Backlinks

[djn001]

Hi,

I have been trying out Angela's WSO on driving traffic to a Go Article using backlinks placed on high ranking sites (this was my fist serious attempt at doing something in IM). I have emailed Angela herself several times with queries, and she has always replied, but I dont want to overload her, so I'd like to ask a few questions to anyone else who has tried this method, or is quite knowledgable about it.

Firstly, I'd like to know, roughly, how many backlinks it takes to achieve the desired results? I realise that this is not an exact science, so I'm only after a very rough estimate (under 100, 100-300, 500+,over 1000 etc). The competition for my chosen keyword phrase is: 879,000 pages broad match and 8,340 phrase match.

Also, I'd like to know if keywords are case sensitive? If I do a broad match search for my phrase in all lower case, then I get 879,000 pages. If I capitalise the first letter of each word, then I get 7,090,000 pages. Does this affect the chances of your site being found? Also, does it have any effect if your anchor text links don't exactly match your keyword in your article with regard to upper and lower case?

Is there any way of checking to see if your links are active? I currently have about 30 to 40 links. I discovered Yahoo site explorer, and tried it in there, but it said it wasn't in Yahoo's index (do you need to sign up to Yahoo to add it to their index?). I was als looking at Google's webmaster tools, but it requires you to copy and paste code into your site, and I'm not sure this is possible in an article.

Finally, about three weeks ago my article was on page three when I searched for my keyword, then it dissapeared. I must admit, I wasn't aware of the "Google dance" at the time, but Angela pointed this out to me, so I assumed that was the cause. However, 2weeks later, it was still nowhere to be seen. It didn't even apperar to be indexed because if I typed the URL into Google, it said there were no matches. About three days ago, I tried this test again and it has found my site, so it must be in Google's index now, although, it is still nowhere to be sen on the first 20 or so pages. Is it possible that the Google dance can have a reverse effect on some sites, where it places them artificially high for a short period of time?

Thanks

[djn001]

Sorry, I don't know what you mean to be natural.

[djn001]

Are you saying that you need at least 500 links? At approximately 10 minutes per link, doing it myself, that will take 83 hours!

[tamilseo]

yes you need 400 to 600 backlinks . i think it dont take 83 hours. you can also outsource to others.

[utproducts]

Originally Posted by djn001

Hi,

I have been trying out Angela's WSO on driving traffic to a Go Article using backlinks placed on high ranking sites (this was my fist serious attempt at doing something in IM). I have emailed Angela herself several times with queries, and she has always replied, but I dont want to overload her, so I'd like to ask a few questions to anyone else who has tried this method, or is quite knowledgable about it.

Firstly, I'd like to know, roughly, how many backlinks it takes to achieve the desired results? I realise that this is not an exact science, so I'm only after a very rough estimate (under 100, 100-300, 500+,over 1000 etc). The competition for my chosen keyword phrase is: 879,000 pages broad match and 8,340 phrase match.

Also, I'd like to know if keywords are case sensitive? If I do a broad match search for my phrase in all lower case, then I get 879,000 pages. If I capitalise the first letter of each word, then I get 7,090,000 pages. Does this affect the chances of your site being found? Also, does it have any effect if your anchor text links don't exactly match your keyword in your article with regard to upper and lower case?

Is there any way of checking to see if your links are active? I currently have about 30 to 40 links. I discovered Yahoo site explorer, and tried it in there, but it said it wasn't in Yahoo's index (do you need to sign up to Yahoo to add it to their index?). I was als looking at Google's webmaster tools, but it requires you to copy and paste code into your site, and I'm not sure this is possible in an article.

Finally, about three weeks ago my article was on page three when I searched for my keyword, then it dissapeared. I must admit, I wasn't aware of the "Google dance" at the time, but Angela pointed this out to me, so I assumed that was the cause. However, 2weeks later, it was still nowhere to be seen. It didn't even apperar to be indexed because if I typed the URL into Google, it said there were no matches. About three days ago, I tried this test again and it has found my site, so it must be in Google's index now, although, it is still nowhere to be sen on the first 20 or so pages. Is it possible that the Google dance can have a reverse effect on some sites, where it places them artificially high for a short period of time?

Thanks

The amount of backlinks you need can vary greatly depending upon where you get them. Using correctly anchored links from pages of relevant content, you could probably get the top spot for your phrase with less than 100. But I honestly cannot tell you how hard it would be to outrank the top sites for your term unless I knew what the term was.

Keywords and anchor text seem to be case sensitive in some cases. I would not worry about it too much. For example if you do a Google search for "make money online" and then "Make Money Online" the results are the same.

Backlink checkers are never 100% accurate and do not show you all of them. For articles, you can setup Google Alerts to track backlinks.

Your new sites may rank well and then disappear or drop in rankings (sandboxing), and then come back to the top. Google does dance around with its index sometimes. Just keep getting quality inbound links and you should raise consistently.

[Paul Hancox]

The "Google Dance" happens for a reason. Partly it's because of the influence of the newer links, partly because of your competitors, and partly I suspect it's Google's way of "testing" where a particular link should be ranked.

As for how many backlinks you need, nobody can give you an exact figure, because it depends on the strength of your competition. If #3 has 1,000 good quality backlinks with the keywords in the anchor text, then you might need a lot more, just to overtake them.

On the other hand, you might only need a couple of dozen if your competition is weak.

Also, don't forget that ranking doesn't depend solely on backlinks. It also depends on how well you've optimized the title and body of the article for the search engine.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by djn001

Hi,

I have been trying out Angela's WSO on driving traffic to a Go Article using backlinks placed on high ranking sites (this was my fist serious attempt at doing something in IM). I have emailed Angela herself several times with queries, and she has always replied, but I dont want to overload her, so I'd like to ask a few questions to anyone else who has tried this method, or is quite knowledgable about it.

Firstly, I'd like to know, roughly, how many backlinks it takes to achieve the desired results? I realise that this is not an exact science, so I'm only after a very rough estimate (under 100, 100-300, 500+,over 1000 etc). The competition for my chosen keyword phrase is: 879,000 pages broad match and 8,340 phrase match.

I normally select allintitle - 1K competition or below to write article, don't really care about exact match...

After that, build 20 ~ 30 backlinks with Angela & socialbot bookmarking, and your article should rank well.

Originally Posted by djn001

Is there any way of checking to see if your links are active? I currently have about 30 to 40 links. I discovered Yahoo site explorer, and tried it in there, but it said it wasn't in Yahoo's index (do you need to sign up to Yahoo to add it to their index?). I was als looking at Google's webmaster tools, but it requires you to copy and paste code into your site, and I'm not sure this is possible in an article.

Use keyword tracking software like Rank Tracker to track your ranking is enough, I don't care about the backlinks after doing it!

Originally Posted by djn001

Finally, about three weeks ago my article was on page three when I searched for my keyword, then it dissapeared. I must admit, I wasn't aware of the "Google dance" at the time, but Angela pointed this out to me, so I assumed that was the cause. However, 2weeks later, it was still nowhere to be seen. It didn't even apperar to be indexed because if I typed the URL into Google, it said there were no matches. About three days ago, I tried this test again and it has found my site, so it must be in Google's index now, although, it is still nowhere to be sen on the first 20 or so pages. Is it possible that the Google dance can have a reverse effect on some sites, where it places them artificially high for a short period of time?
Thanks

Keep building more links will keep your article stay longer, and more sustain. If you don't see it, just build more links...

- Kok Choon

[djn001]

Thanks to all those who answered my questions.

I had to go out soon after I posted it, so unfortunately I could not reply to everyone.

[InternetMarketingIQ]

Angela, Paul, whomever keep telling people they can dominate ranking with backlinks. This is NOT the case. If the competition is low and you use a longtail phrase then the effectiveness of backlinks is enough to push you in the rankings.

The fact is you need/must have backlinks. And they need to come from respected sites, and they need to have specific anchor text.

But the TRUTH is Backlinks are only a part of the ranking equation, and in competitive niches they alone are not enough to push you to the top.

Google has this little term "RELEVANCY" and that is the key to linking and ranking. You have to figure out what Google thinks is Relevant!

A lot of the links that are in linking packets are essentially irrelevant and will not push your rankings. Add to this the fact that most people don't know how to create an effective profile or write an effective comment.

These people make money selling the packets, way more than they can make doing anything else. That is their niche. If they could make money doing affiliate marketing then they would be doing that.

Don't you think that if all you needed was backlinks you wouldn't stand a chance? Big Money players would simply pay people to build links and do nothing else and you couldn't compete.

Fortunately this is NOT the case.

[Marhelper]

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

Angela, Paul, whomever keep telling people they can dominate ranking with backlinks. This is NOT the case. If the competition is low and you use a longtail phrase then the effectiveness of backlinks is enough to push you in the rankings.

The fact is you need/must have backlinks. And they need to come from respected sites, and they need to have specific anchor text.

But the TRUTH is Backlinks are only a part of the ranking equation, and in competitive niches they alone are not enough to push you to the top.

Google has this little term "RELEVANCY" and that is the key to linking and ranking. You have to figure out what Google thinks is Relevant!

A lot of the links that are in linking packets are essentially irrelevant and will not push your rankings. Add to this the fact that most people don't know how to create an effective profile or write an effective comment.

These people make money selling the packets, way more than they can make doing anything else. That is their niche. If they could make money doing affiliate marketing then they would be doing that.

Don't you think that if all you needed was backlinks you wouldn't stand a chance? Big Money players would simply pay people to build links and do nothing else and you couldn't compete.

Fortunately this is NOT the case.

Wow! That is a great bit of valuable information right there. You just nailed it. Relevancy is a lot more important then many think.

[Amenda Jessera]

Well, SEO cannot be defined anymore as far as the algorithms of search engines are top secret. So, as far as most of the IM/SEO guys research, it is more adviseable to get backlinks daily. Keep on getting. That will bring you to top.

[Goatboy]

I'm in the camp that thinks it will vary. Some keywords may need more and some many need less.

[Kael41]

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

Add to this the fact that most people don't know how to create an effective profile or write an effective comment.

You mean I should incorporate LSI and other semantics into my profile?

Relevancy, Variance, and Timing.

[4morereferrals]

The fact is you need/must have backlinks. And they need to come from respected sites, and they need to have specific anchor text.

But the TRUTH is Backlinks are only a part of the ranking equation, and in competitive niches they alone are not enough to push you to the top.

Google has this little term "RELEVANCY" and that is the key to linking and ranking. You have to figure out what Google thinks is Relevant!

Wait ... first ... I must have backlinks ...

Then I dont really ... then I must find the mystical "relevancy". My backlinks anchor text seems to be all the relevancy google is currently needing to be on hte page/site.

I think its pretty universally accept and "assumed" that a backlink consists of "relevant" anchor text in the backlink.

So then, what do YOU mean by relevant? Many people here have many different ideas of what relevant means.

Many people are using relevant anchor text filled backlinks on sites that have NO RELEVANCY to their site or niche - to rank rather well - in competitive niches.

I have seen the evidence of their work, and mine with what many people would consider - non relevant - non authority sites.

I havent much seen the evidence that rankings rely heavily on backlinks placed on high authority, high pr, Pages or sites that are filled with pages and pages of content "relative" to the site being backlinked TO.

So how do we know that your truth is THE truth ?

Affiliate sales is more than SERPS as well ...

[Angela V. Edwards]

Exactly, Steve. What is "relevance" anyway? Here is what I tell people:

You often see "Yellow Page" sites linking to major businesses. Now, you and
I, being humans, can understand why a site like that might link to a business'
website, but do you really think a Search Engine's algorithm can make that
determination? What if there was a "community portal" site that linked
to all the businesses in the area? What about directories? What "niche"
are they in? Search Engines do not and cannot determine whether all the
sites linking to other sites "make sense" (are relevant) or not.

The search engines would have to know what is "relevant" and that will take a LOT of
human interaction. A site for parents might link to a veterinarian's website
because the site has a warning about a certain flea medication being poisonous
to children, Yellow Pages websites might link to businesses in the area, the Fire
Department's website might link to the PUD (Electric Company) because of a warning
about electrical sparks, the Food Bank might link to the local High School because
of a huge food drive the kids did...see what I mean? To determine "relevance" would
take CONSTANT human interaction on all the TRILLION webpages on the Internet. Many Web 2.0 sites' only "relevance" to anybody is the 'community factor' that they
provide. Theme-wise, many of those sites aren't "relevant" to most niches.

[younghamir]

yeah. given for example the adobe. they rank first (the last time i checked) for the key phrase "click here" simply because all sites with a pdf to download would suggest you to download adobe reader if you don't have one yet and the phrase almost 100% "click here" and that's what link to adobe site.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

Angela, Paul, whomever keep telling people they can dominate ranking with backlinks. This is NOT the case. If the competition is low and you use a longtail phrase then the effectiveness of backlinks is enough to push you in the rankings.

Angela & Paul is right! This is the case, and they didn't say that you can rank for competitive keyword with one or two packets!

If you are going after more competitive keywords, you need a lot of links, gather as much links as possible!

I found that High PR inner page links is great! You can rank faster and easier than many types of links, such as directory and bookmarks. Having said that, it all depends on the domain PR, the higher the more link power it carries.

If you are trying to game in long tail, just do proper keyword research and find tons of keywords that don't need backlinks to rank, outsource it and post the content on web 2.0 sites or high PR article directories - Ezinearticles.com or Goarticles.com, and your articles will start to generate traffic by it own without backlinks!

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

The fact is you need/must have backlinks. And they need to come from respected sites, and they need to have specific anchor text.

But the TRUTH is Backlinks are only a part of the ranking equation, and in competitive niches they alone are not enough to push you to the top.

Google has this little term "RELEVANCY" and that is the key to linking and ranking. You have to figure out what Google thinks is Relevant!

Forget about relevancy! When Michael Jackson dies, how many "irrelevant" links do you think those blogs and news sites have?

Relevant links tend to carry more link power, but I find that High PR carries more power:

1. Same pagerank (For instance - PR3), may be relevant give you better push, but...

2. Higher Pagerank (For instance - PR4), give you a lot more link power!

I've try it, and experience tells me I rank higher with high PR sites, not relevant sites... so relevancy is still myth to me.

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

A lot of the links that are in linking packets are essentially irrelevant and will not push your rankings. Add to this the fact that most people don't know how to create an effective profile or write an effective comment.

You better have proofs to your claim, my experience tells otherwise! Profile is a profile, how do you make it relevant?

Think about how much resources Google needs to process relevancy? They can't tell if the links is relevant without going through deep analysis, and how many sites they need to process everyday?

If I need to implement relevancy in my algorithm, it must be obvious and easy! And until now, I don't really see the power of relevancy!

Don't believe me, join Linkvana and Backlink Solutions, these are the 2 best blog networks! Find a niche and create 2 websites, use the same keyword and see how fast you can rank for a keyword with contextual relevant link VS High PR links!

(BTW, contextual link is a lot powerful than profile link, but see how great that High PR and Low PR links affects the result!)

I must admit comment have to be relevant, on topic, but that is on the blogger or forum, not relevant to your site! Irrelevant comment will only be deleted or removed eventually!

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

These people make money selling the packets, way more than they can make doing anything else. That is their niche. If they could make money doing affiliate marketing then they would be doing that.

Don't you think that if all you needed was backlinks you wouldn't stand a chance? Big Money players would simply pay people to build links and do nothing else and you couldn't compete.

Fortunately this is NOT the case.

I am one of the guy who sell link collection, and I had way too many happy customers!

There are few guys purchased the link collection and expect to rank high for any keywords within a short period of time, say 2 weeks.

Some even claim that doing backlinks too fast get his site sandbox!

However, when I check his site, info:hisdomain.com, site:hisdomain.com all intact! Nothing wrong... when I check his backlinks, I found the keyword he is targeting way too much competition!

I must stress this:

When your site is new, go for higher competition long tail keywords, these kind of keywords give you more searches. When I mention higher competition, I meant relative to the next step.

Next step, pick low competition long tail keywords that you know it can rank in 2 weeks, and put them into web 2.0 sites to build the link wheel.

Promote linkwheels with backlinks and let them all rank on page 1 to start generating traffic to your site.

Find out more on the bottom of my signature, I use this strategy to generate thousands of visitors / day!

When your site starts to rank high and receive better PR (PR 4), you can start to target higher competition keywords, build backlinks to it and keep promoting it until you see result!

Use rank tracker software to track your ranking.

If you seriously want to compete with the large budget site, you must know LSI and properly structure your site to build a clear "site profile" to Google!

Many people didn't know that if you have good LSI and category structure, you can easily outrank many authority sites! Download this: Advance LSI and Keyword Research.

Review your strategy, learn to make it work, you give up way too soon...

To Your Success!

- Kok Choon

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Wait ... first ... I must have backlinks ...

I havent much seen the evidence that rankings rely heavily on backlinks placed on high authority, high pr, Pages or sites that are filled with pages and pages of content "relative" to the site being backlinked TO.

So how do we know that your truth is THE truth ?

Affiliate sales is more than SERPS as well ...

I must agree with you Steve!

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Exactly, Steve. What is "relevance" anyway? Here is what I tell people:

Exactly! That would eat up all Google resources, and not possible to implement relevancy in the near future, not until the processing cost lower, a lot lower!


** This debate has attract many links collectors!