Backlinking with 2.0 websites

solado · 01-07-2012, 10:29 AM

So i have started a backlinking campain of building 1 backlink per day with a unique article on a web 2.0 property such as squidoo, webs, weebly, wordpress etc. Problem is im running out of 2.0 free webhosting websites, would it be a waste of time if i was to have more than one web 2.0 page poiting to my site ? So for example 3x wordpress blogs / 3x squidoo lenses or 3x free webs pages as i would imagne they come from the same IP address.

I cant imagne it would hurt to have more than 1 link but I just wanted to know from a time perspective, i.e would it be better for me to build a web 2.0 sites indirectly pointing to my other backlinks ?

Msaeed · 01-07-2012, 06:25 PM

Can't you just post more articles on to current web properties that you already have?

silverace · 01-08-2012, 04:17 AM

I'd do max 2 web 2.0 pages per web 2.0 site, after that it kinda loses it's importance IMHO. Don't forget to make them look legit in the eyes of google, that makes them even more powerfull

Chris- · 01-08-2012, 07:20 AM

You'd get better results from building a much wider variety of backlinks, rather than focussing on one, for the following reason.

Google has explicitly stated that they do NOT like website owners gaming their algorithm, so to avoid them penalising your site for doing so obviously, you need to build backlinks in a way that looks entirely natural (ie. as if it were being done by the public).

See my free report on getting the best results from backlinking . . .

Uniquely Natural Social Bookmarking Service - FREE downloads

Chris

isimrikasharma · 01-08-2012, 07:26 AM

I would suggest you to work on the pr of a few articles that you submit. It will not be very difficult for you to increase the pr as the page comes from a good pr site like squidoo. Once it has a higher pr its impact on your serp boost will be much more better.

Wish you luck.

dburk · 01-08-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris-

You'd get better results from building a much wider variety of backlinks, rather than focussing on one, for the following reason.

Google has explicitly stated that they do NOT like website owners gaming their algorithm, so to avoid them penalising your site for doing so obviously, you need to build backlinks in a way that looks entirely natural (ie. as if it were being done by the public).

See my free report on getting the best results from backlinking . . .

Uniquely Natural Social Bookmarking Service - FREE downloads

Chris

Hi Chris I have to say that I think you are wrong about some of your assertions in regard Google's policies. Google has a problem with web spam being used for purpose of manipulating PageRank. However, they have no problem with you creating quality content and linking it in a way that makes sense to users.

Personally I don't think that it matters much at all if your backlinks look "natural" or not, as long as it is unique, high quality content that adds value and utility for users.

Think about for a second, will you?

Will Google ever see "web spam" as "natural"?

Of course not!

So does it really make any difference if your web spam has a "natural looking" linking pattern?

Of course not!

You don't think that Google is that feeble minded, do you? That they are perfectly fine with web spam as long as the web spam has a "natural" linking pattern (whatever that is?). Or, that they are going to discount high quality content just because there is a linking pattern, useful for users, but that doesn't fit some linking pattern template?

madison_avenue · 01-08-2012, 12:29 PM

I think it's a question of "visibility", if your site is very high quality you want to make it as visible and obvious to Google, linking makes you more visible. You are doing Google a favour by highlighting your site. But if you make it "visible" and it is poor quality then Google will penalize this. Google can now check for readability, and also how long visitors stay on the site, if they leave fast, and "bounce" off the site then it's downgraded.

In a way a blatant Clickbank affiliate site is in an impossible position, what site wants to link to it? None. So that type of site has to create it's own links and most of the one's ranking have a "profile" of links which indicates they have created them themselves but they still seem to rank well. In the Weight Loss niche there is site in near the top with 100's of obvious Web 2.0 and profile links.

01-07-2012, 10:29 AM	#1
solado HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 223 Thanks: 9 Thanked 53 Times in 32 Posts	Backlinking with 2.0 websites - More than 1 = waste of time ? So i have started a backlinking campain of building 1 backlink per day with a unique article on a web 2.0 property such as squidoo, webs, weebly, wordpress etc. Problem is im running out of 2.0 free webhosting websites, would it be a waste of time if i was to have more than one web 2.0 page poiting to my site ? So for example 3x wordpress blogs / 3x squidoo lenses or 3x free webs pages as i would imagne they come from the same IP address. I cant imagne it would hurt to have more than 1 link but I just wanted to know from a time perspective, i.e would it be better for me to build a web 2.0 sites indirectly pointing to my other backlinks ?

01-07-2012, 06:25 PM	#2
Msaeed Active Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 34 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Backlinking with 2.0 websites - More than 1 = waste of time ? Can't you just post more articles on to current web properties that you already have?

01-08-2012, 04:17 AM	#3
silverace The Flying Dutchman War Room Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 277 Thanks: 10 Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts	Re: Backlinking with 2.0 websites - More than 1 = waste of time ? I'd do max 2 web 2.0 pages per web 2.0 site, after that it kinda loses it's importance IMHO. Don't forget to make them look legit in the eyes of google, that makes them even more powerfull

01-08-2012, 07:20 AM	#4
Chris- HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: various :) Posts: 476 Thanks: 265 Thanked 95 Times in 33 Posts	Re: Backlinking with 2.0 websites - More than 1 = waste of time ? You'd get better results from building a much wider variety of backlinks, rather than focussing on one, for the following reason. Google has explicitly stated that they do NOT like website owners gaming their algorithm, so to avoid them penalising your site for doing so obviously, you need to build backlinks in a way that looks entirely natural (ie. as if it were being done by the public). See my free report on getting the best results from backlinking . . . Uniquely Natural Social Bookmarking Service - FREE downloads Chris
	* Newbies:- how YOU can make money selling my Ebook on "Dog Training" (ZERO cost!). * Only $7 !!! PLR package, 42 articles on "Credit Cards" + ALL info needed to make profits ! * Which host** is best? We've done the research for you :)

01-08-2012, 07:26 AM	#5
isimrikasharma Active Warrior Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 64 Thanks: 1 Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Backlinking with 2.0 websites - More than 1 = waste of time ? I would suggest you to work on the pr of a few articles that you submit. It will not be very difficult for you to increase the pr as the page comes from a good pr site like squidoo. Once it has a higher pr its impact on your serp boost will be much more better. Wish you luck.
	Cat Preparation \| India \| India \| History of India

01-08-2012, 12:29 PM	#7
madison_avenue Advanced Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: London, United Kingdom. Posts: 936 Thanks: 721 Thanked 94 Times in 84 Posts	Re: Backlinking with 2.0 websites - More than 1 = waste of time ? I think it's a question of "visibility", if your site is very high quality you want to make it as visible and obvious to Google, linking makes you more visible. You are doing Google a favour by highlighting your site. But if you make it "visible" and it is poor quality then Google will penalize this. Google can now check for readability, and also how long visitors stay on the site, if they leave fast, and "bounce" off the site then it's downgraded. In a way a blatant Clickbank affiliate site is in an impossible position, what site wants to link to it? None. So that type of site has to create it's own links and most of the one's ranking have a "profile" of links which indicates they have created them themselves but they still seem to rank well. In the Weight Loss niche there is site in near the top with 100's of obvious Web 2.0 and profile links.