How do I index my links?

[galbuyz]

If I build links to my sites how do I get this pages with the links indexed so the links count?

[Chucky]

Originally Posted by galbuyz

If I build links to my sites how do I get this pages with the links indexed so the links count?

There are many methods.
The simplest would be to ping them using a service like pingler
But if you have 100 links, it would probably be difficult to ping 100 times if you're doing it manually.
So what you can do is make an RSS feed with about 10-20 of your links (ice rocket is one place you can do that) and then ping them on pingler and now you have 10 to 20 links instead of 100 to ping!
If your links are 'high quality' ones (article/post on an authority site), you might even consider building more links to it (e.g. bookmarks) and strengthening them even if they are already indexed.
If you do a search on WF, you should find more information and products that will automate it!

[InternetMarketingIQ]

Before you place a link search for the URL in Google. If it's already indexed then no worries the Google bot will be back to crawl it again. Move on. If it is not indexed and it's an established site you have to question the value of placing a link there to begin with.

Think that is extra work? Hardly compared to placing links that won't ever be indexed. Do it right, do it once.

[NEseO]

If you are creating a new page then just backlink it and that should work. If the page is already indexed then don't worry it will get picked up.

[John Williamson]

Try pinging or combining into RSS feeds and submitting those feeds. Look into Linklicious and Backlink Energizer.

[Best shared hosting]

try a simple work.. Go to pingler.com and ping your site. Your site will must crawled by search engine withing 1 day. pingler really good enough..

[TheFBGuy]

Google has already crawled/"checked out" your links if you pinged them, but indexing them is another matter... it may or may not index them. Sending your links to a few Dofollow social bookmarks works very well and get's Google's attention.

[guzpra]

it takes a couple of weeks of even months to get google indexing our links! I think its very difficult to find a way to faster indexing process..

[HKSEO Rotzee]

Originally Posted by galbuyz

If I build links to my sites how do I get this pages with the links indexed so the links count?

Getting them indexed isn't when the links start counting..they start counting as soon as they are CRAWLED. Don't miss that important fact.

Crawling vs. Indexing

There is a lot of buzz around getting "indexed by Google" and I think it's important to weigh in on the issue. I'll start with the summary and work backwards...

SUMMARY
If you are doing heavy link building (profiles, comments, and other weak links) Linklicious is a perfect tool because it guarantees crawling at 100%.

FACTS
You can rank with zero links in the index
Indexed links are more valuable than non-indexed links
Weak links are difficult to index and are poorly found by Google
Getting links indexed is time consuming and/or expensive
DETAILS
We rank terms all the time with just profiles or profiles and a blog/article blast. Let me give an example... This week one of our local clients made it to page 1 for 'Houston Diabetes'. This interior page was a brand new page and not in the top 250 but we built some profiles and 8 days later it was on page 1. We did an index check on the links and exactly two were indexed.
It goes without saying that indexed links are more valuable and give more juice than non-indexed links. If Google sees something as valuable it puts it in the index or cache and does its best to leave the weak pages out. I haven't done enough testing to measure exactly how much more an indexed link is worth, so I won't make a pull-it-out-of-my-rear guess.
For those of you who have tried to index weak links, you'll know the amount of work it can take. I've run an enormous amount of tests to see what can do it - tweets, pings, blog comments, other forum profiles. The bottom line is it can take a dozen or more links just to get one page indexed. Common sense tells me that those dozen links would be more effective and less diluted pointing directly at my money site.
If you get 1000 forum profiles or blog comments, getting them indexed is silly. You are going to need a huge farm of BIE or BE sites or pay a lot of money per link. Do you want to spend time managing those setups, creating the 2.0 accounts, handling the accounts that have been killed, or paying a lot per link? For those of us where time is valuable, it's much better to save time and shift the money to buying more links. It's the same (or less) cost, and an enormous amount more time.
When does indexing make sense?
When you are trying to build a balanced link profile of spam vs good stuff is one good case.
If you want to keep the backlinking profile clear of too many spammy links.
Link pinging from Linklicious is great for two reasons:
It is dirt cheap.
It can make your forum profiles go from 5% to 100% crawls, which is a 20x improvement in your effectiveness. I know it's obvious to most, but this is important: if your link isn't crawled it does you no good!
Can Linklicious help you with indexing? Sure, a bit. But Google will never keep weak pages in the index for long. The main goal of the site is to magnify and multiply the effect of your everyday volume link building. It isn't a golden ticket to #1, but it lets you extract the full value from your current link building efforts.

[4morereferrals]

Interesting I havent seen this previously ...

FACTS
1. You can rank with zero links in the index
2. Indexed links are more valuable than non-indexed links
3. Weak links are difficult to index and are poorly found by Google
4. Getting links indexed is time consuming and/or expensive

I'd like to present a different set of perspectives...

1. Though true - likely rather "impractical" for most people. For very very weak terms I'd agree with this "fact". However; for anything with a modicum or competitiveness - this could be aa misleading statement [ imho ] . Is it more feasible that a page that ranks with zero "indexed" links is likely competing for a rather weak term and is getting it done on the strength of the On Page by itself? Now if you've ranked BLANK/EMPTY pages for medium to competitive terms overnight with un-indexed links - then perhaps we could come to the same conclusions.

2. OK - agreed.
3. OK - agreed.

4. Expensive and time consuming I guess is as relative as is the above in #1. I think its expensive to build thousands of links at $99+ a month - knowing full well at least 50% or greater will - get deleted by forum mods - not have anchor text - not get seen by google EVER. However; in the context of - spending < $100 1x + a few hours on a weekend to setup a system or software tool that automates 90% of the indexation processes and time - hardly seems "time intensive or expensive".

Building links google will never see is 10x as "expensive" as indexing - the actual links that do end up getting built and stick on page.

[HKSEO Rotzee]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Interesting I havent seen this previously ...



I'd like to present a different set of perspectives...

1. Though true - likely rather "impractical" for most people. For very very weak terms I'd agree with this "fact". However; for anything with a modicum or competitiveness - this could be aa misleading statement [ imho ] . Is it more feasible that a page that ranks with zero "indexed" links is likely competing for a rather weak term and is getting it done on the strength of the On Page by itself? Now if you've ranked BLANK/EMPTY pages for medium to competitive terms overnight with un-indexed links - then perhaps we could come to the same conclusions.

2. OK - agreed.
3. OK - agreed.

4. Expensive and time consuming I guess is as relative as is the above in #1. I think its expensive to build thousands of links at $99+ a month - knowing full well at least 50% or greater will - get deleted by forum mods - not have anchor text - not get seen by google EVER. However; in the context of - spending < $100 1x + a few hours on a weekend to setup a system or software tool that automates 90% of the indexation processes and time - hardly seems "time intensive or expensive".

Building links google will never see is 10x as "expensive" as indexing - the actual links that do end up getting built and stick on page.

#1 - Yeah... The efficacy of an indexed link (or 1000) vs unindexed link (or 1000) is something we've not really debated. But the argument that you HAVE to be indexed to rank is false.

#4 - Unfortunately you shoot your own argument in the foot here. If you can spend $100/month on an indexing setup that'll support 1000s of links a day it may make sense. I've seen one (backlinksindexer) that supports 500 links/day @ $100/month. And I've also heard from people that claim it indexes < 20% of the links, which is very little over baseline (depending on the link types).

That said, if you do pay $100 or $500/month on links and drop them directly into your own BE/BIE/etc cluster, 50% of your indexing power is wasted (your percentage, which I think is high). You'd need to build much higher quality links to get them to stick, but then indexing won't be a problem anyway and crawling would get you a 50% indexing rate or more.

So I think we came full circle here... Indexing only makes sense with high quality links that'll stick around. But those links don't need much help being indexed and will do so naturally once they are crawled.

[Matt Baker]

Submitting a Sitemap in Google webmaster tools and pinging will definitely help your links being indexed.

[justinpaul]

Ping your sites url and submit urls in dofollow bookmarking list also do RSS feed submission. But it can,t be said that it is a faster way to index a webpage or a website.

[mikedex]

Just do social bookmarking and submit that Link in top social media websites.

[4morereferrals]

Originally Posted by HKSEO Rotzee

#1 - Yeah... The efficacy of an indexed link (or 1000) vs unindexed link (or 1000) is something we've not really debated. But the argument that you HAVE to be indexed to rank is false.

#4 - Unfortunately you shoot your own argument in the foot here. If you can spend $100/month on an indexing setup that'll support 1000s of links a day it may make sense. I've seen one (backlinksindexer) that supports 500 links/day @ $100/month. And I've also heard from people that claim it indexes < 20% of the links, which is very little over baseline (depending on the link types).

That said, if you do pay $100 or $500/month on links and drop them directly into your own BE/BIE/etc cluster, 50% of your indexing power is wasted (your percentage, which I think is high). You'd need to build much higher quality links to get them to stick, but then indexing won't be a problem anyway and crawling would get you a 50% indexing rate or more.

So I think we came full circle here... Indexing only makes sense with high quality links that'll stick around. But those links don't need much help being indexed and will do so naturally once they are crawled.

You may have come full circle here - I have not. I dont agree with the comment in red - and it seems rather illogical to me to have to index a "high quality link". who does that? with indexation - we're at a baseline of ... "low quality" link to begin with. If its a high quality link it doesnt need help getting crawled or indexed. If there werent a need to get low quality links in abundance to get crawledd - indexed and counted then there'd be neither Energizer nor Linklliscious.

Shooting myself in the foot? Hows that?

Perhaps you mis-read my post - it was a ONE TIME fee of approx. $100 for an indexing site network that can process 1000 links per day. Not a MONTHLY.

Here's the deal ... as a former customer of 3 xrumer services with multiple accounts at once - like 8 of them ... I can speak with experience on profile links and indexing and moving 1000's through a system "per day".

The truth is - all these services give you long lists of url output that theoretically xrumer has placed a link - but its bullshizzle. We developed a custom app that checked link validity of 5,000 links per minute - for link validity and anchor text. We ran in consistantly against hte url lists provided by Drip Feed Blasts and the two other services whos name is escaping me now - Blast Bank? and Mega Link Blaster.

Actual links on pages was < 60% [ any link anchor text or not ]
Links pages with ANY anchor text < 30%
Links on pages with correct or valuable anchor text < 20%

So all this processing and crawling 1000's of links per day is freakin nonsense for 95% of the people running forum profile blasts and scrapebox lists - as their posts dont get approved or are dead before the customer ever gets the lists of urls. So even a 2,000 blast per day means you really only have about 1200 links per day to even be bothered with.

Processing that many links with a 1x fee solution is easily done with a little fore thought and upfront effort ... or about a $250 investment ONE TIME for my va's to create it.

As well - at the end of the process the user/owner has their OWN setup and sites they can re purpose and use for their other seo related tasks in the future - instead of building up content and pages on someone elses sites [ renting indexing services ] - or pi$$$ing $ down a rat hole.

We end up re-purposing many of our link indexing sites in our networks - because we use good rss content for indexing up front - weve created quite a few PR2 - PR4 blogs to use for other means than link indexation. What we advocate people do ends up being more than just mere link indexation [ when done right ]

I'll let others decide if there is additional intrinsic value to such a process ...

[fastlancer]

Create a site map and submit it to submit express.

[jordyhill]

You could try Matt Laclear's link building service. Google indexes his links pretty damned fast....no pinging required!