The Angela Experiment: aka Let's gang up on Angela thread

[Steven Carl Kelly]

While I understand that there are those who feel linking to their article in a directory makes a lot of sense, I would state that if you have to pick one or the other, you should link to your own site before you link to an article.

If you don't think you can make the FP of Google with your own page, perhaps you should re-consider your niche/keyword phrase selection.

If you can easily link to both, then go right ahead and do so.

[Doug D]

I would have to reinforce the--work on links for your own site, sentiment. Admittedly, I don't do the affiliate or adsense thing. I just have one ecommerce site, but I can't imagine putting that kind of effort into ranking an article on a site that you don't control or own. I suppose it depends on your biz model and long term goals. It seems to me though, that your putting in the time, and you could benefit in the long run....by building up your authority for your own site. I was able to achieve a PR3 on many of my inner pages, in a matter of the last two PR updates that we had (I was a PR0, approx 9 weeks ago). I attribute most of my rankings and PR increase, to A & P's sites. Who Knows? Maybe I'll even catch a 4 on the next update? Like my Daddy use to tell me--"Son, even the sun shines on a dog's ass, somedays."
Not that PR is all that, I'm just saying that you could probably achieve similar results for your own site, as you are obviously already putting in the time.

[gmr324]

If you don't think you can make the FP of Google with your own page, perhaps you should re-consider your niche/keyword phrase selection.

I think that's the luxury that Goarticles provides. You can break into niches that
might not otherwise be accessible in a reasonable periood of time. Now, the
obvious trade-off is the lack of control affecting conversions like not being
able to insert banners and videos. However, if you can break into a competitive
niche that provides access to quadruple the traffic in a month or so, you can
afford to live with a lower conversion ratio. My mistake was in not realizing the
distinction between tire-kicker and money keywords. Live and learn.

By all means, pursue both realizing what you're sacrificing in each case.

My 2 Cents

George

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by gmr324

I think that's the luxury that Goarticles provides. You can break into niches that might not otherwise be accessible in a reasonable periood of time. Now, the obvious trade-off is the lack of control affecting conversions like not being able to insert banners and videos.

The other trade off is that it then takes two clicks to get to your offer, rather than one. The other thing is that there are soooo many profitable niches out there that you should be able to find a bunch that you can rank your own site for. I have more niches than I have time to monetize.

But then again, I know people who struggle to find profitable niches.

[Ursa Anzur]

Well, I again received a commission of $100 from that one Goarticles article. It's still on number 3 without any additional linking.

[mark@1to101]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

In a nutshell, the GTEF is...

1. Use EXACT match in the Google KW Tool for your keyword phrase;
2. Take the previous month's search volume;
3. Divide by 5;
4. Divide the result by 30;
5. Divide that number by 2.

Now you will have a realistic number of visitors you can expect if your page was ranked #1 in Google for your exact keyword phrase.

Thanks for sharing this.

Is this based on 'All Countries And Territories'?

[daveshu]

I think if you are no1 in Google you only need to divide the number of supposed searches per month by 30, not 300.

I'm no.1 with a search term that allegedly gets 90,500 exact searches per month & I get around 3000-3500 hits per month.

When it was no.3 I got a lot less visitors than that.

It makes me around $300 per month from Adsense.


Then again I have a site that's no.3 with a search term that gets supposedly only 8100 searches per month & that gets 4500+ hits per month.

Go figure Google.


Must try harder

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

In a nutshell, the GTEF is...

1. Use EXACT match in the Google KW Tool for your keyword phrase;
2. Take the previous month's search volume;
3. Divide by 5;
4. Divide the result by 30;
5. Divide that number by 2.

Now you will have a realistic number of visitors you can expect if your page was ranked #1 in Google for your exact keyword phrase.

Well, I like your formula, Steven...however with some keywords it STILL seems high. Here is what the results would be for my name, Angela:

1. Use EXACT match in the Google KW Tool for your keyword phrase;

76,900,000 according to Google: "Angela"

2. Take the previous month's search volume;

7,480,000 (global search) according to Google's Keyword tool

3. Divide by 5;

1,496,000

4. Divide the result by 30;

49,866

5. Divide that number by 2.

24,933

Now, if 24,933 was the amount of visitors for a MONTH, that would be close to Wordtracker's results for my name. But if that is for a DAY, then again...it's WAY off. I am in the number 2 spot and I can assure you, I do NOT get 11.92% of 24,933 (2,972 people per DAY) visitors.

I think Google's keyword tool is skewed and I personally don't trust the results.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Well, I like your formula, Steven...however with some keywords it STILL seems high. Here is what the results would be for my name, Angela:

1. Use EXACT match in the Google KW Tool for your keyword phrase;

76,900,000 according to Google: "Angela"

2. Take the previous month's search volume;

7,480,000 (global search) according to Google's Keyword tool

3. Divide by 5;

1,496,000

4. Divide the result by 30;

49,866

5. Divide that number by 2.

24,933

Now, if 24,933 was the amount of visitors for a MONTH, that would be close to Wordtracker's results for my name. But if that is for a DAY, then again...it's WAY off. I am in the number 2 spot and I can assure you, I do NOT get 11.92% of 24,933 (2,972 people per DAY) visitors.

I think Google's keyword tool is skewed and I personally don't trust the results.

Angela:

Your linking strategy to be #2 overall for the word "angela" certainly shows the power of backlinking. I know the power of your packets, as you know I'm a subscriber. I'm outsourcing those packets every month to someone who takes them and for less than $10 does all of the grunt work for me. It is working out very, very well.

However...

Understand that a the percentage of traffic you're going to get is based on exactly what Google shows for you in the search results. To be quite frank, at #2 overall for "angela" you're going to get a LOT lower percentage of the clicks you would get if this were a commercial-type search and the keyword had commercial intent.

To be honest, the fact that the link title for your site is "Angela from Aberdeen" and the first line of your listing is: "Angela from Aberdeen A little bit about who I am and where I am from. This is me. And I live in Aberdeen, on the coastline of Washington State." really cuts down on the percentage of clicks you will get for the search "angela". People who aren't looking for you specifically -- or for an Angela located in Aberdeen -- are very UNLIKELY to click.

The formula works for sites which are commercial in nature, though it still dependent, of course, on the quality of the link title and the text Google shows for it. Those two items are critical.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by mark@1to101

Thanks for sharing this.

Is this based on 'All Countries And Territories'?

I always teach my students and client to localize their search, so focus on the local search.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by daveshu

Go figure Google.

A lot of the CTR depends on your link title and description text in the Google results. A properly optimized title and text can actually have a site ranked at #3 in Google receiving more clicks than #2.

[Gabby12]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

I think Google's keyword tool is skewed and I personally don't trust the results.

Angela,
what keyword tool do you recommend that gives accurate results.
update-my site (not article) reached #3.
Thanks, Mark

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Angela:

Your linking strategy to be #2 overall for the word "angela" certainly shows the power of backlinking. I know the power of your packets, as you know I'm a subscriber. I'm outsourcing those packets every month to someone who takes them and for less than $10 does all of the grunt work for me. It is working out very, very well.

However...

Understand that a the percentage of traffic you're going to get is based on exactly what Google shows for you in the search results. To be quite frank, at #2 overall for "angela" you're going to get a LOT lower percentage of the clicks you would get if this were a commercial-type search and the keyword had commercial intent.

To be honest, the fact that the link title for your site is "Angela from Aberdeen" and the first line of your listing is: "Angela from Aberdeen A little bit about who I am and where I am from. This is me. And I live in Aberdeen, on the coastline of Washington State." really cuts down on the percentage of clicks you will get for the search "angela". People who aren't looking for you specifically -- or for an Angela located in Aberdeen -- are very UNLIKELY to click.

The formula works for sites which are commercial in nature, though it still dependent, of course, on the quality of the link title and the text Google shows for it. Those two items are critical.

Yes, I completely understand what you're saying, Steven. And all of that is correct...except I STILL don't think that the keyword "Angela" is getting 25,000 searches a day. That's where I am differing with your formula for THIS keyword, although I think you're probably right for the majority of searches and I even used that same "formula" (giving you credit, of course ) for someone who asked me something similar in email just today.

This might be one of those "weird" keyword examples where no one really knows how many people are searching for that keyword or WHY they are searching for it. I suspect a lot of it is coming from searches related to Angela Merkel, first female Chancellor of Germany.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Gabby12

Angela,
what keyword tool do you recommend that gives accurate results.
update-my site (not article) reached #3.
Thanks, Mark

That's excellent, Mark.

I would recommend taking what Google says with a grain of salt. Steven's formula seems pretty sound for most keywords. I don't know if any of the other keyword tools are MORE accurate than Google, but I would simply recommend not believing those super high search numbers you might see in Google. I actually WOULD recommend running your results through Steven's formula to get a "ballpark figure" of what kind of search volume you might expect.

[Terry Kyle]

GOOD ADDITIONAL BACKLINKING METHODS:

Another good backlinking strategy to employ (particularly for offline clients) once you have a great keyword is to backlink a GoArticle, YouTube video (with your http:// URL first in the more info box) AND your own site so that, over time, you can lock up SEVERAL top spots on the Google SERP.

Great for traffic and blocking competitors.

TIP 2: I got this from Stompernet and seems to work well - for a normal site that I am trying to rank, I target backlink just ONE good page deep within the site and NOT the homepage (which I ignore in backlinking).

Stompernet's theory is that this looks 'natural' to Google.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, it does seem to drag the site homepage up the rankings well (in my experience) AND gives you a shot at a 'double listing' with BOTH homepage and backlinked page appearing together.

[Kevin McNally]

Originally Posted by Gabby12

Angela,
what keyword tool do you recommend that gives accurate results.
update-my site (not article) reached #3.
Thanks, Mark

No keyword tool is 100% accurate but in general I find the adwords keyword tool the most accurate , sure you will find some skewed results but it is far more accurate than tools such as wordtracker.

The best way to cut to the chase and find true keyword demand is to run an exact match campaign on adwords search network and keep it running for a week or so. If your bid is on page 1 simply divide the amount of page impressions by the days running and you have your average daily serach volume. This can save a lot of time and money.

[Saidar]

Update on my website...

I'm still no where to be seen in Google, it has been a week now! For you people who don't know I was in the top 30 for about 5 keywords, now all of those rankings disappeared completely. I really do hope my site comes back I spent about 20 hours building links it would be sad if I wasted all those hours!

[belgirl]

Glad to hear the Angela Experiment has worked for several on here. Hasn't worked for me. I have pretty much given up for right now and I am concentrating my efforts on backlinking my blogs.

[travelbizcash]

I just began to use Angela's package but I will have to go back and change a few things because I don't feel I used the correct keyword at all. Hopefully a blog url will rank. I will add a article to one of the article submission sites and use that as well, question...should the article relate back to the blog's keyword?

[Texjd]

Belgirl, are you getting results with linking to your blogs? If you are then that's a good plan. I've used Angela's and Paul's links on over 20 pages, with 16 making dramatic improvements. For some reason 4 just don't respond, and I've checked and re-checked everything on page.

Who knows what evil lurks in the search engines, but never give up =8~).

BTW, just did Angela's July packet and only got 8 out of 30 to work. This is getting way out of hand on the maruaders tearing up these websites. Can't blame the webistes for taking defensive action, it's their website. If everyone would play nice there probably wouldn't be a problem.

Can't wait to see how bad Paul's are torn up. Going to try a few today to see.

[Angela V. Edwards]

I've got outsourcers who are using my July packet every day and I haven't heard anything about only 8 of the sites are working. As a matter of fact, I've only heard about 2 sites this time so far. I don't know why you only got 8 sites to work, but I guarantee you, most of the sites in the packet are just fine. The "marauders" can't do much damage as these are not "comment" type sites and not ALL website owners mind a spike in their traffic.

I just went and put new accounts on a bunch of the sites in the packets to test them and they are working just as they are shown in the packet.

[Texjd]

I just did them and marked them as I went. Many will still let you enter the info but took the display away, some killed the sign up all together, some never send confirmation email, and others did a few new tricks that I haven't seen before.

Each one I do, I go verify that the links are there and active. Now some I choose not to use, I think there were 2 or 3, for other reasons.

The larger ones, and the ones with forums are holding. The smaller ones where they are probably monitored have responded in some way to stop all the new links.

Hey, it's not your fault, I'm certainly not blaming anyone but the jerks who kill the goose.

[4morereferrals]

To be fair Belgirl ... that long tail keyword has something very funky about it. It seems to confuse google - or somehting. [ I know - absurd ... ] Perhaps its too long?

I havent been able to put my finger on it ... but pages clearly optimized for an alterantive phrase - thats very close to your phrase are outranking sites they shouldnt.

panic heart attack symptoms pages with low backlink counts are outranking sites with urls and keywords and content optimized for "panic attack heart symptoms" - that do have backlinks.

If the other "theories" were accurate - your goArticle should for all intents and purposes be in the top 3-4 - page 1.

I have - as of this am - 2 goofy pieces of content on other obscure sites used as backlink sources for the blog I tried to rank .... panicattackheartsymptoms.com .... listed on Page 1.

There isnt a EZA or GoArticle in sight on page one.

That SHOULDNT be ...

For grins ... search in quotes for panic attack heart symptoms ... page 3-7 ... you can see I got busy for about 2 weeks with my system. Id love to sort out why my silly blog isnt ranking better ...

Originally Posted by belgirl

Glad to hear the Angela Experiment has worked for several on here. Hasn't worked for me. I have pretty much given up for right now and I am concentrating my efforts on backlinking my blogs.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

panic heart attack symptoms pages with low backlink counts are outranking sites with urls and keywords and content optimized for "panic attack heart symptoms" - that do have backlinks.

I need to analyze this further, probably with your help, but I suspect Google may treat "heart attack" as a single, two-word connected phrase.

[Pat Jackson]

I've been collating Paul's and Angela's links for a few months and I now have a list of about 400 sites.

Over the course of the next month I'm going to point anywhere from 250-400 of these links to 8 different sites (250-400 at each site) and then report back my results.

Just curious, do any of you bookmark these links or ping them? I'm thinking about just putting them all through Bookmarking Demon but I'm not sure if it's worth it?

[Angela V. Edwards]

I've never done anything like this, Pat, and my stuff has gotten to Page One just as quickly as the folks who HAVE pinged and bookmarked their links.

[Joe118]

Originally Posted by Pat Jackson

I've been collating Paul's and Angela's links for a few months and I now have a list of about 400 sites.

Over the course of the next month I'm going to point anywhere from 250-400 of these links to 8 different sites (250-400 at each site) and then report back my results.

Just curious, do any of you bookmark these links or ping them? I'm thinking about just putting them all through Bookmarking Demon but I'm not sure if it's worth it?

Pat I do what you're proposing:

* Get your profiles set up
* Let them age
* Put your links on the profiles

Then of course in order for Google to notice the links, you have to do something. You can ping, you can drop links to your profiles where Google will notice (e.g. on a blogger blog), you can digg the profiles, etc etc etc.

I do the blogger thing + pinging with ping-o-matic.

[jacksonlin]

I have also tested Angela's backlinks and I know for sure they work!

Just make sure you include it in your overall linking strategy.

I use it for normal pages, instead of linking to Go Articles and it has worked wonders for me!

However, I did add the links to a site that has been doing OK in terms of SEO for a few months. So I think you should use Angela's backlinks once you have some SEO traffic and you really want to smash the competition for the highly competitive keywords.

I am in the male dating industry niche, and I am on page 1 for both of the top selling products on the internet for that niche.

J

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by Texjd

Belgirl, are you getting results with linking to your blogs? If you are then that's a good plan. I've used Angela's and Paul's links on over 20 pages, with 16 making dramatic improvements. For some reason 4 just don't respond, and I've checked and re-checked everything on page.

Who knows what evil lurks in the search engines, but never give up =8~).

BTW, just did Angela's July packet and only got 8 out of 30 to work. This is getting way out of hand on the maruaders tearing up these websites. Can't blame the webistes for taking defensive action, it's their website. If everyone would play nice there probably wouldn't be a problem.

Can't wait to see how bad Paul's are torn up. Going to try a few today to see.

Yeah, I have seen some improvement, but not sure if that is because my site was a PR3 to begin with or the age of the domain. I have started doing some social bookmarking as well.

All 30 of Angela's backlinks for July worked for me.

[belgirl]

Yeah, but then why does someone else with a Go Article and the words "Panic Attack Heart Symptoms" rank on the first page of Google??

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

To be fair Belgirl ... that long tail keyword has something very funky about it. It seems to confuse google - or somehting. [ I know - absurd ... ] Perhaps its too long?

I havent been able to put my finger on it ... but pages clearly optimized for an alterantive phrase - thats very close to your phrase are outranking sites they shouldnt.

panic heart attack symptoms pages with low backlink counts are outranking sites with urls and keywords and content optimized for "panic attack heart symptoms" - that do have backlinks.

If the other "theories" were accurate - your goArticle should for all intents and purposes be in the top 3-4 - page 1.

I have - as of this am - 2 goofy pieces of content on other obscure sites used as backlink sources for the blog I tried to rank .... panicattackheartsymptoms.com .... listed on Page 1.

There isnt a EZA or GoArticle in sight on page one.

That SHOULDNT be ...

For grins ... search in quotes for panic attack heart symptoms ... page 3-7 ... you can see I got busy for about 2 weeks with my system. Id love to sort out why my silly blog isnt ranking better ...

[djbory]

Originally Posted by Texjd

I just did them and marked them as I went. Many will still let you enter the info but took the display away, some killed the sign up all together, some never send confirmation email, and others did a few new tricks that I haven't seen before.

Each one I do, I go verify that the links are there and active. Now some I choose not to use, I think there were 2 or 3, for other reasons.

The larger ones, and the ones with forums are holding. The smaller ones where they are probably monitored have responded in some way to stop all the new links.

Hey, it's not your fault, I'm certainly not blaming anyone but the jerks who kill the goose.

********MY UPDATE OF DISABLE SITES********

I totally agree; some of the sites are not working anymore for us. It is just as Texjd said. Some of the sites delete the profile all together, other ones don’t let you register or show a weird message when you try to register, while others don’t delete the account but delete the blog post or the links.

From July package I did all PR7 and PR8. Out of 16, 6 are not good anymore. I went back and spend hours trying to make then work but I couldn’t.

I believe all these guys creating hundreds of profiles using software are responsible for what is happening.

There is a guy, which name I don’t want to mention, that is creating hundreds of profiles every day for paying customers, and he said himself that he uses Paul’s and Angela’s banklink’s packages to create these profiles.

So it is not surprise to me that this phenomenon of Webmaster taking action against us started to happen. It is very unfortunate because the links do work.

As of now, 6 out of 16 = 36% of the PR7 and PR8 ARE NOT WORKING anymore is very disturbing because the service that Paul and Angela are providing is outstanding, to say the least.

I think this phenomenon is happening only to new profiles, so maybe if Angela or Paul go back to check their profiles they still may be there. This is just my opinion.

I know Angela and PauL are going to try to defend their service and they have the right to do so, but this is the fact: '36% of PR 7 and PR 8 are no good anymore'

If nothing is done now it is going to get worse as the word keeps going around to webmasters ears.

Maybe the days of PROFILE BACLINKING are counted, I really hope I'm wrong.

DJBory

[djbory]

Originally Posted by belgirl

All 30 of Angela's backlinks for July worked for me.

I’m sure that when the package came out they were all good, that’s why they all worked for you. I think you should get back to the sites I just mentioned to see if they are holding for you.

As I said, they may be holding, then, this is just happening to new profiles.

DJBory

[banker0679]

i think it would be better if angela/paul didnt release the links for ppl to use on their own

ppl need to use their services, and angela/paul will do it themselves or hire someone else to do it

at least the QC would be better, and they'll know what links are being used...to make sure there aren't any adult/gambling stuff

[Barry Walls]

I did 30 myself, one keyword has 368k competitors and I got nothing. I sent another 30 to my outsourcer and I bought a 150 package pack from Winsons WSO.

Nada.

That was 2 to 3 weeks ago.

Hasn't worked for me so far....still hopeful though.

Are my expectations way off?

All the best

Barry

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by djbory

********MY UPDATE OF DISABLE SITES********

I totally agree; some of the sites are not working anymore for us. It is just as Texjd said. Some of the sites delete the profile all together, other ones don’t let you register or show a weird message when you try to register, while others don’t delete the account but delete the blog post or the links.

From July package I did all PR7 and PR8. Out of 16, 6 are not good anymore. I went back and spend hours trying to make then work but I couldn’t.

I believe all these guys creating hundreds of profiles using software are responsible for what is happening.

There is a guy, which name I don’t want to mention, that is creating hundreds of profiles every day for paying customers, and he said himself that he uses Paul’s and Angela’s banklink’s packages to create these profiles.

So it is not surprise to me that this phenomenon of Webmaster taking action against us started to happen. It is very unfortunate because the links do work.

As of now, 6 out of 16 = 36% of the PR7 and PR8 ARE NOT WORKING anymore is very disturbing because the service that Paul and Angela are providing is outstanding, to say the least.

These are the sites that are not working for me anymore; if you have the packages you will know which they are:


I think this phenomenon is happening only to new profiles, so maybe if Angela or Paul go back to check their profiles they still may be there. This is just my opinion.

I know Angela and PauL are going to try to defend their service and they have the right to do so, but this is the fact: '36% of PR 7 and PR 8 are no good anymore'

If nothing is done now it is going to get worse as the word keeps going around to webmasters ears.

Maybe the days of PROFILE BACLINKING are counted, I really hope I'm wrong.

DJBory

I notice that you keep stressing that 36% of the PR 7-8 sites aren't working anymore but you did NOT point out that 100% of the sites in the packet are Page Rank 6 and above.

If these are the sites that don't work for you anymore, you still have 80% of the packet which are ALL PAGE RANK 6 AND ABOVE to use.

Your post was skewed to make your point and you unfairly left out some very relevant information. What about the other 64% (an overwhelming majority) of those Super High Page Rank sites that DO work??


Think of it this way: If a friend came to you and said he knew of a Page Rank 8 site, four page rank 7 sites, and six Page Rank 6 sites that you could get a backlink from, would you be willing to pay him $5 for it? Of course you would! That would be a steal! And that's for just 11 great sites! Think back to the old days of IM, when you had to find your OWN backlinks and they were USUALLY some low Page Rank blog (as many blogs are) you had to make a comment on. $5 for what your friend is offering to you is well worth it. Yet, people start to grumble when one or two sites in the packet don't work anymore. Some people stop using the program altogether. Even though they have more than 25 great, usable, High Page Rank sites from PR 6 all the way to PR 10 at times. Just remember the value of these links you're getting. :-)

We're actually talking about 24 of the sites (which is a LOT more than the 11 in the example) are still working just fine for you. This is the sort of "grumbling" I am talking about. It's perfectly NORMAL to have anywhere from 3-6 sites in each packet remove the capability to get a link. This has been happening from the beginning. You still have 24 good, Page Rank 6 and above sites to get a link from this month, which is a WHOLE LOT more valuable than the mere $5 I charge! That's a cost of less than $0.21 PER SITE for Page Rank 6 and above backlinks!!

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by djbory

I’m sure that when the package came out they were all good, that’s why they all worked for you. I think you should get back to the sites I just mentioned to see if they are holding for you.

As I said, they may be holding, then, this is just happening to new profiles.

DJBory

I just did half the links 2 days ago with no problems....
Also checked some of your links that aren't working for you...my profiles are still up...

[mdzarate]

Angela,

I think you have a good point, but also the customer has his point. He is paying for a service and getting less than what he paid for, even if you are charging "only $5" that is the fee you decided to charge, but he in return was supposed to get a number of working places to get links from.

I have also tested this, my links have been removed, not all of them but many of them. I also agree that this is due to the high spamming going on and it is not because of Angela not providing good places to get links from.

I wasted time creating these profiles to just be removed later on, it is very frustrating and yes, I am still having some that are sticking, but for how long?

I agree that may be the best way to do this would be for Angela and Paul to have their own submission service and they charge for that and keep the packet hidden from the general public/spammers

what do you guys think?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

My independent contractor is reporting that they are unable to create or validate accounts at a number of the sites in the packet. Fortunately for me, they have the experience to locate other sites and do the backlinks there, so I'm still getting my full 30 backlinks.

I have proposed an idea to Angela on this subject, perhaps she will give it some consideration. I really would hate to see the abusers kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[brendan301]

to me it's not a big issue. part of the cost of doing business. blame the spammers for causing this problem. i really dont care, i'm gonna keep creating more backlinks and sites to link to let the spammers be damned

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by mdzarate

Angela,

I think you have a good point, but also the customer has his point. He is paying for a service and getting less than what he paid for, even if you are charging "only $5" that is the fee you decided to charge, but he in return was supposed to get a number of working places to get links from.

I have also tested this, my links have been removed, not all of them but many of them. I also agree that this is due to the high spamming going on and it is not because of Angela not providing good places to get links from.

I wasted time creating these profiles to just be removed later on, it is very frustrating and yes, I am still having some that are sticking, but for how long?

I agree that may be the best way to do this would be for Angela and Paul to have their own submission service and they charge for that and keep the packet hidden from the general public/spammers

what do you guys think?

I have a program that customers have agreed to pay me for. I am not going to change it now, just because some people on a thread "voted" that it should be changed. Like I said, the fact that a few sites change things has been happening all along. It is not fair to the people who signed up for this program for me to change it now. A LOT of the folks are using the packets for "offline" work or to do the links for other marketers to make money. (Some of these folks have HUNDREDS of customers; how am I going to do that work for EVERYBODY?) Many people are using them for various websites; up to 20 sites for some people. Once again, if I change everything and have it as an "outsourced only" program, the cost goes WAY up; beyond what many people can afford.

My customers know that I am simply FINDING the sites. They know that I do not own them and therefore, cannot control whether ALL the sites in the packet stay "active" or not. That is the 'risk' that is associated with ANY kind of backlinking program: Blog commenting software and services, Social Bookmarking software and services, Three Way Linking, etc, etc. People have paid for a lot of services over the years to get backlinks. And many of the blogs have become "no follow" or have removed spammy looking links. Some of the Social Bookmarking sites have become "No Follow". That's the way it is when you are dealing with sites that don't belong to you and paying customers KNOW that.

[axleman]

I have been noticing a good number of mine getting removed or disabled as well. No doubt this service is still very valuable, but surely there is a better way to go about it.

I think the problem is not only the heavy spammers, but also the fact that everyone that subscribes gets the same list at the same time, and presumably most are doing the links right away. I'm sure many of these web sites will notify the admin when a new user subscribes, so when they see a huge influx of members, I'm sure many check it out to see whats going on. I know I would.

Its probably not a problem for Angela since she presumably has placed her links well ahead of the rest of us and only loses them if the website actually changes the profiles (like removing HTML formatting or whatever.) But for those of us in the herd, it's a crapshoot.

As far as outsourcing the profiles to Angela (or whoever), personally I would rather be in control of where and how my links get posted myself.

Angela & Paul, maybe you could consider changing how these packets are distributed. It seems that I remember reading somewhere in this thread or another that you have many months worth prepared. Maybe you can send different packets out to different customers and possibly vary the time of the month they go out. This will spread out the creation of profiles and possibly lessen the chance of them being shut down.

Thoughts?

[Angela V. Edwards]

I should mention that I AM putting together a "Power Packet" of SUPER High Page Rank sites that will ONLY be used for me to do the links FOR people. These are sites that are Page Rank 7 to Page Rank 9 that I can't put into the packets, due to the spamming issue. When that packet is ready I will let people know but it is going to cost a fair price; nothing like $5. It will be substantially more than that; probably more than many people can afford. That's the trade-off for having ME do the links instead of giving them out to folks and having a few sites change the linking capability.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by axleman

Angela & Paul, maybe you could consider changing how these packets are distributed. It seems that I remember reading somewhere in this thread or another that you have many months worth prepared. Maybe you can send different packets out to different customers and possibly vary the time of the month they go out. This will spread out the creation of profiles and possibly lessen the chance of them being shut down.

Thoughts?

This is a good idea, but the logistics are such that I don't think I can accommodate it. For one thing, ALL of my sites are Page Rank 6 and above and I cannot use any "commenting" type sites. So that reduces quite a few sites.

Yes, I have a good list, but the idea is to be several months ahead of the game. If I give different packets to different folks, that does a couple of things:

1. Uses up a LOT more of my "master list" of sites and creates the issue of me having to spend even MORE time finding sites, and

2. Requires me to create SEVERAL packets each month instead of just one. I don't know if people realize HOW MUCH time and work goes into one packet, but let me assure you: it is VERY time consuming; especially during "crunch time" when the packet is due. (Want to come clean my house during that time? )

So what this would cause is for me to spend about 4 TIMES the amount of time I do NOW (I spend MANY hours each day already, just ask my husband ), finding links and creating packets. All for $5 per customer.

Steven Kelly has some good ideas for me, however, and I am thinking about how I can implement his thoughts.

[Gabby12]

That's part of the game, any link on any site can be removed. Angela did not guarantee that these would never be removed. The more abuse the harder it will be, but for 5 bucks even 10 links are worth it.
Mark

Originally Posted by mdzarate

Angela,

I think you have a good point, but also the customer has his point. He is paying for a service and getting less than what he paid for, even if you are charging "only $5" that is the fee you decided to charge, but he in return was supposed to get a number of working places to get links from.

I have also tested this, my links have been removed, not all of them but many of them. I also agree that this is due to the high spamming going on and it is not because of Angela not providing good places to get links from.

I wasted time creating these profiles to just be removed later on, it is very frustrating and yes, I am still having some that are sticking, but for how long?

I agree that may be the best way to do this would be for Angela and Paul to have their own submission service and they charge for that and keep the packet hidden from the general public/spammers

what do you guys think?

[axleman]

You shouldn't have to make 4 packets per month, just send out 4 different ones (hypothetical number).

For instance,
Instead of an "August Packet" there is a packet #13
Instead of a "September Packet" there is a packet #14
October becomes 15 and November becomes 16.

Then you divide your distribution list 4 ways.

So in August, list 1 gets packet 13
List 2 gets 14
List 3 gets 15
List 4 gets 16

The next month swaps up which list gets which packet.

You could even take it a step further and send out packets to 25% of list one the first week of the month, 25% on the second week, etc.

So if you have, for example, 400 subscribers, instead of www.HIGHPRSITE.com getting a sudden influx of 400 new profiles on the first of the month, it only gets 25. Then 25 per week for the next few months. This will look much more natural to the admin and would be more likely to go unnoticed.

It doesn't require any more research work from you at all. It does require some work on the front end getting the email lists organized though, but in the long run it would benefit all of your customers more.

There may be other ways too that would work without adding too much of a workload.

Thanks for at least being open to suggestions

[Angela V. Edwards]

Thank you, Mark.

Axleman, that is an idea that just might work. Thank you.

[banker0679]

the problem with your links being removed is that that is a spam indicator

google crawls the page...finds the link

they go back..and find the page missing or the link missing..that's an indication of spam

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by banker0679

the problem with your links being removed is that that is a spam indicator

google crawls the page...finds the link

they go back..and find the page missing or the link missing..that's an indication of spam

A human being might think so. But there are more than 8 BILLION websites , with over a TRILLION webpages online. Every SECOND, hundreds of thousands of sites make changes. Every hour, many new sites are born and many old sites die away. The Internet is in a constant state of motion and change; where a human being might see a link one time and go back and have the link gone and think "spam" there's no way that a Search Engine can compartmentalize the purpose for ALL the different changes taking place on all the websites online today.

Wired Magazine stated that "nine blogs are created every minute and 2.3 content updates are posted every second"

Again, we're attaching "human attributes" to a computer generated mathematical formula known as an algorithm.

[banker0679]

and adding from my experience

i have added links to high traffic websites with high PRs
my rankings would shoot up, but when the links were removed...the rankings dropped to lower than they were before.

it's not 'hard' for Google to do this since they already
1. crawl pages frequently
2. cache them

the point that Google 'caches' a page is an indicator that they like to save or create historical records of a page or website.

just like when they find the link...they add it to the equation and this is how your rankings increase
so they go back and now the link is gone. Google can easily implement an equation that can place this as a spam indicator.

Most SEOs know this already.

It's better not to put up a link if you know it will be later removed.
Strong Spam indicator

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

A human being might think so. But there are more than 8 BILLION websites online. Every SECOND, hundreds of thousands of sites make changes. Every hour, many new sites are born and many old sites die away. The Internet is in a constant state of motion and change; where a human being might see a link one time and go back and have the link gone and think "spam" there's no way that a Search Engine can compartmentalize the purpose for ALL the different changes taking place on all the websites online today.

Again, we're attaching "human attributes" to a computerized mathematical formula.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Well, that hasn't been my experience. With all the links I've done for my projects, just like everybody else, some of them have been removed. My SERP has NOT been affected by those removals at all and I'm still at the top out of millions of results for a couple different keywords (look up Angela and Backlinks) and still on Page One (sometimes in the number one spot) for other keywords.

The removal of a few links has NOT affected my rankings at all. Sure, Google caches the pages, but again, an algorithm is not going to be able to compartmentalize the reasons WHY all the different changes were made. This is simply something that a human being might think of.