Is there any alternative to Paul & Angela's backlinks?

[SeanyG]

Hey guys,

Thanks for checking out this post.

My backlinking outsourcer says that a lot of site admins on the sites listed in angela and paul's backlinks are shutting down the ability to post links due to the huge number of IMers subscribed to this service.

Are there any other alternatives to this service? How else do IMers get high ranking back links?

I am VERY happy with both services thus far and would recommend them to anyone but am curious to see if anyone else has noticed that a few of the places to link are closed in the sites given and if so, what are the other options?

Thanks in advance,

~Sean

[Graham Maddison]

I use a free back-link site with great results.

i have posted my findings so far on my blog.

Free Backlink Generator - Experiment Update | Online Home Business Tips

Graham

[WendellC]

I really like Andy Fletcher's Easy Backlinker.

It's a monthly service although you can test drive it for $1.

50% off TONS of High PR Backlinks (Now with .edu backlink mode)

He even has a testimonial on his site from Angela Edwards.

What I like about his system is that you can do searches for sites that match your particular niche.

Wendell

[BeauFla]

is this a service that creates the back links for you or is it only a search engine to help you find targeted back links?

[SeanyG]

Paul and Angela both provide high PR sites to put links on and show you how to do it.

[alanm88]

Packets are always good if you don't have the time to find your own but like you said it's getting flagged by sites. Another option is to learn to find your own.

[WendellC]

Originally Posted by BeauFla

is this a service that creates the back links for you or is it only a search engine to help you find targeted back links?

Andy's system is primarily a search engine that helps you find sites that allow do follow links.

It doesn't actually create the link for you. Like Angela and Paul's packets, you have to do a post in order to get a link.

However, since you will be doing searches for your own particular niche there is less chance -- I feel -- of any one site getting hit with lots of spammers.

Wendell

[SeanyG]

Interesting stuff.

I'd like to make it clear that even if I only get 10 high ranking links of the 80 links I pay for from Angel & Paul's service its still awesome value.

I more wanted to see other options and so far you guys have been helpful! I'll check the search out!

Any other ideas?

[Adrian Cooper]

The important thing to keep in mind is that it is not so much the links as the way they are used. Correct linking that stays under the Google radar is an art to be learned before playing with any linking package.

You can easily do far more harm than good if you use links indiscriminately.

If Angela's and other linking packages had been used correctly, the recent issues would never have occurred.

My suggestion is to wait and see what Angela comes up with next rather than wandering around between packages.

[BeauFla]

Finding links is like shooting fish in a barrel. Once you know how to do it, it is very hard not to abuse it. I can build between 100 and 300 good links in a day - depending very heavily on the niche. And have been known, cough cough cough cough cough, to be able to build a few hundred in a few hours (i would not recommend doing it - it will get you akismeted and put you on the sandbox radar).

"The important thing to keep in mind is that it is not so much the links as the way they are used. Correct linking that stays under the Google radar is an art to be learned before playing with any linking package."

I have to agree with this. It is hard to build links at a rate that does not set off alarms with the algorithm but still rapidly moves you up in the SERPs. Especially when you know how to cheat. its like knowing that you should not have that last drink before you leave the bar....but it is oh so tempting.

I like to think of the links to my sites as a link profile. The broader the profile I can create, while staying on topic - not necessarily on niche - the better off i am. I do not care about PR or do follow - although they are nice -. i will link anywhere as long as the PR is not NA.....but if the site is a niche heavy weight I'll take the NA as well.

One of the problems with using "sources" for links is that everyone uses them and eventually they will be abused to a point that both the site owner and Google will take notice. The site owner may only turn off commenting. But, when Google down grades the link values on all those sites and if your site's ranking in the SERPs depends heavily on the value of those links, it (your site) will drop like a rock in the SERPs.

Then all the time you spent building those links was for nothing. Uhhhh cough cough cough take it from me, I've, cough, seen it happen.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper

The important thing to keep in mind is that it is not so much the links as the way they are used. Correct linking that stays under the Google radar is an art to be learned before playing with any linking package.

You can easily do far more harm than good if you use links indiscriminately.

Cool. That means I've got the tool to demolish ALL of my competition.

Stephan Spencer: Great.
How concerned are you over the tactic of aggressive link buying to competitors' sites in order to take down competitors? How long, do you think, it will be until competitors start taking each others' sites out in Google with aggressive link buying?


Matt Cutts: I do not think a smart competitor will even try that second one because they would be more likely to help. The thing is, we are very aware that site 'A' could buy links to site 'B', and then spam-report site 'B' and try to frame site 'B'. So we try very hard, in all of our spam techniques, to make it so that one site can not sabotage another site.

If Angela's and other linking packages had been used correctly, the recent issues would never have occurred.

And that is purely conjecture; you are making a statement of fact without knowing all the facts. How do you explain the same ratio of sites that no one except me has used that have changed to no follow or closed off the capability to get links or what have you? Except for the 3 sites (out of 770 sites that have gone out now between my program and Paul's; that's 3/10 of one percent) that I can think of that specifically stated they were closing things off because of the people putting links on the sites, how can you know that this has got anything to do with the packets or the people going to the sites to put links in their profiles?

This can and sometimes does happen when we're a guest on someone else's website. If you want to be a "glass half empty" person that is your prerogative. I'd rather be a "glass half full" person and take the links that do work, which is still the majority of the packet. I spoke to my outsourcer at length about this just last night.


All the "Google will someday devalue these links" stuff is also conjecture and speculation. People were saying that same sort of thing two years ago about Social Bookmarking, too...and look how powerful that is today.

Here is one person who asked Matt Cutts point blank about this, because it was the "word on the street" back then:

Stephan Spencer: OK.
Next question: are social bookmark links given less weight than other back links - given how easy these services are to manipulate?


Matt Cutts: Typically, our policy is: a link is a link, is a link; wherever that link's worth is, that is the worth that we give it. (Notice he doesn't say that some types of links are valued and other types of links are devalued.) Some people ask about links from DMOZ, links from .edu or links from .gov, and they say: "Isn't there some sort of boost? Isn't a link better if it comes from a .edu?" The short answer is: no, it is not. It is just .edu links tend to have higher PageRank, because more people link to .edu's or .gov's.


To the best of my knowledge, I do not think we have anything that says social bookmark links are given less weight. Certainly, some sites like del.icio.us and other people, may choose to put individual "nofollows" in and they may choose to take actions to try to prevent spam, but we do not typically say anything like: social bookmarking by itself - give less weight.

Interview with Google's Matt Cutts at Pubcon

[BrianE]

If you are willing to spend a little time, you can submit software or an ebook to download sites, even if your site isn't a software site. You can pick up quite a few good links but it takes a little time and you can do it without spamming.

[BeauFla]

"Cool. That means I've got the tool to demolish ALL of my competition."

I think you are taking an extreme view of the statement. I love this argument. I tends to shut people up. But, I do not believe he was talking about deindexing but sandboxing. And if you think the sandbox does not exist then you are fooling yourself.

Unless you are a well established site you can fall victim to the sandbox.


"All the "Google will someday devalue these links" stuff is also conjecture and speculation. People were saying that same sort of thing two years ago about Social Bookmarking, too...and look how powerful that is today."

...."(Notice he doesn't say that some types of links are valued and other types of links are devalued.) ..."

You are comparing apples to oranges here. No one is saying that Google will devalue comment links as a whole or social bookmark links as a whole. But, if a site or a single page for that matter is abused then the links will; 1 devalue by nature due to the PageRank formula itself -- PageRank is a finite resource each page within a site or a site as a whole only has so much that it can give out; 2 can be possibly devalued algorithmically or manually due to large quantities of spam links. Moreover, a site or page within a site can get a reduced PR if it has too many outbound links.

PR is all about trust. If you allow a large number of unrelated links to be placed on your site that could reduce trust and hence reduce PR.

Do you think Google values links from scuttle sites the same as from Digg. LOL


So, for you to say that that is speculation is a bit obtuse. It is a simple fact. It is already worked into the math.

If you think Google does not adjust link valuations then you are kidding yourself. If they did not have the ability to adjust link values then it would be very hard for them to protect their algorithm.

[Angela V. Edwards]

No one is saying that Google will devalue comment links as a whole or social bookmark links as a whole.

Actually, people WERE saying this very thing on several other threads that have cropped up recently. Not that I expect you to have known that; it's kind of like only bringing in half of a conversation and I apologize for that.

But, I do not believe he was talking about deindexing but sandboxing.

Either one would be good enough for some "competitive types", if that means their competitors' sites won't show up at the top of the index.

[profitgenie]

you can try linkserps out they will slowly build 250 backlinks to one website of between 0 to pr4 pages, or get your own backlinks with pr5 and above with a free program like comment kahuna this will find sites that have specific page rank for the keywords that you are looking for and tell you whether it is a no follow site or not.

PG

[mwoeppel1]

It's just amazing the amount of stir Angela and Paul have created - lots of opinions, but not many facts. as in, testing. trials. The only person posting real results is Angela. As a new person around here, it just strikes me as weird.

[BeauFla]

"Either one would be good enough for some "competitive types", if that means their competitors' sites won't show up at the top of the index."

First, it won't work for established sites. Second, it takes a serious blast of links in a short period of time. I say this from experience. It is a bit embarrassing but getting yourself sandboxed is kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. And, yup I've done it. Got three sites playing in the sand right now. There is a very distinct pattern to a sand box. It is unmistakable.

@profitgenie Thanks but the last time I looked at comment kahuna i was not very impressed. I use BCD and FBF the combination of the two are OK. But I also look for links manually. Which is how i find the best links in a niche I am working

[jakesellers]

Originally Posted by mwoeppel1

It's just amazing the amount of stir Angela and Paul have created - lots of opinions, but not many facts. as in, testing. trials. The only person posting real results is Angela. As a new person around here, it just strikes me as weird.

It's cause backlinks are like the magic rocks I have in my yard that keep tigers away. There's no tigers in my yard so they're clearly working. If someday there's a tiger in my yard, it's because I didn't arrange the rocks correctly or didn't have enough of them.

[LogoNerds]

Here is the easiest way to find links that have a dofollow: NoDoFollow - A Firefox Extension

Simply use this tool when browsing websites and start building your own list of places to add your links.

[Paul Hancox]

As far as I can tell from Matt Cutt's comment posted by Angela, the way Google determine the value of a page IS by the PR of that page. After all, PR is their invention, to do precisely that.

In other words, an .edu domain backlink is not valuable because it's an .edu domain, but because it usually has a high PageRank. I hope everyone takes notes when Mr Cutts speaks.

And Google's trust of Digg is reflected in the PageRank it gives Digg, which is currently PR 8.

So if you want to know how much Google "trusts" a site or page, look at its PageRank, because that is what Google invented it for.

[Mark-Dickenson]

Originally Posted by mwoeppel1

It's just amazing the amount of stir Angela and Paul have created - lots of opinions, but not many facts. as in, testing. trials. The only person posting real results is Angela. As a new person around here, it just strikes me as weird.

What drives me absolutely NUTS is the number of people who start these threads or post comments WITHOUT actually testing the links on their sites and giving them a fair chance to work.

I mean, I can't go anywhere without someone starting an Angela or Paul thread.

They want to argue about this, that, and the other or complain that the links aren't showing up in Yahoo Link Explorer after a week etc

Give them a fair shot, and if they don't work, thats fine but I see so much arguing about stuff that really only Google knows about. I only judge things on whether my rankings increase or not

And as far as Yahoo link explorer goes, its a lot like the news. You are only going to get half the story...and that half is only half true

-Mark

[webpromoterservice]

the alternative is you can find your own high PR sites and upload your links and not have to tell anyone about it.

[mrozlat]

find your competitor that is #1 on google
go to "backlinkwatch"
then go and get backlinks from where they have
= POWER TO YOU!

[geggie3]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Actually, people WERE saying this very thing on several other threads that have cropped up recently. Not that I expect you to have known that; it's kind of like only bringing in half of a conversation and I apologize for that.

Either one would be good enough for some "competitive types", if that means their competitors' sites won't show up at the top of the index.

Angela,
I have a question. Haven't bought your service yet but was wondering whether it would help in my situation. Have a keyword with 26 million broad searches, my site with that 2 word kw as a domain name is #3 on page 1 and have done NO linking yet on this very new site. Would some linking boost it up to #1?

[mwoeppel1]

Originally Posted by jakesellers

It's cause backlinks are like the magic rocks I have in my yard that keep tigers away. There's no tigers in my yard so they're clearly working. If someday there's a tiger in my yard, it's because I didn't arrange the rocks correctly or didn't have enough of them.

Don't think backlinks are like magic rocks at all. It's the foundation of serp ranking. Unless you're joking, of course.

Also, using Angela's and Paul's backlinks has propelled me to the top of rankings on multiple terms.

[fumla]

So the conclusion now is, there are no real alternatives or similar services to Angela's and Paul's packages right?

[jasonmorgan]

So the conclusion now is, there are no real alternatives or similar services to Angela's and Paul's packages right?

Quite the opposite.

There are plenty of people and services that offer the exact same thing. Or you can find your own, or you can copy somebody else by following their backlinks and footprints.

Seriously, it's not rocket science to figure out that you can sign up at XXX site and add a backlink in your profile. And don't get overly excited about site XXX being PR 8, your profile page is still PR n/a. Yeah, it's a backlink, and every backlink helps but it's not like you're getting a backlink on the home page of CNN.

And, just remember, you've got to mix it up. Unless your targeting bottom feeder keywords, these types of backlinks aren't going to get you to #1. Even Angela, on top of her thousands of profile links has a fair amount of personal blogs, blog commenting backlinks on high PR sites and some other goodies thrown into the mix. You've got to diversify your portfolio.

Oh yeah, when you can find your own then the web really opens up and you can find better backlinks that you don't have to share with viagra and porn guy or me when I'm feeling frisky and leave links in your profile comments.. they are like bonus backlinks

And leave expression engine alone, I swear, every IMer on the planet has a backlink there.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by mrozlat

find your competitor that is #1 on google
go to "backlinkwatch"
then go and get backlinks from where they have
= POWER TO YOU!

Thats probably the least efficient method plus none of those tools show all the backlinks. You stand a good chance of using many overused backlinks and even links already sold in backlink packages.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by fumla

So the conclusion now is, there are no real alternatives or similar services to Angela's and Paul's packages right?

I'm not going to self promote in the thread but that is not a good conclusion. There are several. Just look around.

[4morereferrals]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Thats probably the least efficient method plus none of those tools show all the backlinks. You stand a good chance of using many overused backlinks and even links already sold in backlink packages.

Definitely a waste of your most precious commodity. Just trying to find the registration sign in page of the vast majority of your competitors backlinks would take hundreds of hours.

Hello ... is this thing on?