. recent .coms without traffic)
• Avoid general link purchase platforms offering .coms in bulk
• Monitor the correlation between the referring domains curve and organic traffic
• Diversify your link anchors (favor brand, naked URL, generic anchors)