The New SEO rules...

[Intrepreneur]

Be honest with yourself right here and now.

Link building... do you really think that new sites, that aren't even in the public eye are picked up by the public and linked to by them for some reason or other..

Mostly I think not, it's quite seldom a new site is going to get this... Therefore, what's natural is to leave your site as is, apart from directory submissions, i.e linking to your front page..

STOP bookmarking your sites, it's not good SEO practice..

STOP building hundreds of backlinks, unless they are directory submissions.

Bascailly, if you want to build backlinks make it directory submissions, this is sub standard SEO..

Then you can later maybe look out for a "top commenter" blog and get placed there..

Or if you have another blog, that is related to your own blog link to it from there, there is no harm in this, as I've just realised, afterall, all you are doing is promoting your site, just because Google count that as a backlink doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to promote your site on another site of yours..

How did I come to this conclusion?

Research and test test test.

Good luck, and take my advice, learn from it..

My main point to you is that Bookmarking, is like saying bye forever to your PR, and rankings.

Then you have onsite optimization.. What's this you say?

Interlinking related material, it's very good practice.. EVERY authortiy site does this.. and so should you.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

STOP bookmarking your sites, it's not good SEO practice..

STOP building hundreds of backlinks, unless they are directory submissions.

Yes, please do this, especially if you're in a niche I'm planning on working.

[Intrepreneur]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Yes, please do this, especially if you're in a niche I'm planning on working.

Hmmm, you care to elaborate?

As I'm not seeing bookmarking providing any benefit whatsoever in fact the complete opposite.

[Zeus66]

This thread is ridiculous. Sorry to the OP, but your advice is harmful. There is no reason not to get social bookmarks and backlinks with a new site, unless you're content to let it sit and gather dust for a long time. You certainly don't want to do anything super-charged (like tens of thousands of links all at once), but not starting a healthy backlinking regimen once your site is ready for public viewing is downright stupid. The formula hasn't changed. It's still: good content built around keywords that get searched + lots of links = free search engine traffic.

John

[Intrepreneur]

Mmmm I think not..

I do a lot of SEO, and I don't just jump on the bandwagon, I do testing to see what's working and what's not..

Let me say one thing bookmarking isn't one that is working..

I have some stats here to prove it to you, but I don't really want to expose any of my stuff so would take me a while to document it all, then to reveal it.

Anyhow have a look here..

Straight from Google: What You Need to Know

The very start says a lot about G's idea of SEO.

[4morereferrals]

How do all these folks seem to know so much about what "looks natural" to a computational algorithm ?

If you want to "look natural" to google - then I guess we'd all cease SEO altogether.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

Let me say one thing bookmarking isn't one that is working..

Then you're doing it wrong.

As Zeus66 said, your 'advice' is harmful. I guess we shouldn't say anything though since others' ignorance works to our advantage.

[Intrepreneur]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

How do all these folks seem to know so much about what "looks natural" to a computational algorithm ?

If you want to "look natural" to google - then I guess we'd all cease SEO altogether.

Google spell it out, they really do.. most people tend to listen to what people tell them only to find out it never works.. it's the people who go an use their own methods that get the top rankings..

A PM I was sent just a few days ago really says a lot about true SEO, just a pity this guy won't surrender his knolwedge for less than 5k.

Anyhow I don't think I'll need it, as what I'm doing now seems to be more perfect than what I have ever been told to do.

in fact lets add a little a small bit of maths to help prove my point..

You get 100 visitors but you get over 300 backlinks... does that seem natural?

For an alread established site it may, but what about all these new people who are being told to do this and that, when really they are causing more damage than good.

SEO is a skill that works from the bottom up.. i.e from new site to authority site.

[Mickm]

With the greatest of respect Intrepreneur, listen to Zeus66 and bgmacaw, they've hit the nail on the head. There's not much more I can add other than.. listen to them.

[Intrepreneur]

Originally Posted by Mickm

With the greatest of respect Intrepreneur, listen to Zeus66 and bgmacaw, they've hit the nail on the head. There's not much more I can add other than.. listen to them.

Man, I have listened to enough of the usual old SEO ideas floating around on the internet... and when I conjoured up my own plan, elimiated some of the methods. everything changed..

For the better..

Lets just say, you want the Stats I can outline them to you, I will take time out of my day to show you in detail what my tests have shown.. All you have to do is say yes.. and I'm on it.

[Mickm]

Some of the long standing ideas floating around are the cornerstones of SEO but the only way to discover new methods is by experimenting. You may have hit on a new tactic and I really hope you have, but the results of these experiments need to be monitored month after month across thousands of pages, I'm sure you know this already so yes I would be interested in seeing the results if you have the time..

[affiliated survivor]

"Link building... do you really think that new sites, that aren't even in the public eye are picked up by the public and linked to by them for some reason or other.."

Yes, usually nobody will do this. Nobody is giving a link to somebody else for nothing in return. But that´s the way it is. Google, with their algorithms and there idea of how to judge a sites´ value created this situation. If you make a new website and you want it to get visitors you are forced to build links. Or you get nothing. And not just directory backlinks. It´s crazy and does not make some real sentence, but that´s the way it is and there is no alternative. Google´s system is not perfect but it´s all we have. We do not have anything better. How can Google blame us if we play the game outlined by them?

[domaintrader85]

As far my experience goes simply bookmarking and directory submission has increased PR from N/A to 1. I have used unique titles and descriptions to make the link building look more natural.. So completely disagree with the point that bookmarking is not working...

[caroline42]

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

Man, I have listened to enough of the usual old SEO ideas floating around on the internet... and when I conjoured up my own plan, elimiated some of the methods. everything changed..

For the better..

Lets just say, you want the Stats I can outline them to you, I will take time out of my day to show you in detail what my tests have shown.. All you have to do is say yes.. and I'm on it.

Hi, first of all I am new here, second I am just a secretary who does not know much about SEO, but my boss seems to be a "genious" and I can't sort how he does it. I want to learn something here and observing this thread (and my boss) you seem to be right. He does it all the time for his clients, I mean placing new pages on the top of google and for all I know, he does not care a lot about link building for the new sites, he does not even care to look for new clients, but they are coming all the time. His own websites are all a crap and when I ask him why he does not build a good one he says "don't need them for promotion, only for testing", does that make sense?
Last month he did it again; placing a new site number 4 on Google for a search term with 11.000.000 million competing pages and I know for sure, he just placed one link on an other client's site.

Can anyone explain me how he's doing that?
I really would like to have a look at the stats you are talking about Intrepreneur.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

A PM I was sent just a few days ago really says a lot about true SEO, just a pity this guy won't surrender his knolwedge for less than 5k.

How did it say a lot about true seo if you had to pay $5k to find out?

in fact lets add a little a small bit of maths to help prove my point..

You get 100 visitors but you get over 300 backlinks... does that seem natural?

Let's add a small bit of reality too, while we're at it.....Google doesn't have a clue what your visitor to link ratio is. For all they know you had 10,000 visitors and 300 backlinks.

As for Matt Cutts....never trust a Tarheel. Plus, it's part of his job to encourage folks to not do things that manipulate the search engines....especially the things that work.

[dannycapri]

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

Lets just say, you want the Stats I can outline them to you, I will take time out of my day to show you in detail what my tests have shown.. All you have to do is say yes.. and I'm on it.

Ok. Lets see your websites and stats (10 would be a good figure for sake of analysis).

For example: post stats of sites in niches with strong competition with no backlinks, and ranking as well as similar sites with backlinks. Assuming all other factors equal, e.g. site age, keywords, on page SEO, etc.

[Andy Fletcher]

While I think your post is a load of rubbish I'm open minded enough to realise I could be wrong just as easily as you. Share your research with us and let's see what you've got.

[J. David Rogers]

I'm open to seeing your data and analysis. Even though I'm doubtful, I'm willing to consider what you put forward.

[Fernando Veloso]

Originally Posted by blackhatcat

Plus, it's part of his job to encourage folks to not do things that manipulate the search engines....especially the things that work.

You said it right. And Matt its a master doing it...

[cashcow]

I would like to see the stats too. I have a hard time seeing how this could work, myself but am certainly hoping all my competitors take it up!

Last month he did it again; placing a new site number 4 on Google for a search term with 11.000.000 million competing pages and I know for sure, he just placed one link on an other client's site.

This might not be as great as you think. There are plenty of terms that have tons of competing pages but where no one is optimizing for the term and it is quite easy to rank for. What might be more interesting is to find out how much traffic he got from that number 4 ranking and if the site stuck at #4 (new stuff often gets pushed to the top for a day or two than falls down).

Lee

[Intrepreneur]

Ok stats are coming right up... non bookmarked pages versus bookmarked pages..

Bearing in mind beforehand none of these pages had PR beforehand.. well a few did, PR 0 but now N/A..

There's a factor that determined it and I know exactly what it is.

Give me one hour and I will detail it all here.

[Intrepreneur]

Ok here are the stats from testing solely bookmarking..

Total = 6 Pages

6 Pages no PR

2 of those pages previously had PR, that now don't.

These pages with no PR.. No landing in the last 14 days eiter..

The pages with no Pr and where they were bookmarked.

Page 1 bookmarked at -

MyJeeves, Bisonomy. Faves, BookmarkTracker,BookmarkSync,BuddyMarks, Connectedy, Connotea,Diigo Dizzed,Fark,KaBoom-It,Linkagogo,linksmarker,mixx,multiply,MyLinkVault ,NewsVine,OYAX,Propellor,SlashDot,YuppMarks,Techno rati,Reddit,Digg-Me

Page 2

MyJeeves, Bisonomy. Faves, BookmarkTracker,BookmarkSync,BuddyMarks, Connectedy, Connotea,Diigo Dizzed

Page 3

MyLinkVault,NewsVine,OYAX,Propellor,SlashDot,YuppM arks,Technorati,Reddit,Digg-Me

Page 4

MyJeeves, Bisonomy. Faves, BookmarkTracker,BookmarkSync,BuddyMarks, Connectedy, Connotea,Diigo Dizzed,Fark,KaBoom-It,Linkagogo,linksmarker,mixx,multiply,MyLinkVault ,NewsVine,OYAX,Propellor,SlashDot,YuppMarks,Techno rati,Reddit,Digg-Me

Page 5

MyJeeves, Bisonomy. Faves, BookmarkTracker,BookmarkSync,BuddyMarks, Connectedy, Connotea,Diigo Dizzed

Page 6

MyJeeves, Bisonomy. Faves, BookmarkTracker,BookmarkSync,BuddyMarks, Connectedy, Connotea,Diigo Dizzed,Fark,KaBoom-It,Linkagogo,linksmarker,mixx,multiply,MyLinkVault ,NewsVine,OYAX,Propellor,SlashDot,YuppMarks,Techno rati,Reddit,Digg-Me

Those tests are on a 2 month old site... EVERY other page on my site.. are landing pages from Google searches and each have PR 1.

Oh and I just have to add to the end of this.. stop bookmarking, see the difference.

And, there is more evidence piling up to say.. bookmarking = worth nothing.

[cashcow]

EVERY other page on my site.. are landing pages from Google searches and each have PR 1.

I'm not sure what that means. What's a landing page from google searches? Do you just mean that it has no bookmarking done to it? Is it some sort of autogenerated page made when someone searches or a static page?

What about any other linking? I think I am reading your OP to say don't bookmark your pages and don't build backlinks to them either - is that correct?

So, then if it is, are you saying that pages that you did not bookmark or link have a PR1?

I'm confused.

Then the other question is, does it get traffic? PR doesn't really have much meaning to me, it's traffic that is important. I have a PR5 site that gets way less traffic than some of my PR1 sites. Personally, I think google is just screwing with us when it comes to the PR toolbar anyway.

[Intrepreneur]

Originally Posted by cashcow

I'm not sure what that means. What's a landing page from google searches? Do you just mean that it has no bookmarking done to it? Is it some sort of autogenerated page made when someone searches or a static page?

What about any other linking? I think I am reading your OP to say don't bookmark your pages and don't build backlinks to them either - is that correct?

So, then if it is, are you saying that pages that you did not bookmark or link have a PR1?

I'm confused.

Then the other question is, does it get traffic? PR doesn't really have much meaning to me, it's traffic that is important. I have a PR5 site that gets way less traffic than some of my PR1 sites. Personally, I think google is just screwing with us when it comes to the PR toolbar anyway.

Landing pages is when someone lands on a page fo your site from the search engines..

The pages I bookmarked were not only not given PR the ones that did have it werre stripped of it.

Bookmarking gets VERY temporary traffic, really not worth it.

PR is a determination factor of how well you will stick to the front page of results when you do get there, not having PR or being stripped of it, means you aint gonna stay there long.

Bookmarking = useless unless you have an authority site.. and maybe even then it doesn't do anything.

I'm going to do more testing of this on other pages that are doing well and see what happens to them.

[zoobie]

well, bookmarking is good for traffic if you use it correctly but a directory submission
isn't the only way to get links. Many directories are useless and today web users just
use search engines to look for sites so why bother on directories submission? Google follow users NOT the other ways around..

[4morereferrals]

So all this is about creating PR for the page? LOL

I thought we were talking about SEO that mattered - like SERP's.

I'll take a PR0 single page mini site on Page 1 positions 1-4 of Google versus a nifty green bar PR4 on page 6 of Googles results.

I want to sell products - not link exchange/broker. Keep your PR - gimme page 1 in the results please.

"A" for effort on creating a controversial thread topic

[Intrepreneur]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

So all this is about creating PR for the page? LOL

I thought we were talking about SEO that mattered - like SERP's.

I'll take a PR0 single page mini site on Page 1 positions 1-4 of Google versus a nifty green bar PR4 on page 6 of Googles results.

I want to sell products - not link exchange/broker. Keep your PR - gimme page 1 in the results please.

"A" for effort on creating a controversial thread topic

Hehe, seriously though bookmarking is no good for SEO, only for temporary traffic, very temporary at that.

The results are proving bookmarking to be killing my PR, and without at least a PR of 0 you won't be staying on the front page of Google for too long..

Well that's not strictly true either becasue with very good LSI you can get a spot on the front page, from what I've figured.. LSI works.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Maybe Im that gullible ...

Again - I thought we were discussing "true SEO" - not PR.

PR does ultimately determine rankings that stick.

[4morereferrals]

And, there is more evidence piling up to say.. bookmarking = worth nothing.

OK I see ...

Boy them genius developers at google sure went to a LOT of trouble to track my backlinks from BOOKMARK sites in webmaster tools | external links - all for naught. Surely they have better things to do with their, yours, our time than to create a big ruse?

Maybe Im that gullible ...

Again - I thought we were discussing "true SEO" - not PR.

[caroline42]

Originally Posted by cashcow

I would like to see the stats too. I have a hard time seeing how this could work, myself but am certainly hoping all my competitors take it up!


This might not be as great as you think. There are plenty of terms that have tons of competing pages but where no one is optimizing for the term and it is quite easy to rank for. What might be more interesting is to find out how much traffic he got from that number 4 ranking and if the site stuck at #4 (new stuff often gets pushed to the top for a day or two than falls down).

Lee

Oh yes I see your point. Will try to have a sneak into the statistics tomorrow when I am back to work and see if I can find out something more.

I just thought that is a good result as everyone is talking about the importance of many backlinks to get good rankings.
Thanks

[cashcow]

PR does ultimately determine rankings that stick.

I don't think that is necessarily the case.

PR is a measure of how important google thinks your page is. The PR that we can see and the real PR that google assigns to your page are probably not the same thing, but I'd be willing to bet that you can use the PR we see as a general gauge.

Having said that, of course if your page is a PR6 then it probably means Google likes it, thus higher rankings. BUT, you can't generalize like this because it's not just about your page, it's about all the other page that google also sees for that keyword.

Just because you have a high PR does not mean that you will be on page 1 and just because you have a PR0 does not mean you will not be on page 1.

There are lots of other factors.

I think your test is interesting but it would be much more interesting if you were measuring it in terms of traffic and not in terms of PR.

[Andy Fletcher]

Page Rank updates happen about every 3 months. During a first update a site/page can be given higher PR than it deserves by backlinks. This happens all the time and seems to be vaguely related to the amount of content in the site it's part of. Then if you don't build links you'll get that PR stripped during the second update it goes through approximately 3 months later (although the updates seem to be getting more spaced out).

For this kind of data to be worth anything you need to try it out on (at the very least) dozens of sites with different amounts of content/backlinks etc etc. Basing your experimental results on what you've seen on 6 pages is just asking to be mislead. Who knows why you got the PR 1 to start with and why it's PR0 now you just don't have sufficient data points to tell what is going on.

And for all those that don't follow the news. PR is meaningless unless you're a link trader. It used to be *the* determining factor in where you ranked in the SERPs but now it's pretty much just a useless "guideline" number.

Build consistent backlinks to your site starting with the highest PR, most relevant sites you can find and your SERP rankings will get better. Or you know ... don't, it's your site

[Michael Nguyen]

This is really bad advice. The real reason why you should bookmark is to notify the spiders that a link is ready. The way your looking at bookmarks is totally different from the way you should do it. Use bookmarks to improve your SERP and forget the temporary traffic. In fact the temporary traffic is not even important.

Lets be honest here, most people don't go to bookmarking sites to look at bookmarks right? But spiders do. This is why you might build a squidoo page with your anchor text linking to your main website. Building a squidoo page is not enough because google doesn't know it exist. This is why you go to digg.com and bookmark your squidoo page where google will crawl, it will find your link and give you link juice.

I just created a new website 10 days ago and the reason why it was at 154 and now at 6 on page 1 of google.co.uk is because of bookmarks (for a term searched 5400 per month).

Everything I do uses bookmarks. Use bookmarks to help in prove the keyword your aiming for so that you can get organic traffic.

[Intrepreneur]

WHERE is all of your evidence.. I'm the only one that provided a short case study.

Another quite simple case study is the one that I submitted to directories, and a few articles. (as said sub standrad SEO). It was indexed and PR within a few days.

Man I really wish all you people would back up your stuff with a case study.

[scorpions84]

What a polarization...(Is that correct?)

Anyway, everyone is free to give their own advice. It may worked with them but not with others.

Although I don't do too much bookmarking(I still do bookmarking), I think any link will help your site to rank even its just 0.000000001 points.

But this thread showed me the other polarity.

[Michael Nguyen]

What Im telling you is fact based on experience. You can't and shouldn't just bookmark your site for the sake of bookmarking. That along does jack all.

Let me give you an example if your site is about dog training and you have a page on your site called

domain.com/dog-training.html

Your keyword is dog training right ?

Now lets say you have average competition on first page, this means your gonna have to work slightly abit harder to get on page 1.

Now what you've been saying is that if you just bookmark, your just gonna get temporary traffic and this temporary traffic is from people that browse bookmarking sites right ? Well of course thats right because your not exactly on page 1 are you. You've just stopped there.

So now you build a squidoo page with an anchor text link that says "dog training" and point it back to domain.com/dog-training.htm

Now you bookmark the squidoo page with " dog training " as your title. The reason you book mark is because sites like digg.com get crawled very regulary and google will give you link juice. Do you get it now?

Let me reveal on of my niche sites

Search the term "quinny zapp pushchair" in google.co.uk without quotes

The reason why it's number 1 in google.co.uk and 3rd in .com is because of all my bookmarks to notify google that a link is ready to be crawled.

Let me as you this, what is your main source of traffic ?

Michael

[intelinside]

I don't know why people care too much about PR !!!

PR is just a factor out of 200 factors so having a good PR might help a 'bit' but there are lot of other factors that ensure you good SERPs.

I have a site with no backlinks but its PR is 2 and it is only 100 days old so does this thing indicate anything?

I having been doing SEO stuff from 4 years and have observed that On-Page optimization is far more influencial than off-page optimization. So, if your on-page optimization is good, you can outrank sites with better PR which proves my point.

As far as bookmarking is concerned, It helps you to get your site listed in SE quickly but It doesn't affect your PR as G is aware of the abuse of this system. This is my observation but opinions can vary.

[Michael Nguyen]

Hello there

Some valid points. PR is overated. I don't care about PR of my site but I do care about the page rank of my competitors though and backlinks.

You it also boils down to the keyword your aiming for. It its low rank then some on page seo is all that is required. If its average then some on and off seo is needed. If its a mega heavy comp keyword then IMHO opinion, its all about the backlinks.

Its very easy to get listed in google but it's slight harder to get listed for a searched for keyword on the first page of google.

Originally Posted by intelinside

I don't know why people care too much about PR !!!

PR is just a factor out of 200 factors so having a good PR might help a 'bit' but there are lot of other factors that ensure you good SERPs.

I have a site with no backlinks but its PR is 2 and it is only 100 days old so does this thing indicate anything?

I having been doing SEO stuff from 4 years and have observed that On-Page optimization is far more influencial than off-page optimization. So, if your on-page optimization is good, you can outrank sites with better PR which proves my point.

As far as bookmarking is concerned, It helps you to get your site listed in SE quickly but It doesn't affect your PR as G is aware of the abuse of this system. This is my observation but opinions can vary.

[Kay King]

Six pages on a two month old site isn't "testing" - it's an example.

Testing would require multiple sites over time (minimum six months or more) with each site having one type of SEO method used and with more sites used as "controls" where all method were combined and some where no SEO was used.

The problem with this thread is it presents an opinion as fact and gives advice based on minimal evidence. For me, it's the combination of link types that is good SEO - not just applying one method and drawing conclusions from that. Bookmarking a page multiple times quickly isn't good SEO to me but bookmarks are valuable as part of the SEO strategy.

I've launched two sites that went to PR3 within ONE week of uploading them. Each was 100+ pages when launched and appeared at the beginning of a google update. They looked more important to BigG than they were at the time.

Of course, with the next update they dropped like rocks but I wasn't surprised. PR3 went to PR0 for a while but the sites were moving up in the google rankings (which is the goal) because of the regular linking and SEO strategies used.

Aging is an SEO factor seldom mentioned. It makes sense if you think about the thousands of blogs with only 2-3 posts after a year or the sites that are uploaded and never touched again. By counting age of a site in the algo-rhythm google effectively discounts "starter" sites until they have proven themselves long term.

Most of the frustration I see with sites and with SEO methods is due to expecting too much of new sites online. No matter how good the SEO is, a new site is rarely going to solidly dominate google search quickly and be stable in that ranking. I think of SEO as "solid engine optimization" because it's the long term effect that is valuable for your site. It takes time to effectively dominate sites that have been online for years and it takes more than one method to firmly place a site near the top of SE ranking.

Using a variety of linking strategies over time has the effect of tying a site into the "web". It can't be forced by slamming one method quickly but has to build over time. There are ways to get quick attention to new sites but if you are talking about long term SE placement, your site needs to be anchored firmly in the web with paths leading to it (links).

Now - this is only my opinion after years of working with sites and I'm not an SEO expert. It may not be the best method for other site owners but the long term strategy works for me for content sites that are intended to be long term or authority sites.

kay

[Saidar]

Intrepreneur,

I totally agree with you when it comes to social bookmarking. I don't understand why the people on this forum thinks the opposite. Google has thousands of nerds working every day to try and get spammers out of the SERPS.

If I were Google...

-Index new website
-After three weeks check links
-If got hundreds of links, almost all from social bookmarking sites, directories and blogs, IMMEDIATELY PUT THE SITE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX.

That will be the smartest move google makes. Lets face it, 90% of the warriors on this forum only create websites to make money, not to satisfy any user. Internet marketers and affiliates is a huge risk to google, and if I were google I would invest millions of dollars to catch spam and affiliate websites.

And lets face, sites like social bookmarking sites mkes google's job A LOT EASIER!

From my little experience I would say don't do social boomarking until your site is at least 3 months old

[debtfreehispanic]

I agree, I think that backlinks should be spread out. Especially with social bookmarking because it can become a little spammish. But I still think it's a good way to increase your backlinks.

[4morereferrals]

And lets face, sites like social bookmarking sites mkes google's job A LOT EASIER!

This tidbit might prove to be quite a little gem of sage advice.

If your hunting elephants - you dont hop on a boat and sail the ocean, you head out into the bush. If your hunting whales - you dont head out into the desert.

Google knows right where to go get the system abusers, and bookmarking sites would be a delicious place to start.

But if they get to that point ... is there much difference in a site that gets 300 PR3-PR5 backlinks in a month of questionable relevance vs. a site that garners 25 PR7-8 backlinks from major authority sites in the same time frame. Which is the more illogical scenario?

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Kay King

For me, it's the combination of link types that is good SEO - not just applying one method and drawing conclusions from that. Bookmarking a page multiple times quickly isn't good SEO to me but bookmarks are valuable as part of the SEO strategy.

I strongly agree with Kay on this point...

Bookmarking by itself may not produce great results, but when used with a combo of other strategies, I believe it does have benefit.

Also, did the OP link to the bookmarks, so each bookmarking page also gets some link juice, which it will pass on?

[Steve Crooks]

No offence, but I haven't seen any evidence from you, if you supply us with the URL's as well then we can verify that what you are claiming is correct. To say that bookmarking doesn't work is just plain wrong and misleading. It does work but only as part of a whole suite of diverse and different backlinking strategies.

What bookmarking alone can achieve is to get search engine spiders visiting pretty quickly, but getting ranked highly on Google is a whole different matter.

Originally Posted by Intrepreneur

WHERE is all of your evidence.. I'm the only one that provided a short case study.

Another quite simple case study is the one that I submitted to directories, and a few articles. (as said sub standrad SEO). It was indexed and PR within a few days.

Man I really wish all you people would back up your stuff with a case study.

[Fernando Veloso]

Right now i believe SEO its just a mess.

4 years ago we had 5 techniques that DID work.

Right now we have kazzillions of techniques BUT seems that only some work and ONLY for shorter periods.

[TheAge]

Your case studies show NOTHING to us. We haven't been able to see the pages themselves, and so cannot determine if it is the bookmarking itself that is killing the ranking.

PR works like streams of water – every link from a site passes a flow of this juice, divided equally with all the other outbound links on that page. So the more outbound links on that page, the more PR it will lose, equally shared between the outbound links.

So when you get a link, you're not seeing the whole story. How many other links are there on that page? What is the page's PR itself?

Secondly on the page that you're getting links to, how many outbound links do you have? If you have a few, it could be a possibility that you're losing the majority of the PR that you're getting, simply by letting it flow out of your site.

Without showing us the pages themselves, we really can't make a decision. Is there other pages on your site interlinking to your money page as well? This can also be a big boost for PR.

On a side note, either Leslie Rhodes or Dan Thies (I really can't remember right now) from Stompernet debunked LSI. You can find the video on the stomper blog at http://www.stomperblog.com

The video is titled something like 'advanced seo trick that doesn't work' or something like that. Really can't remember now, just woke up.

Hope this helps,

Adrian

[lisaann]

Sorry, but this thread is a perfect example of why getting all your info from a public forum from just anyone is a very bad strategy to follow.

You have no way of knowing if the poster has any credibility, knows what he/she is talking about, or even makes any money at all. If you want to learn SEO, listen to Kurt and get into his memberships if you can.

[James Spinosa]

The problem with this logic is that not everybody does things like blog commenting and social bookmarking to get SEO value backlinks. I do them to get traffic to my content and the fact that I get a link to go along with it is simply a bonus.

[Intrepreneur]

Let me say to the poster above I've been doing SEO for a year.. I don't just follow the crowd, I dream up and test my own methods.

I've found a lot of the information out there to be shoddy, very shoddy to say the least.

Honestly I wouldn't make this post if i wasn't seeing this happening, when testing methods.

There are MANY different factors that determine ranking and what works today may not work tomorrow.. I'm finding there are changes as paying attention to what I do, enables me to see without perhaps even having to strain my brain too hard, that something works better than the other.

Anyhow I'll continue with my methods, and do a few more tests to see what I can conjur up.

[livingwell]

a whole year you say? i bet theres people on this forum who have been doing seo since you were in diapers.

you are either an idiot or more likely youre just trying to damage your competition.

you should be reported and banned from this forum for such despicable behavior.

[Intrepreneur]

Originally Posted by livingwell

a whole year you say? i bet theres people on this forum who have been doing seo since you were in diapers.

you are either an idiot or more likely youre just trying to damage your competition.

Hmmm, no I was just trying to find some agreement, but not many have agreed. I guess I'll keep my future findings to myself.