You'll get my new backlinking software when YOU PRY IT of my dead cold hands

[Mike Anthony]

It amazing. Its pretty much established now that the game has changed and the old backlink software that delivers profile, directory, bookmarking etc, links won't stand up long term to panda. People are doing so much better with things like BMR and yeah even some tumblr and blog commenting.

Yet every other day someone is coming out with a new tool and people are biting on it like it has some mystery to it. Like we were still back in the Angela Backlinks can rank me for anything days.

Still with "this tool will rank you number one on google in a week" and "push a button to dominate". and the "I know it doesn't work with that other tool but hey he says it will with this tool" crowd goes crazy.

Yeah I know scrapebox still has it uses and so does AMR but seriously tell me - why do you go crazy for the newer tool that really offers nothing new? Why do you think theres some mystery coded into a software tool when there is not even much mystery in SEO itself? Is it like a drug and you are just addicted to the idea of pushing a button to rank?

You know it aint going to happen right? A tool that even shows you ranking will only do so because YOUR keyword research found a low competition term. Just send the dollars to a local charity would be better. Maybe I'll just create a website that looks like an online tool with one button and a couple of fields. Button will read "Push to rank." I'll have a lot of moving parts and interactions with updated graphs etc like backlinks are being created while in the background it will really be just me and my crew like the wizard in The wizard of OZ.


I bet it would be a hit. Quit the habit man (or woman) or else........

You'll be just be the Lindsay Lohan of Backlinking junkies.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Clint Faber

Do I sense some hostility?.

nope but I generally find the people who say ouch the fastest are the people whose foot you just stepped on

Not to worry clint I have no doubt that software that Zoooms you to the front page of google in one hour is legit. How could it not work asdvertised?

[down]

Software is just a tool, the main thing is our strategy to become number one in all search engines. More new software is released for backlink in this day, because its market is very promising indeed.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

Mike nice that you mention but what is this website about: Real Link Juice - Your Link Dreams Come True
Isn't that your 1 click solution?

No my non-sherlock holmes friend. Is BMR a 1 click solution? Man people get so defensive when you suggest they quit their drugzz errr I mean backlink push a button to rank software.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by down

Software is just a tool, the main thing is our strategy to become number one in all search engines. More new software is released for backlink in this day, because its market is very promising indeed.

No doubt very promising market for the sellers but really if you could buy a tool that really does what several of them claim to do why are there so many people who can't rank and can;t get traffic in IM? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Clint Faber

Yes, Are Backlinktopia software speaks for itself with the testimonials of warriors here on the forum.

Testimonials? Well then there must be magic in it. I'm sold. Will buy it now then based on that and will report back in an hour with my brand new ranking.

6:00 PM eastern standard time. start the clock. reve the engines. Feeling social myself today. Fun stuff.

[Mike Anthony]

aww shucks. Sorry Clint - can't buy it. I took a pledge never to buy a SEO tool that talks about Millions of competing pages. One of the greatest crocks we talk about in this forum all the time. Word count in the Google index is not competing pages anymore than the word Whale in the book Moby Dick is an indication that the author had a desire to compete to sell Fish.

Guess I will have to wait for the rank in two hours sequel

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Clint Faber

you can teach a man to fish but is up to the man to doing any thing beyond that point of what you have done for them.

Too true my man but alas if only the analogy actually matched. It doesn't when we are talking about a contraption that catches fish - um - lets say

"faster, easier and with almost no effort at all" and within an hour no less.


What is there to teach? Heres the gas pedal. heres the brakes - Push the button and go baby!!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Clint Faber

I'm sensing that you're not in a very friendly mood which is completely understandable I'm not always in the best of ones myself. But I try to stay away from social communications at that point.

I certainly will take that advice when I am not in a fine mood but I am now in a pretty good mood. I was actually enjoying this thread so you are wrong on the psychoanalysis thing.

Given the tone of this thread I must conclude my interaction with this discussion with the following statement.

There is no tone except what I hold to be true about SEo and the marketplace. You seem to be getting VERY defensive when not a single seller was mentioned in this thread. SO who was I having the tone with? No one. Simply pointing at the general trend in the marketplace. I think if we are being honest (we can be right?) its probably my viewpoint you have an objection to which is fine.

So to be direct (and boring) I have no reason to view any solution that indicates that they can rank within an hour as being realistic to those they are selling. I have no intention of opening my mind until my brains fall out. Its a sham that will not be created by most people.

Just bare in mind I never brought up any software. You brought up your own.

[Fraggler]

Mike, you just have to have a look at some of the backlinking or 'seo' forums to see that many people forget the aim of the game and become obsessed with backlink counts and index rates rather than creating an online business utilising organic traffic.

[bitriot]

There is some truth in what you are saying, but post Panda, I am still ranking up websites using a tried and true combination of blog comments, private blog network posts, article blasts and forum blasts - all indexed.

This is no guarantee these methods will work indefinitely, but for the time being they still work.

So, I guess, keep ranting and I will keep earning.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by bitriot

There is some truth in what you are saying, but post Panda, I am still ranking up websites using a tried and true combination of blog comments, private blog network posts, article blasts and forum blasts - all indexed. So, I guess, keep ranting and I will keep earning.

Try leaving off Blog comments . private blog networks, and articles and call me when you have read the OP. You just might have a legitimate point then. I mentioned all of those when I clearly indicated the blog comments, BMR and AMR still work. You just missed that in your anti rant rant. Your forum blasts don't matter squat no matter what you claim. leave the others off and you can prove otherwise.

Be happy man. Good thing you can still rank without great reading skills

[boxoun]

Mike, why do you support bmr and amr? I'm starting to get confused. Doesn't bmr roll off to n/a? And I'm assuming you support amr for advanced uses and not posting to article directories.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by boxoun

Mike, why do you support bmr and amr? I'm starting to get confused. Doesn't bmr roll off to n/a? And I'm assuming you support amr for advanced uses and not posting to article directories.

Box contextual links still work to some degree. BMR I have no idea how fast they roll off but even when they do initially they will carry some link juice over . I agree they ultimately roll off into never never land but its conceivable to me that they work till they do AND Google recrawls the domain.

What is inconceivable, proven weak over and over especially post Pandais blasting a page with garbage forum links, social bookmarks and to some degree article directories but I still see some evidence that AMR can give you some popularity brownie points but frankly I think many of those especially when you are trying to get a thousand are weak as can be as well.

[yukon]

The problem I've found with low quality links (profiles, etc...) is they bounce the page your trying to rank like a mofo, in the SERPs.

The only way I recovered was stop the junk links, build a few quality links, then lay off the the linking & on-page updates to let everything settle down in the SERPs. Next resume quality linking, after the SERPs settle down to recover.

Maybe others have different experiences, personally I don't like all that SERP bouncing back & forth like a ping pong ball, that's when I decided to skip the junk links.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Your forum blasts don't matter squat no matter what you claim. leave the others off and you can prove otherwise.

I'd be willing to test this statement. I have a copy of xrumer collecting dust at the moment. I'll be willing to do some blasts to see if this is true. I don't think forum profiles are worth much of a "squat" but they do have some effect, even now.

Anybody here have a domain they are willing to test?

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

nvm

I see you own scrapebox (I glanced at your links). LOL Have you done any xrumer on this site?

[Marc_L]

I'd like to make a proper test out of it so lets see what somebody else suggests.

[MaverickUK]

Sorry but I disagree with the forum profiles crap Mike. No, they're not the most pwerful of links but I'm almost certain they're useful to a degree in SEO campaigns - if they were not, then the big dawgs like Matt Carter wouldn't still be Iain them - or me.

I've noticed they're valuable, but not anywhere near as valuable as contextual blog links.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by MaverickUK

Sorry but I disagree with the forum profiles crap Mike. No, they're not the most pwerful of links but I'm almost certain they're useful to a degree in SEO campaigns

Mav just about any link will have an effect in a weak broken down serp no one is going for. There are people who rank in weak serps with no BACKLINKS. When someone can show me a serp where forum profile link s is beating out a site with a solid portfolio of quality links with the same keywords and the same target then you will have a point. but every time this is asked for there is nothing but crickets.

I have even put up a $100 bounty for someone who can show a page in a competitive serp ranking on the power of those where they can show that it is not better links actually doing the heavy lifting. I'll gladly put it up again. So certain? Good go for it and show it in the serps.

What we have in this thread from some is to be expected I suppose - a whole lot of people angry at the messenger who are still hoping against hope for the good old days and cannot adapt so they are trying to hang on to what no longer works and in the process just leading people down the wrong path while making some bling selling the pieces to nowhere.

Theres just enough newbies in IM every year for enough of them to leave testimonials based on getting to the front page of Google on a low traffic term few care about and getting even less of that traffic because they don't get past position 5 getting less that 4% of that already weak traffic.

Truth hurts. I know it does but I used to use and sell profile links when they were good too. Adapt. don't hang on refusing to. Its part of growing up. If I could then you can too.

[IM Ash]

Human nature always seeks the path of least resistance. It's all about instant gratification: instant food, instant messaging, instant weight-loss, instant credit, instant loans, and of course..... instant SEO!

Marketing is a psychological science and junklink sellers just have to appeal to our human nature to make bank.

The true SEOers are continuosly testing and adapting to the changes and the rest are just looking for the instant solution.

[Marc_L]

Mike, I don't think anybody is saying profile links are more powerful than any other kind of link. Not sure why you are asking for proof of something like that.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I have even put up a $100 bounty for someone who can show a page in a competitive serp ranking on the power of those where they can show that it is not better links actually doing the heavy lifting. I'll gladly put it up again. So certain? Good go for it and show it in the serps.

How the hell can one show that? This is a bogus challenge.

Plus, what is a competitive search phrase? If a site ranks highly using profile links then the term isn't competitive, by Mike's definition.

[DPM70]

Mike, you infuriate me and educate me in equal measure - good job!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by MaverickUK

if they were not, then the big dawgs like Matt Carter wouldn't still be Iain them - or me.

.

I don't give a rip who uses what. This is another problem with IM people and SEO. You take the whole IM guru hype marketing junk hero worship and carry it over into SEO and in the process fool yourselves and a whole ton of newbies. Don't give me evidence based on who uses it give me evidence in the serps. You won't find any real SEO expert AKa "big dawg" that says that forum profiles are good but personalities in IM have different ideas. Who cares either way. Show your theories in the serps. I will

EXHIBIT A

Anyone that has been around a few years knows that the number one search term used to sell backlinks was well "backlinks".

Angela killed that term for quite awhile using profile links. From before the first Panda update however that technique got kicked to the curb. Now the only backlinker that breaks top three utilizes a healthy dose of High PR links not forum junk.

No one trying to get that term anymore? Guess again. From time to time the backlink xrummer guys try and get up there but can't crack into the money spots and get kicked down. You'll see the most recent kicked down one on the second page. Pretty obvious who it was when you see the domain name.

Now if in the the serp that was number one for selling these kinds of links you can't even crack top three what does that say about their effectiveness. I know.....


Go ahead and ignore the evidence and tell me how certain you are again.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

How the hell can one show that? This is a bogus challenge.

Being ignorant of how a challenge could potentially be met doesn't make it bogus. It just means you need to be educated more. Its actually pretty simple. My goodness I already laid it out. Give me a serp where a page with less high pr and contextual links and lots of forum profiles is beating out one with significantly more High Pr links and in content links with both of them targeting the same keywords. Freaking easy if it exists

Can't do it because those facts are not on your side? Fine but thats because the proof of it does not exist in the serps and your own arguments are bogus since last time i checked the lack of evidence defines something being bogus..

Plus, what is a competitive search phrase? If a site ranks highly using profile links then the term isn't competitive, by Mike's definition.

Already stated it right in front of you. Its a number of pages going after the same term with an assortment of link resources. Geez how do YOU determine competitiveness if not by the targeted terms and the backlinks pointing at the site on the first page. You always are looking for some classification separate from the first page competition and its totally BOGUS to do so.

Thats why alot sellers come up with this totally concocted competing pages foolishness when Google states pretty clearly that the results count is just that results of a data base lookup to see how many pages show. It makes their ranking for "barb wire tooth brush" look impressive with nearly 4 million competing pages.

The fact that their customers go "wow' and never calls them out on that tells me theres a whole lot of newbies behind those testimonials. (and before you think thats at you you did not mention testimonials in this thread someone else did)

This very thread may show in the index for "competing pages" or "Mike anthony" or "determine competitiveness" and I am not trying or competing to get any of those terms ranked.

By the way hows the other test going for how 100 .info N/As will rank you for great terms. I trust this xrummer tests won't deprive us of those other results we are all waiting for from the other thread.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

EXHIBIT A

Anyone that has been around a few years knows that the number one search term used to sell backlinks was well "backlinks".

Angela killed that term for quite awhile using profile links. From before the first Panda update however that technique got kicked to the curb. Now the only backlinker that breaks top three utilizes a healthy dose of High PR links not forum junk.

No one trying to get that term anymore? Guess again. From time to time the backlink xrummer guys try and get up there but can't crack into the money spots and get kicked down. You'll see the most recent kicked down one on the second page. Pretty obvious who it was when you see the domain name.

Now if in the the serp that was number one for selling these kinds of links you can't even crack top three what does that say about their effectiveness. I know.....


Go ahead and ignore the evidence and tell me how certain you are again.

This is all true and it doesn't establish that forum profiles aren't worth "squat". What it shows is that they are not as powerful as they used to be, that's it.

So if you are trying to rank for "backlinks" using xrumer only isn't going to work. No S*** Sherlock

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Being ignorant of how a challenge could potentially be met doesn't make it bogus. It just means you need to be educated more. Its actually pretty simple. My goodness I already laid it out. Give me a serp where a page with less high pr and contextual links and lots of forum profiles is beating out one with significantly more High Pr links and in content links with both of them targeting the same keywords. Freaking easy if it exists

Number one, I don't think anybody is claiming that sites with xrumer profiles are going to out rank sites with in context links high PR (or in context no PR links for that matter). At least not in this thread. So the challenge is crap just on those terms.

Can't do it because those facts are not on your side?

What is my side? That I think profile links are the cat's meow and will help sites out rank anything else? Not my side.

Fine but thats because the proof of it does not exist in the serps and your own arguments are bogus since last time i checked the lack of evidence defines something being bogus..

But nobody is making this argument (not in this thread at least).

Thts why sellers come up with this totally concocted competing pages foolishness when Google states pretty clearly that the results count is just that results of a data base lookup to see how many pages show.

I agree that the "in quotes" search number is useless. Your definition is too ambiguous for anybody to take your challenge seriously. One could find a term then you would nit pick it saying that there isn't any PR links therefore the term isn't competitive.

This very thread may show in the index for "competing pages" or "Mike anthony" or "determine competitiveness" and I am not trying or competing to get any of those terms ranked.

I agree.

By the way hows the other test going for how 100 .info N/As will rank you for great terms. I trust this xrummer tests won't deprive us of those other results we are all waiting for from the other thread.

I made a proposal for what I think a keyword would be that would make sense for an "average IMer" who would be in the market to spend $200 to start a network. It was met with crickets. I haven't seen one single example from you for a keyword so I think I left the ball in your court on that one.

[Marc_L]

Also I have xrumer waiting if we can all agree on a test.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

This is all true and it doesn't establish that forum profiles aren't worth "squat".

So what you want to quibble over the definition of squat like a child? here

squat - definition of squat by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

6. Slang A small or worthless amount; diddlysquat.

So I and the dictionary agree . Very small value and I consider Profiles of very very little value. Go argue with the dictionary.the term does not mean worthless.

So if you are trying to rank for "backlinks" using xrumer only isn't going to work. No S*** Sherlock

You are new and wet behind the ears Marc Or you would know that it did in fact rank two years back using profile forum links. that indicates a change in the algo against those links. No matter how you cry about it the implications are clear. Since those changes a number of software tools have come out claiming the same things for many of those links as they did before the algo change.

Marc just so others know. W e jsut finished having a long ole back and forth and I am totally unimpressed by your assertions or knowledge on SEO so I'll skip going back and forth in another thread because you feel a need to get into another one where perhaps you might vindicate yourself. Run your test , No need to hijack the thread.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

I made a proposal for what I think a keyword would be that would make sense for an "average IMer" who would be in the market to spend $200 to start a network. It was met with crickets. I haven't seen one single example from you for a keyword so I think I left the ball in your court on that one.

No you didn't. You are lying. your post is still there saying you would run the test.

Originally Posted by Marc_L

I'll set something up with 100 of my domains. I'm going to setup a new domain that will have zero keyword density in the domain name. Then I will rank that keyword in the top 3. I gave a keyword earlier in the thread. I won't submit any content relating to this site to any of my other blogs.

The question becomes how to verify. I use these sites and I really don't want to get them exposed. I'm sure you can understand this. I'm open to suggestions.

You had your keyword and said clearly you would proceed with it. You claiming you were waiting on me for a keyword is a clear and easy to see fabrication. As usual poor form.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

So I and the dictionary agree . Very small value. Go argue with the dictionary.the term does not mean worthless it means of little value

HAHA, not that I like to quibble but you said that they aren't even worth squat, so less than squat.

You are new and wet behind the ears Marc Or you would know that it did in fact rank two years back using profile forum links. that indicates a change in the algo against those links. No matter how you cry about it the implications are clear. Since those changes a number of software tools have come out claiming the same things for many of those links as they did before the algo change.

I agree with all this, profile links got nerfed earlier this year.

Marc just so others know. W e jsut finished having a long ole back and forth and I am totally unimpressed by your assertions or knowledge on SEO so I'll skip going back and forth in another thread because you feel a need to get into another one where perhaps you might vindicate yourself. Run your test , No need to hijack the thread.

Here's the issue between us Mike. Actually I'll comment there because it relates to the network conversation.

For profile links...
Even today, profile links have value. They do move rank but not for anything real competitive, agreed. They aren't better than in context links by no stretch of the imagination.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

HAHA, not that I like to quibble but you said that they aren't even worth squat, so less than squat.

Yes so as I said I consider forum profile links as very very low value . If you are not in this thread to quibble then why do so? I've said multiple times in this thread that they have some value. Not zero as you insist I meant. However they are so low in value they have little utility in creating anything meaningful toward ranking in any serp with competition.

Mav just about any link will have an effect in a weak broken down serp no one is going for.

never said they had no effect but Like a child you continue run down your definition for less than squat equating to no value despite the evidence.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

My site is ready, blast it man, and amaze them with the results, my main keyword is seo service group, but google doesnt show anything for that in searches/month lol. so i would say go for the easy one: "service group" or "seo service"

Who the junk is targeting service group? ROFL. service group for what? Seo service or some other seo related keyword you would actually go for with that domain and your niche or this test is bogus at the very outset.

[MaverickUK]

Mike nobody is saying forum profile links or signature links are anywhere near as powerful as high quality, contextual blog links. You said they're worthless, which they are not - and no, nobody will ever rank for a competitive term solely with these links, I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that either.

I'm just challenging your statement of them being worthless, which they are not. I'm happy to use them here and there on my affiliate sites, however I'd never dream of using just them alone to rank a site - you'd have to be an idiot to even try or do it for that matter.

Yep, they're generally lower quality than other links but they still have a place in modern day SEO, unless you're gunning after the big dogs then in which case you may want to overlook them.

Anyway, morale of the story; they have value

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Yes so as I said I consider forum profile links as very very low value . If you are not in this thread to quibble then why do so? I've said multiple times in this thread that they have some value. Not zero as you insist I meant. However they are so low in value they have little utility in creating anything meaningful toward ranking in any serp with competition.



never said they had no effect but Like a child you continue run down your definition for less than squat equating to no value despite the evidence.

It's just the way your mind works, all or nothing. Profile links have to be the best in the world or worth zero. Anybody who mentions profile links has to be "corrected" when, perhaps they are using profile links for keywords that they work on.

Some keywords that are still worthwhile will be moved by adding xrumer links to your link profile.

Hell, Mike Grant used them on that site we were discussing on the other thread. Just as an aside.

In any case I am happy to accept your retraction when you mistyped that profile links aren't even worth squat.

So, affiliate marketers, profile links will move your ranks for a lot of the keywords you are targeting. Mike wasn't referring to your situation, carry on.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

For a test it doesnt matter, i think there are enough noobs who type in service group, assuming google knows exactly what they want old people perhaps.

I dont care about that site, I just want to see some results with xrumer profiles, or make use of the opportunity to sell it, who bids more then $100? I need monies.

Dude, I'm not trying to put money in your pocket.

I don't think either of those keywords would be a good test. One is so obscure that it wouldn't take much to rank for and the other one is so competitive that profile links wouldn't even make it move one spot.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

For a test it doesnt matter, i think there are enough noobs who type in service group, assuming google knows exactly what they want old people perhaps.

OF course it matters. Why not just go for "elephants that need SEO"

Old people. and newbs type in service group.LOL

[yukon]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

So, affiliate marketers, profile links will move your ranks for a lot of the keywords you are targeting. Mike wasn't referring to your situation, carry on.

It's not the moving part that's the problem, it's stopping the SERP bounce that sucks.

At some point you have to say enough is enough, stop bouncing... I'm not waiting a month for junk links to settle down in the SERPs.

Low quality links are an unnecessary headache IMO.

[MaverickUK]

Guess it depends how much you rely on the junk links Yukon. I've found that sites with enough 'high quality' backlinks can tolerate a fair few profile/signature links. Besides I've had sites ping around the SERPs for over a month (i.e. not in top 300) with just high quality links.

It doesn't happen as often, granted, but it does

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

It's just the way your mind works, all or nothing. Profile links have to be the best in the world or worth zero.

Marc stop the lying man. I just finished saying it is not nothing and there you are back to it again. Sheesh. Honesty matter so little to you?

In any case I am happy to accept your retraction when you mistyped that profile links aren't even worth squat.

LOL. there is no retraction. You merely think that very little value rather than low value equates to no value. Your math logic like your SEO needs some work. Thats your world and you live in it man -not me. I must have really got under your skin (to close to home I guess)for you to follow me thread to thread to quibble and argue for your meaning for a word like a guy desperate to win a point.

So, affiliate marketers, profile links will move your ranks for a lot of the keywords you are targeting. Mike wasn't referring to your situation, carry on.

Oh so affiliate marketers never have competition right? You are a funny man . I got to tell you though I am so glad in 2011 the problem for average Imers getting the traffic they needed has been completely solved and the majority are ranking number one for their terms. Must be with so many backlinking tools on the market

Oh wait........ROFL.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by yukon

It's not the moving part that's the problem, it's stopping the SERP bounce that sucks.

At some point you have to say enough is enough, stop bouncing... I'm not waiting a month for junk links to settle down in the SERPs.

Low quality links are an unnecessary headache IMO.

Yeah, you can't do big blasts, that's for sure. I don't use them much anymore at all.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

1.400.000.000 competing pages
1.760.000 inurl
848.000 intitle

oh good night man after I just finished explaining this you come into this thread with that tired lousy indicator of "competing pages".

There are not 1.4 million pages competing for that term anymore than there are 66 million pages trying to rank for "white man apples"

https://www.google.com/search?q=whit...w=1280&bih=539

I'm sorry but when at least half the people in WF believe this junk about competing pages etc you know exactly why people buy all the junk they do and rave over it. Its because they do not have a clue what they are doing.

[MaverickUK]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

LOL, you guys have no clue, but that doesnt matter, everyone has his/her flaws. I just checked "service group" and it's a medium competitive phrase to rank. So it would match perfect for this challenge.

1.400.000.000 competing pages
1.760.000 inurl
848.000 intitle

Top 3 positions in google have PR3+ and have it in url and in title and in description.

A bit different then "pink elephants looking for seo nubnuts"

0 exact searches according to GKWT lol, but that doesnt mean its easy to rank for when looking at the above information.

Oh dear. You didn't just write that, surely... -__-

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by yukon

Low quality links are an unnecessary headache IMO.

In all kinds of ways. They disappear at a faster clip with software updates that make the links nofollowed, web masters remove them in droves, if you manage to outrank even some weak competition he/she has to be brain dead not to do their own run and you both end up in a constant backlinking mutual arms race and on and on.

[Marc_L]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Marc stop the lying man. I just finished saying it is not nothing and there you are back to it again. Sheesh. Honesty matter so little to you?

Oh come now. You said they weren't worth squat, that was an overstatement at the least. I do now accept that you didn't mean what you wrote at first. OK?

LOL. there is no retraction. You merely think that very little value rather than low value equates to no value. Your math logic like your SEO needs some work. Thats your world and you live in it man -not me. I must have really got under your skin (to close to home I guess)for you to follow me thread to thread to quibble and argue for your meaning for a word like a guy desperate to win a point.

Well you are abrasive, this is indisputable. I'm glad we could come to some agreement in this thread.

Oh so affiliate marketers never have competition right? You are a funny man .

I didn't say this. Here it is again, all or nothing. I said "a lot of" not all.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by wegenbelasting

Not 1.4 million, it's 1.4 BILLION, anyway why you only pick out the easyest one and ignore the inurl and intitle?

They are all junk. Your competition is on the first page period.

Nice search for example btw, but it's only a lousy 67million :P

Here go convince yourself that there are 18 billion pages competing for this term

https://www.google.com/search?sclien...27l644l2-3l3l0

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Marc_L

Oh come now. You said they weren't worth squat, that was an overstatement at the least. I do now accept that you didn't mean what you wrote at first. OK?

I accept totally that you didn't understand what I wrote yes but how is that anything new?

Originally Posted by Marc_L

I didn't say this. Here it is again, all or nothing. I said "a lot of" not all.

You implied I wasn't talking to affiliate marketers at all in "their situation". Keywords some yes but that I wasn't talking to them as a group when I spoke/wrote. Your points are just crap Marc. Nothing new.

[Mike Anthony]

Have a great thanksgiving guys. I'll be back on Black Friday I guess.

[dagaul101]

I agree that the game has changed, and blasting links these days will more than likely get your site penalised