Need some clarification on Web 2.0 sites

[JTringer]

Most web 2.0 sites that I have found in lists are services to make free blogs/sites, are you all creating entirely separate blogs/sites and then linking back to your main site that you want to promote?

[high_plains_drifter]

yes exactly

[stevet563]

Hi JTringer,

web 2.0 properties are part of an over all traffic generation strategy that can be very effective if done properly. If you have never done one before, make sure you read the terms and conditions to make sure you abide by the rules. You can also go to other web properties in your niche to see what other people are doing. You can get some good ideas there. make sure you copy the ones that are getting good traffic though.

[JTringer]

Thanks for the replies, I think I have worded my question poorly though.

Web 2.0 is a broad term that covers many different sites, (i.e. squidoo/hubpages are a lot different from blog creating sites) is there a certain type of them that should only be targeted for the purposes of getting quality backlinks and targeted traffic?

[SEOLIX]

Originally Posted by JTringer

Thanks for the replies, I think I have worded my question poorly though.

Web 2.0 is a broad term that covers many different sites, (i.e. squidoo/hubpages are a lot different from blog creating sites) is there a certain type of them that should only be targeted for the purposes of getting quality backlinks and targeted traffic?

Yes - the PR and dofollow ones.

Tho there aren't much differences between blog sites and stuff like squidoo/hubpage - all can be considered web 2.0s. Squidoo, blogspot are actually loved by Google so every time we create them for our clients, we can see there's a rank improvement!

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by SEOLIX

Yes - the PR and dofollow ones.

Tho there aren't much differences between blog sites and stuff like squidoo/hubpage - all can be considered web 2.0s. Squidoo, blogspot are actually loved by Google so every time we create them for our clients, we can see there's a rank improvement!

There is a difference between squidoo and blog creation sites. Google treats all subdomains as a separate domain. Squidoo pages are ALL related to squidoo. Therefore, if you create 100 squidoo accounts and send backlinks to your money site, the search engines will think only ONE site is sending backlinks. If you create 100 blogs on blogspot, it will look like 100 different domains are sending backlinks to your money site.

If you plan on creating a massive amount of backlinks, you are better off using the blog creation sites.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by JTringer

Thanks for the replies, I think I have worded my question poorly though.

Web 2.0 is a broad term that covers many different sites, (i.e. squidoo/hubpages are a lot different from blog creating sites) is there a certain type of them that should only be targeted for the purposes of getting quality backlinks and targeted traffic?

Hi JTringer,

You are correct,Web 2.0 is a rather broad term that was coined to describe websites that allow the "users" of the website to contribute content. For example this forum is considered a Web 2.0 technology when using that term in the broadest sense of it.

Since there are many types of website, like forums, blogs (via commenting), micro blogs (twitter), social networking (Facebook, Linkedin), Article syndication (Ezinearticles), social bookmarking (digg, delicious, et al) etc., that all are Web 2.0 technologies we usually refer to them with more specific terms. However there is a group of websites that, for the purpose of SEO, are typically referred to as Web 2.0 as there are many different labels and it is more convenient to simply group them into a group with the generic label of Web 2.0 properties.

Sites that are typically included in this generically labeled group are social community sites like Squidoo, Hub Pages, Myspace and Facebook. Also typically included are community blogging sites like Wordpress.com, Posterous, Blogger, Xanga, Typepad, Tumblr, etc.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by co2

There is a difference between squidoo and blog creation sites. Google treats all subdomains as a separate domain. Squidoo pages are ALL related to squidoo. Therefore, if you create 100 squidoo accounts and send backlinks to your money site, the search engines will think only ONE site is sending backlinks. If you create 100 blogs on blogspot, it will look like 100 different domains are sending backlinks to your money site.

If you plan on creating a massive amount of backlinks, you are better off using the blog creation sites.

Hi co2,

Google doesn't look at it that way, they don't index and rank "sites", they index and rank individual "pages". So it generally doesn't matter to Google that all of those pages are on one site or many. What matters is the diversity of links within the web of pages that you page is connected to.

So, actually the opposite of your assertion, "you are better off using the blog creation sites", is true. Since community websites like Squidoo and hubpages, typically fair far better than the disconnected blog sites, especially when there isn't a community sharing situation. The fact that it is the same, or different domains, has no positive nor negative effect, except where you are competing on the same page for the same keyword against a page on the same domain. But for backlinks, this doesn't make any direct difference.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by dburk

The fact that it is the same, or different domains, has no positive nor negative effect

I strongly disagree.

Google does RANK pages. But their metrics for ranking pages relies on many other factors including: ip diversity, domain diversity, anchor text, PR, etc.

If you get a pr0 link from two separate domains. One of the domains is brand new and untrusted, while the other is a credible source (ie. huffington post), the pr0 link from the more authoritative domain will pass on more value.

For this reason, a backlink from squidoo will have significant value because it is a trusted domain.

However, google also analyzes the domain diversity of your backlink portfolio.

1 link from squidoo passes decent authority to your site.
BUT 1000 links from squidoo will not pass on 1000 times more authority. After the first few links from a single domain, you will start to experience less and less value from each additional link. <---- In other words, continuing to blast additional backlinks from the same domain will eventually lead to diminishing returns.

I agree that squidoo will give your site a powerful backlink. But if you want to create thousands of links from web 2.0 sites, you are better off using sites that allow you to create your own subdomains.

Creating a bunch of subdomains on wordpress or blogger will avoid "diminishing returns" and will pass on more authority in the long run.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by co2

I strongly disagree.

Google does RANK pages. But their metrics for ranking pages relies on many other factors including: ip diversity, domain diversity, anchor text, PR, etc.

If you get a pr0 link from two separate domains. One of the domains is brand new and untrusted, while the other is a credible source (ie. huffington post), the pr0 link from the more authoritative domain will pass on more value.

For this reason, a backlink from squidoo will have significant value because it is a trusted domain.

However, google also analyzes the domain diversity of your backlink portfolio.

I disagree, I have never seen any credible evidence that suggest Ip diversity, nor domain diversity are factors. Backlink diversity yes, but it has absolutely nothing to do with IP addresses nor domains.

Originally Posted by co2

1 link from squidoo passes decent authority to your site.
BUT 1000 links from squidoo will not pass on 1000 times more authority. After the first few links from a single domain, you will start to experience less and less value from each additional link. <---- In other words, continuing to blast additional backlinks from the same domain will eventually lead to diminishing returns.

I agree with the basic assertion here, but not at all with the cause that you are inferring. You do need diversity in backlinks sources, but it has nothing to do with a particular domain name. If your extended web contains backlinks from many sources, it doesn't matter at all if they are all on the same domain or not. The limiting factor is the source of the backlinks in your web. It's based on the random surfer model, and is agnostic towards domain names.

If you were to get a backlinks from a 1000 different pages on a website and each of those pages, on that website got their links from as many different sources it works just as well as if they had been all from different domains.

Originally Posted by co2

I agree that squidoo will give your site a powerful backlink. But if you want to create thousands of links from web 2.0 sites, you are better off using sites that allow you to create your own subdomains.

Creating a bunch of subdomains on wordpress or blogger will avoid "diminishing returns" and will pass on more authority in the long run.

That might be true when you are talking about a small website, or about pages that all share the same backlink sources, but the link diversity will usually be far greater when garnering links from larger websites like Squidoo. Your wordpress and blogger subdomains have virtually no link diversity, except what you go out and create on your own or through organically earned backlinks. There is no comparison in that regard. Link diversity beats lack of link diversity every time, at least when you are talking about allinanchor ranking.

That is may opinion, it has held true in all tests I have done. If you have any evidence that shows IP address or domain diversity as causation, rather than simply correlation, I'd like to hear about it.

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by dburk

I disagree, I have never seen any credible evidence that suggest Ip diversity, nor domain diversity are factors. Backlink diversity yes, but it has absolutely nothing to do with IP addresses nor domains.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's not like I'm saying there's a penalty with a lack of diversity. But my sites get more value from varying the sources.

Originally Posted by dburk

If you were to get a backlinks from a 1000 different pages on a website and each of those pages, on that website got their links from as many different sources it works just as well as if they had been all from different domains.

I would absolutely love to see that case study. First of all, logically it would make far more sense for google to give value to different domains. Would you rather google's algorithm believe that one site likes your money page? or that 1000 sites do?

Originally Posted by dburk

I agree with the basic assertion here, but not at all with the cause that you are inferring. You do need diversity in backlinks sources,

I'm not understanding your counterargument here. My basic assertion was that 1000 backlinks from 1000 blog posts on separate domains has more value than 1000 backlinks from blog posts on 1 domain.

I never once asserted the necessity of backlink type diversity. The question of the op was about building content on web 2.0's like squidoo and blogger. We're not talking about forum profiles or blog comments.

Originally Posted by dburk

That is may opinion, it has held true in all tests I have done. If you have any evidence that shows IP address or domain diversity as causation, rather than simply correlation, I'd like to hear about it.

Why am I the one who has to provide evidence. You're the one that's claimed to have done several tests on the matter <--- which I would really love to see. Why don't you show your results?

Even if I did want to take the time to do a case study on "domain diversity," there would be absolutely no way to prove my argument. The only people that KNOW about this work for google. Correlation is ALL that a case study or "testing" can prove. And that's good enough for me. I've experienced better results by having more domains pointing to my site. And conversely, my results have been worse when I keep basting on the SAME sites over and over again. Neither of us can prove causation. But I'll take correlation if my rankings continue to skyrocket.