Two Tiered Linking, Really Simple, Really Powerful

[GeorgR.]

In recent weeks and months i came across several reports and experiences on webmaster and link building forums about what i call "two tiered" linking.

This seems to be REALLY powerful and i actually saw reports people doing really simple link building and gaining #1 position without a problem

I am not talking about link wheels, i am talking very simple, here are some examples:


*) 50 or so Tier1 (= higher PR/higher quality) profiles linking to money site.
Several thousand Tier2 ("lower quality") profile links linking to the 50 tier 1 links.

*) Article Marketing.
Submit articles w/ link to money site to a few tier 1 (ezine, goarticles, articles etc.) sites and backlink them with hundreds of other articles

*) Article Marketing + Scrapebox
Is supposedly EXTREMELY effective according to reports!

Blast a few hundred articles with AMR, get the links and Xrumer/Scrapebox the hell out of all the article URLs.

You see it's basically a "Link Pyramid" structure (few high quality links backed by many "low quality" links) but the interesting thing is how easy it is to do and doesn't require any fancy planning or super complicated software.

In fact AMR and Scrapebox are already enough to do it.

Would anyone post their experiences using such or similar link techniques?

[jacked]

I do a similar structure, but I use Web 2.0s for the first layer. There is not much difference between a "High PR" profile link and a normal profile link, they both have an On Page PR of 0 or N/A.

[GeorgR.]

Yes you are right, this is very flexible and it can be done in different ways.

By the way you have good link building packages and seem to know what you're talking about. Very nice.

[Victor Edson]

You're absolutely right about this being powerful.

And it's true also that it doesn't really matter what the tier 1 link is.

You can even backlink your RSS feeds to make them more powerful.

There are some sites that are better to use depending on what type of link you get from their site when you post an article/profile though.

[GeorgR.]

I just got a SERIOUS boost on my weight loss site using only AMR and SB and i am on page #1 now for "lose weight fast" and "lose weight".... This gave me a serious boost since i was stuck on page #2 for the last weeks! I am all hyped now.

[chini]

It will have little affect pretty soon, google is catching up to this...Remember its YOU vs 200 phds. And if the herd mentality is doing this, well soon or later Googles going to fix this problem. If there's no value added, it simply won't last.

[MrWonton]

I've been thinking about this strategy for a while now, and it seems to work on similar principles to the link wheel. Definitely worth testing.

[MikeFriedman]

I have been writing an article about this the past few days.

It really is the same thing as a linkwheel. People get too caught up in the structure of a linkwheel. The big advantage of it though is it creates a buffer between your links and your main site, and it creates authority sites pointing to your main site.

I've been doing this for quite some time. You do not have to use Web 2.0 sites as the buffer. It can be articles, forum profiles, or entries at a social bookmarking site. Some people take a page from someone else's blog they have successfully posted a comment to and build tons of backlinks to that.

You can be creative.

It may not be a traditional linkwheel, but the theory behind it is still the same.

[Fraggler]

If you have the tools to do it and only focusing on a few pages of content at a time then it can help a lot.

It is a problem when managing a lot of pages that methods like this become counter productive. I guess if you keep things well organised then you'll be cool bananas.

[InTheMaking]

sorry for the nooby question, but whats AMR?


Thanks,

Jeremy

[ed22]

AMR - Article Marketing Robot

[LiamP]

Originally Posted by chini

It will have little affect pretty soon, google is catching up to this...Remember its YOU vs 200 phds. And if the herd mentality is doing this, well soon or later Googles going to fix this problem. If there's no value added, it simply won't last.

Yeah I often wonder if seeing a widely adopted method on the Warrior forum is the equivalent of getting stock tips from a shoe shine boy.

[TomScarn]

Originally Posted by LiamP

Yeah I often wonder if seeing a widely adopted method on the Warrior forum is the equivalent of getting stock tips from a shoe shine boy.

Quote of the day.

[jacked]

Originally Posted by MrWonton

I've been thinking about this strategy for a while now, and it seems to work on similar principles to the link wheel. Definitely worth testing.

Depending on how you make them, link wheels are not to great. If you have a closed link wheel and google bots land back onto a page which they have already bin on several times, it will know its a link wheel and devalue the links. I read up on some of the patents on this, will try to find the post later.

[Joseph Then]

I've tried this recently and I haven't seen any results yet.

My first layer is Web2.0 URLs, pointing to my money sites.
The second layer are UAW article submissions, pointing to my Web2.0 URLs.

Perhaps I should try AMR to test too.

[jep]

I am currently using a two-tiered SB backlinks...and it work wonders..

[jacked]

Originally Posted by Joseph Then

I've tried this recently and I haven't seen any results yet.

My first layer is Web2.0 URLs, pointing to my money sites.
The second layer are UAW article submissions, pointing to my Web2.0 URLs.

Perhaps I should try AMR to test too.

Has anyone tried both linking Article submissions to your Web 2.0s and SB Blog Comments? I always linked Comments to my Web 2.0s because blogs get so many spiders. I am going to have to try out article submissions one day.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by jacked

Has anyone tried both linking Article submissions to your Web 2.0s and SB Blog Comments? I always linked Comments to my Web 2.0s because blogs get so many spiders. I am going to have to try out article submissions one day.

Nah, usually more blog comments than article submissions so never tried. I've done it the other way around, though.

[sgsmorgan]

Originally Posted by GeorgR.

In recent weeks and months i came across several reports and experiences on webmaster and link building forums about what i call "two tiered" linking.

This seems to be REALLY powerful and i actually saw reports people doing really simple link building and gaining #1 position without a problem

I am not talking about link wheels, i am talking very simple, here are some examples:


*) 50 or so Tier1 (= higher PR/higher quality) profiles linking to money site.
Several thousand Tier2 ("lower quality") profile links linking to the 50 tier 1 links.

*) Article Marketing.
Submit articles w/ link to money site to a few tier 1 (ezine, goarticles, articles etc.) sites and backlink them with hundreds of other articles

*) Article Marketing + Scrapebox
Is supposedly EXTREMELY effective according to reports!

Blast a few hundred articles with AMR, get the links and Xrumer/Scrapebox the hell out of all the article URLs.

You see it's basically a "Link Pyramid" structure (few high quality links backed by many "low quality" links) but the interesting thing is how easy it is to do and doesn't require any fancy planning or super complicated software.

In fact AMR and Scrapebox are already enough to do it.

Would anyone post their experiences using such or similar link techniques?

This process is what we have been teaching at Simple leveraging since 2009 and we have several members who are now "cleaning up" with their sites and suffered no loss through the recent Panda Update at all. In fact a couple of our members are seeing revenues into 4 figures daily.

We go more than just two tiers deep and in fact I think the most one of our members went is about 5 Tiers deep. This might sound over the top but it also explains why they weren't hit in the recent update. They built such massive structures, we call them Link Mountains that basically if they did take a hit the structure was set up in such a way that it withstood anything that was thrown at it.

The other added bonus I guess to Simple Leveraging members is that they get almost unfettered access to a network of over 300 Private Social Bookmark Directories that they can point almost wherever they want. It helps I guess being the guy sitting in the playground with the biggest baseball bat.

Anyone require further info just PM me

[sane1]

Thanks for the intel, while it's still working i'll use it.

[yougpeter]

Interesting tips.Will try.

[jacked]

Originally Posted by yougpeter

Interesting tips.Will try.

Yea link pyramids are definitely worth it. Especially if you want to keep a sites backlink portfolio clean but at the same time powerful.

[Bribebox]

Interesting information, but what about tier 2 anchor texts? Is it must be the same as your niche? For example my main site niche is Make Money Online. So 1st tier anchor text is Make Money Online, then 2nd tier anchor text? Make Money Online?

[sgsmorgan]

Originally Posted by Bribebox

Interesting information, but what about tier 2 anchor texts? Is it must be the same as your niche? For example my main site niche is Make Money Online. So 1st tier anchor text is Make Money Online, then 2nd tier anchor text? Make Money Online?

Yes that would be the idea. Basically this an exercise in a slightly larger scale of what we call "one way directional linking". There is no form of cross linking and all the links ultimately point to a pinnacle at the top (the peak / summit of the moutain) which is where your money or target site resides.

To get maximum bang for your buck all links should be anchor themed for the web 2.0s or the satellite / tiered sites. Throw in a few semantic or associate keyword phrases too just to mix it up and make it look credible as well.

[iAmNameLess]

I just refer to it as link pushing. I use about 10-15 high quality web 2.0 sites... backed by about 40 mid-low quality web 2.0 sites...backed by articles, press releases, micro blogs... backed by bookmarks.

Results: #1-3 rankings on every site I have done that on.

Very very powerful way of doing things, but very time consuming. The way I use it, I posted a diagram in a few posts in the last month, and it takes a person maybe a month or two to do it in their spare time.

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by jacked

Has anyone tried both linking Article submissions to your Web 2.0s and SB Blog Comments? I always linked Comments to my Web 2.0s because blogs get so many spiders. I am going to have to try out article submissions one day.

I use 3 layers.... and I bookmark the third layer using a mixture of reddit, del.i.cious, digg, and stumbleupon. My third layer consists of mostly articles, results are great. If the niche is very competitive, and you aren't getting results after a few weeks, you may want to add a 4th layer, of blog comments to the articles in the 3rd layer.

[Matt Ward]

What exactly is the point of doing this over simply linking everything to your site and directly getting the juice?

This seems like a lot of work put into backlinking properties that you have zero control over.

[GeorgR.]

matt,

it more mimics a natural link structure, furthermore the articles or web2.0 properties serve as "buffers".

Guys, dont "overthink" this and dont make it more complicated than it actually is. Yes, 3 layers or more layers are fine...but dont ponder over things like "layered anchor texts etc".

The more "sophisticated" such systems are..the more non-natural they are at the end. (Eg. link wheels etc...)

As for anchors...as a rule..80% your main keyword and the rest related *should* do it in my opinion.

[markowe]

How long is it taking you to see results using this kind of method? I have been ramping this up lately and am guessing it takes a while for those 'buffer' properties to start gaining authority and feeding that through to your money site, but just wondering whether it's days, weeks, months...?

[myagi007]

I'[ve tried this but haven't seen all my successes as yet. Still working on it, it's a great strategy though I know people who are using this at the moment to great effect.

[Matt Ward]

Just wondering, has anyone seen any results from this? I've been employing the strategy for one of my sites for 2 weeks, but it doesn't seem to have done much yet. This site was/is either sandboxed/dancing or affected by the Panda update, so it seemed like a good candidate. Unfortunately, the site has dropped even more severely since I started testing this technique: it was sitting around rank 200 the day I started, and almost immediately after it started bouncing around from 300-400.

I built a handful of web 2.0's, linked to the money site and blasted the hell out of the 2.0's with ScrapeBox. I would hazard a rough estimate of about ~1000 links total showing up in Yahoo Site Explorer to the web 2.0's, although that's growing daily. Since this is ScrapeBox, I'm guessing the vast majority are nofollow, though.

Not entirely sure what conclusion to draw from this, if any. It has only been a few weeks, and the site was probably dancing/sandboxed to begin with. I was about to buy AMR to use along with SB, but after reading a thread on a certain other forum, many people claimed to have had negative effects from using it post-Panda update.

[markowe]

Originally Posted by mattward

Just wondering, has anyone seen any results from this? I've been employing the strategy for one of my sites for 2 weeks, but it doesn't seem to have done much yet. This site was/is either sandboxed/dancing or affected by the Panda update, so it seemed like a good candidate. Unfortunately, the site has dropped even more severely since I started testing this technique: it was sitting around rank 200 the day I started, and almost immediately after it started bouncing around from 300-400.

I built a handful of web 2.0's, linked to the money site and blasted the hell out of the 2.0's with ScrapeBox. I would hazard a rough estimate of about ~1000 links total showing up in Yahoo Site Explorer to the web 2.0's, although that's growing daily. Since this is ScrapeBox, I'm guessing the vast majority are nofollow, though.

Not entirely sure what conclusion to draw from this, if any. It has only been a few weeks, and the site was probably dancing/sandboxed to begin with. I was about to buy AMR to use along with SB, but after reading a thread on a certain other forum, many people claimed to have had negative effects from using it post-Panda update.

Funnily, I have also had a site drop from around #10 to around #70 after doing something like this (though I also did a bunch of pinging too). It looks suspiciously like some kind of automated penalty/filter since it's not budging from there. I made sure that my web2.0 properties also linked out to other authority sites in the niche (though not to direct competitors for my keywords) to give them more authority and possibly obfuscate my 'scheme' a little since if you have multiple links on the page it isn't certain which single site is intended to benefit from the scheme.

Well, if the G is getting wise to this then I take my hat off, it soon actually WILL be easier to rank on content alone, ha (yes, I have good content too).

Oh, BTW the way I primarily tried to bolster these Web2.0s was by doing AMR 'blasts' (hate that word, it sounds like spamming, I only syndicate quality articles out). Funny thing is, the Squidoo lens is ranking quite well (#37) for the keywords I linked to it with (not my main money keywords, obviously), more proof that authority Web2.0 properties seem to be more resistant to 'unnatural' linking patterns. I did also direct link to my money site - probably too much to one page, and probably with not enough diversity of anchor links.

I will be interested to see if this is just a temporary effect - it's been about 10 days now though so I am not too hopeful, but I have heard of these 'filters' (if they exist) lasting for months (or forever :/). Actually, the site was doing $7-8 a day when it temporarily Google-danced to no. 1 early on, so it's more than JUST scientific interest

[Matt Ward]

I just checked, and most of my web 2.0s are all ranking higher than my main site, too. Then again, the site I'm doing this on was already dancing/sandboxed/something so I'm not sure that means anything. It did drop a lot lower when I started this though.

[calfred]

Hi George,

I just started the AMR + SB link pyramid few weeks ago. Results are pretty good. AMR links to money website. SB links to AMR links.

Yes. It is true that other people have success with this link pyramid method, especially AMR + SB.

They're simplistic to do and quite effective.

----------------------------
AMR = Article Marketing Robot
SB = ScrapeBox

[sridhar]

Is there a WSO or course which explains all these things step-by-step right from niche research to creating the money site to how many articles should be there on the money site and how to use these tools to create backlinks etc?

[ocd]

I've tried IamNameless' method but haven't downed the "whole enchilada" yet.

On one money site I have 10 sites in the 1st tier, followed by 14 tiers all linking to the 1st tier. I have multiple articles (but none have been blasted out in mass - could be the problem) linking to each tier independently...but my site seems anchored in concrete and won't stinkin budge. I'm so frustrated with that.

Two other little sites have hardly any effort in them and they are ranking #1 and 2 spots...both completely different items and basically have a couple of satellite sites for tier 1. Just amazing how one keyword can give you fits but another you hardly do anything for and you're #1.

What's weird is when your money site ranks behind your tier 1 web 2.0 site...weirder than that is when the bookmark ranks #1, web 2.0 ranks #2 and money site is on page 3 for your primary KW............and yes, SOMEHOW I've managed to do that.

[chasnsx]

I have about a dozen web 2.0 sites linking to my money site, two for each of my "big" keywords. I have just started building links to the 2.0 sites. After doing some by hand I decided to outsource some of the linkbuilding. I am testing with one 2.0 site and one keyword. If it gets results, then I'll rinse and repeat. So far the 2.0 site that has benefited has gone from being out of the top 300 to ranking at about 250. No benefit to the money site yet, so we shall see.

[danhoff]

How much time, till you see results from this ?? i guess weeks / month ?

[Kiril S]

I don't understand link pyramids/pushing.
I used to think this was a good method to backlink, but not anymore.

Let's think about this thoroughly.

Question: Is pyramid linking beneficial for SEO?

Facts:

• The backlink's value is calculated through the PR of the PAGE.
• Each backlink counts as a vote.
• A backlink must be indexed before passing its portion of PR juice.
• Artificial/Unnatural links are de-valued.
• De-valued backlinks don't penalize the website.

Hypothesis: Pyramid linking is not beneficial for SEO.

Analysis: Let's assume for the sake of this analysis that all backlinks are already indexed and PR0.

We have two situations:

1. Website A with 1000 Tier 1 Backlinks.
2. Website B with 100 Tier 1 Backlinks and 900 Tier 2 Backlinks.

Part 1: If no backlinks are de-valued, which website do you think will receive more backlink power?

Since we know that a backlink passes its portion of PR juice to its anchor URL, we can understand that as you go through each layer, the original backlink loses its value.

An analogy:
25% of 4 is 1.
25% of 1 is 0.25
1 > 0.25.

Therefore, if no backlinks were de-valued, website A will receive more backlink power.


Part 2: If the same amount of backlinks were de-valued in each situation, which website do you think will receive more backlink power?

1. Website A with 1000 Tier 1 Backlinks, 100 backlinks penalized.
2. Website B with 100 Tier 1 Backlinks and 900 Tier 2 Backlinks, 100 backlinks penalized.

Since de-valued backlinks don't penalize the website, de-valued backlinks can just be removed from the system.

1. Website A with 900 Tier 1 Backlinks
2. Website B with 90 Tier 1 Backlinks and 810 Tier 2 Backlinks

We get the same principle question as in part 1. Therefore, website A receives more backlink power.

Conclusion: Tier 1 backlinking is more beneficial than pyramid backlinking.

Since SEO is a mystery, I tried my best to come up with an answer using only known facts.

Any inputs?

[markowe]

Kiril, good analysis. I think the reason we think approach B works is because we are "laundering" the links in some way. The many low quality links have a better cumulative effect on these web properties because they are authority domains, and the "juice" gets condensed down to a useable for our sites. May be nonsense, but I would rather blast a buffer site with 1000 low-quality links than my money site, as the benefit to my site would be doubtful. It just seems to work. And it protects your money site from the Google Dance and those other undesirable effects of mass-backlinking.

To the question of time-frame, this process takes me several months usually to hit the top ten, but I do not do it very aggressively - perhaps it can happen quicker. It has been 100% effective for me so far, dependent only on the time I have been able to invest.

[Kiril S]

Hey Mark,
Your idea about web properties having authority domains seems like a good explanation, but that won't make any sense because that would mean that any authority website would be able to exploit low quality links.

Also, the "Google Dance" is not an undesirable effect, it actually is desirable if you know how to control it.

[Eric Lancheres]

To the best of my knowledge, here's how it works (and why). I'll try to keep it short:

Every link has a score attached to it and ideally, you want to get a bunch of links with a high score.

Assumption #1
Therefore, 100 "good links" is better than 1000 "bad links" (I have a video in which I explain why this is the case, I'll be releasing it for free shortly)

In fact, I have ranked for extremely competitive terms with only 6-7 backlinks... but they were excellent backlinks.

The point of having multiple tiers is so that your website seems to be receiving multiple "good" links instead of a bunch of spammy links.

In theory, the more tiers you have, the higher quality the end result will be in terms of link.

Example:

(Main Site) <- (Tier 1) <- 100x (Tier 2 links) <- 100 (Tier 3 links)

In this situation, you're only getting ONE link from Tier 1 but this one link has a hundred backlinks pointing to it. (And these hundred backlinks are all quality links because they have other links pointing to it)

It's a LOT of work to get one high quality backlink... but that's what you have to do if you want to manufacture them yourself.

Analogy:

Think of rankings like a movie. If you have one friend that says: "Hey man, this movie is AMAZZIING!", then you're likely to want to watch it. (That's like having one GOOD link).

If you have a bunch of spammy links, then it's like having hundreds of people saying: "This movie sucks!" In the end, you know the movie exists... and you MIGHT see it because there's so much buzz around it... but you know that it's not really a high quality movie.

Ideally, you want to have your 12 closest friends, with reputations you trust, say: "Hey man, this is a GREAT movie!". When this happens, then you're guaranteed to see it.

That's how your link building should be, you should aim to only have reputable, high quality links pointing to your site saying: "hey, this is a great site!"

(Small addition: To make things "natural", you also have to have some normal links. It would be weird if only 8 people recommended the movie but the rest of the world had never heard of it)

[Kiril S]

Originally Posted by Eric Lancheres

To the best of my knowledge, here's how it works (and why). I'll try to keep it short:

Every link has a score attached to it and ideally, you want to get a bunch of links with a high score.

Assumption #1
Therefore, 100 "good links" is better than 1000 "bad links" (I have a video in which I explain why this is the case, I'll be releasing it for free shortly)

In fact, I have ranked for extremely competitive terms with only 6-7 backlinks... but they were excellent backlinks.

The point of having multiple tiers is so that your website seems to be receiving multiple "good" links instead of a bunch of spammy links.

In theory, the more tiers you have, the higher quality the end result will be in terms of link.

Example:

(Main Site) <- (Tier 1) <- 100x (Tier 2 links) <- 100 (Tier 3 links)

In this situation, you're only getting ONE link from Tier 1 but this one link has a hundred backlinks pointing to it. (And these hundred backlinks are all quality links because they have other links pointing to it)

It's a LOT of work to get one high quality backlink... but that's what you have to do if you want to manufacture them yourself.

Analogy:

Think of rankings like a movie. If you have one friend that says: "Hey man, this movie is AMAZZIING!", then you're likely to want to watch it. (That's like having one GOOD link).

If you have a bunch of spammy links, then it's like having hundreds of people saying: "This movie sucks!" In the end, you know the movie exists... and you MIGHT see it because there's so much buzz around it... but you know that it's not really a high quality movie.

Ideally, you want to have your 12 closest friends, with reputations you trust, say: "Hey man, this is a GREAT movie!". When this happens, then you're guaranteed to see it.

That's how your link building should be, you should aim to only have reputable, high quality links pointing to your site saying: "hey, this is a great site!"

(Small addition: To make things "natural", you also have to have some normal links. It would be weird if only 8 people recommended the movie but the rest of the world had never heard of it)

You do have a point, but IMHO I still think pyramid linking is ineffective.

Why do you refer to the 1000 links as bad links? If you're assuming they're bad, then you should assume that your 100 "good" links will be backlinked with bad backlinks as well, thus removing their credibility of "good" links.

Your analogy doesn't make sense, because why would your friend say this moving is awesome if his friends are all saying it's bad (his friends are in Tier 2).

Anyways, as it was mentionned earlier, de-valued backlinks don't penalize the website. Re-read my analysis for further clarification.

Also, to add more insight on this subject, remove your main site from the equation.
Before: Main Site >> Tier 1 Backlinks >> Tier 2 Backlinks
After : One Tier 1 Backlink >> Tier 2 Backlinks

These two are the same except the "after" version doesn't have a second tier.
So why make a pyramid and decrease your potential backlink "juice" when you can link all your backlinks directly to your website.

Of course, only having low quality backlinks won't get you anywhere... But that's a whole different question.

[Chris Sweeney]

Building link pyramids isn't just for the extra link juice pointing to your tier 1 links which point to your money site, but also (and more importantly) for indexation purposes. Having those tier 2 links pointing to the tier 1 links will get & keep those tier 1 links indexed. One of the reasons that many of our backlinks aren't indexed is because there are no backlinks pointing to those backlinks. And if your links aren't indexed, they're not really worth too much. So rather than building 1 tier of links to your money site and having only 10% of them indexed, build that second tier to the first tier and you'd have, say, 60% of the first tier indexed. In other words, link pyramids are well worth it!

[Eric Lancheres]

@Kiril, I understand your point and your objection about "why would tier 2 be good if tier 3 is bad"

However, the more tiers you have, the better it gets.

For example:
If you have 10 crappy links to page A, it's better than nothing. So let's give page A a score of 5/100 because it has 10 crappy links.

But what if you had 100 links pointing to page A?

Well, if it was 100 crappy links, then page A might get a score of 5-6. More crappy links don't push your page score up.

What if you had 1000 crappy links pointing to page A? Same score again... page A would STILL have a score of 6/100.

(This is how Google fights spam)

So, let's take a different scenario.

Page A gets 10 links... and gets a score of 5/100.
Page B gets 10 links... and gets a score of 5/100.
Page C gets 10 links... and gets a score of 5/100.

Now, if page A, B and C all point to page D (A new one), then:

Page D now has 3 "semi-decent" links pointing to it, and therefore it might have a page score of 15/100.

What if you took this further?

What if you had Page D, E, F that all had 15/100 in terms of page score and they all pointed to page G?

Then page G might get a score of 35/100 because it has 3 solid links to it.

Now compare this with our original example, if you pointing 1000 crappy links to page A, it would still only have a page score of 6/100.

At the end of the day, with tiers you end up having
Page G with 35/100 vs Page A with 5/100.

Obviously, page G will rank much higher.

I wish I could draw this out, it would be easier to explain! (However, I don't recommend buildling links this way... it takes WAYY too long!)

[Kiril S]

Hey Eric,
Thanks for your post.

I get your point but how do you know Google's algorithm acts this way to fight spam?

Edit: BTW I live in montreal too

[virtueinfo11]

good thread, but still have some little confusion on two tiered linking, as above discussed, it's not a link wheel but i think it's it's look like link wheel...

[Eric Lancheres]

Crappy links provided exponentially less backlink juice in order for the rankings to make sense.

When the first pagerank formula came out, it didn't take this into account... and therefore, 1000 links = better.

However, now that you have bots that can build 1000 links in 1 hour, they had had to change their formula. Otherwise, everyone would just build 10000+ links to a single site.

[JasonB]

Originally Posted by Eric Lancheres

@Kiril, I understand your point and your objection about "why would tier 2 be good if tier 3 is bad"

Isn't this exactly what SENuke and some other software's offer?

GC

[Kiril S]

Originally Posted by Eric Lancheres

Crappy links provided exponentially less backlink juice in order for the rankings to make sense.

When the first pagerank formula came out, it didn't take this into account... and therefore, 1000 links = better.

However, now that you have bots that can build 1000 links in 1 hour, they had had to change their formula. Otherwise, everyone would just build 10000+ links to a single site.

I don't think that crappy links provide exponentially less backlink juice. A crappy link is a crappy link, and they all have the same value, which is really small. Yes, you're right anyone can build 10,000 links, but most of these links will be de-valued, unless the bot is really sophisticated.

For example, a profile link with a username "adjwkajd" with no other information other than a link is going to be de-valued if it is found artificial by the google algorithm, while a profile link with a legit looking username with legit profile information will pass.