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

[Joe118]

Originally Posted by Kappa

How do you know what the strength of your competition on the 1st page is? Just by the number of backlinks those sites have, traffic, something else?

It does take a bit of work. Step 1 is to look at each of the top ten results and see how many backlinks they each have. If you have a few sites in there with a really small number of backlinks then it's not a very competitive niche. Small number == less than let's say 30. This is not a hard and fast rule, it will vary from niche to niche, it's just something I use as a gut-feeling judgment on whether the niche is hard to rank in or not.

Also look at the PR of each of the top ten competitors. If you find one or more that have high PR (high in this case is 2-3 above YOUR site) *and* lots of backlinks (lots == more than 800, let's say) then it's going to be hard to rank your site higher than theirs.

It's still possible for you to outrank these "hard" competitors. Look at the diversity of their backlinks. If they have site-wide backlinks from some low PR site then you can pretty much ignore all these backlinks and subtract them from their total, these site-wide backlinks will not have much of an influence. Next, look at whether they have a large portion of their backlinks with anchor text containing the term you want to rank for. If not, again, it's going to be easier to outrank them. Next, if a significant portion of the backlinks are nofollow, then they do not contribute to the pagerank of your competitor.

Now pick your "hardest" competition -- you may end up picking a site that ranks #4 over another site that ranks #2 -- and devise a strategy that will get you more and better backlinks than they have.

* More backlinks total
* From more different sites
* With more relevant anchor text
* More dofollow links

Actual traffic to the site, or the number of competing sites which COULD rank on page 1, are not relevant measures for this calculation. Your actual competition is the first ten sites that ACTUALLY rank on the first page.

This is not a science and everyone has different approaches. I do believe that currently we're operating like the "blind men and the elephant", in the sense that everyone has a part of the whole picture, but noone yet knows what that whole picture is.

Not surprisingly, Angela's packets are great for giving you links that satisfy all of the above criteria.

As this thread points out, the only problem with Angela's packets (and by extension with everyone else's backlink packets) is overuse and abuse.

Finally, any link is better than none. So drop your links EVERYWHERE you can, and ignore whether it's niche-relevant or nofollow. You don't care, to a first order of significance.

[Josiah Staggs]

You know, i like the concept of angela's links but how does this help if none of the darn backlinks get picked by google!

[Joe118]

Originally Posted by Josiah Staggs

You know, i like the concept of angela's links but how does this help if none of the darn backlinks get picked by google!

Read the free ebook here: Blog Farm Report

That's one simple way to solve this problem. Takes time but worth it.

[Matty1784]

Be aware guys! I got one of my sites into a google penalty. I did only Angela backlinks, so there is probably something negative going on. About 1000€ in loss from the traffic loss I got from the Angela Links! Be aware folks!!

[peter gibson]

Originally Posted by Matty1784

Be aware guys! I got one of my sites into a google penalty. I did only Angela backlinks, so there is probably something negative going on. About 1000€ in loss from the traffic loss I got from the Angela Links! Be aware folks!!

How about you let us know the "penalty" you're taking about, and try being a bit more specific about what exactly happened?

Right now you are looking like a joke because you're posting an ambiguous bit of nonsense with nothing to back it up. Oh, and 1,000.00 + traffic loss? Care to get into some detail about that? I'm guessing no, just judging by your post count, but I could be mistaken. Come back here and elaborate, there are plenty of us willing to listen and learn more.

[Paxton]

One of the things a lot of people don't understand about back-links is the way the search engines look at websites and the human element of site ratings and rankings.

If you think it's all done by spiders - think again. All the search engines have them, but Google in particular is hot on human site checkers. They employ people to look at sites and assign a quality rating.

If you have a spammy website with low-quality, duplicate content, why would anyone bother linking to you?

Most website owners are always looking for quality content to include or link to, the emphasis on the quality.

Why would a high PR site want or tolerate links to s****y little websites that offer zero value to their visitors.

The spiders might find and follow a link to your site but you also need to pass the human element.

Moral here is:
Quality content will always attract more links
Crap content will attract flies

If you have a quality site the search engines fully expect it to attract more links.

[BrandonBourne]

Originally Posted by Matty1784

Be aware guys! I got one of my sites into a google penalty. I did only Angela backlinks, so there is probably something negative going on. About 1000€ in loss from the traffic loss I got from the Angela Links! Be aware folks!!

Google doesn't penalize for backlinks as you have no "control" of who links to you generally. You do have control when you use Angela's links, but they penalize for outbound links not inbound links. Are you sure you got penalized? Google regularly updates their rankings and maybe your site dropped as a result of competitors becoming stronger linkwise.

[Best Affiliate]

You need to broaden your back linking out dude. You cant just use one method using the same exact phrase on all do follow sites. yes you need to use your keyword for back links but only using her packets is going to look a little weird. go to blogger and start making some posts and link to your site. write articles, book mark everything, get your site in directories, make web 2.0 sites and link back to your site. just using one method wont work in the long run. it might give you an initial boost but that's about it. I signed up with a Free system that allows me to spin articles and submit to 30 blogs for free. Thats 30 backlinks from one article. Learn how to do it right and it will pay dividends.

For 5 of my keywords in a very competitive market im on page one for 3 of them and 2 and 4 for the other two. Broaden out your linking campaigns and dont be lazy.

[Kael41]

Yep, diversify.diversify.diversify your backlinking methods

[younghamir]

i finally made up my mind and subscribe to angela's packets. i hope i am not late in doing so.

[djbory]

I don't think just profiles backlinks will get you banned, but I've been building Profiles backlinks aggressively as well as others backlinks and 5 of my websites were in Google first page and they have been penalized one by one; 4 so far. They have dropping like flies from google page one to nowhere to be found...

Fortunately some experts have been trying to help. Check this thread here in the Warrior Forum and you will learn a lot about SEO and baclinking...

Banned From Google!

Dlbory

[Jeremy123]

I have a page that was ranking and is a pr 2 and still is a pr 2,
but now it is gone from the rankings. Pretty much used the backlinks packets to get it ranked, now I can't find it.

Maybe google is slapping web 2.0 back links.

[marketseeker]

This is exactly the kind of junk people start believing and then pass it on as the real deal. Google does not use manual reviewers and even if they did the couldn't influence the serps, per Matt Cutts. And yes I believe Matt

Originally Posted by Paxton

One of the things a lot of people don't understand about back-links is the way the search engines look at websites and the human element of site ratings and rankings.

If you think it's all done by spiders - think again. All the search engines have them, but Google in particular is hot on human site checkers. They employ people to look at sites and assign a quality rating.

If you have a spammy website with low-quality, duplicate content, why would anyone bother linking to you?

Most website owners are always looking for quality content to include or link to, the emphasis on the quality.

Why would a high PR site want or tolerate links to s****y little websites that offer zero value to their visitors.

The spiders might find and follow a link to your site but you also need to pass the human element.

Moral here is:
Quality content will always attract more links
Crap content will attract flies

If you have a quality site the search engines fully expect it to attract more links.

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by marketseeker

This is exactly the kind of junk people start believing and then pass it on as the real deal. Google does not use manual reviewers and even if they did the couldn't influence the serps, per Matt Cutts. And yes I believe Matt

You're wrong. They do. Look at the leaked human review quality rating documents.

Full Text of Google's General Guidelines for Remote Quality Raters from April 2007 | SEO Book.com

They're well known for employing college students for this purpose.

[marketseeker]

show me a job application or a w2 from someone who has had this job and I'll believe. Wall is not the end all beat all authority, you have to be kidding for sooooo many reasons I'm not even going to get into. lol

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by marketseeker

show me a job application or a w2 from someone who has had this job and I'll believe. Wall is not the end all beat all authority, you have to be kidding for sooooo many reasons I'm not even going to get into. lol

I never said Wall was the authority on this. Tons of places covered this. Danny Sullivan has also mentioned this prior to its leak.

Here is a testimonial from someone claiming to have worked for Google: Working from Home - Review - Google - Website raters

I'm not going to find you a w2.

Slightly unrelated, but here MATT CUTTS IS ASKING FOR SUBMISSIONS SO HIS TEAM CAN MANUALLY REVIEW the documents. Give Google feedback on “noresults” pages . In fact, they've always encouraged this through reinclusion requests and so forth. If you're going to sit there and deny this.. then "lol" is indeed in order.

[marketseeker]

Seriously dude! You have to be kidding, Do you realize how many man hours it would take to do what that guy is talking about? Also I don't see Google's name or any proof of any kind. Second look at the leaked information, does that look like something Google employees wrote? It looks to me like some wanna be seo guy or some of the folks on some forum wrote it. Why would Google do that anyway when it could all be automated? Enough with the conspiracy theory's and more in a positive direction. I am getting a good laugh though since I don't have anything to do. Well I do actually, back to link building

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

I never said Wall was the authority on this. Tons of places covered this. Danny Sullivan has also mentioned this prior to its leak.

Here is a testimonial from someone claiming to have worked for Google:

I'm not going to find you a w2.

Slightly unrelated, but here MATT CUTTS IS ASKING FOR SUBMISSIONS SO HIS TEAM CAN MANUALLY REVIEW the documents. Give Google feedback on “noresults” pages . In fact, they've always encouraged this through reinclusion requests and so forth. If you're going to sit there and deny this.. then "lol" is indeed in order.

[zuluranger]

Originally Posted by Matty1784

Be aware guys! I got one of my sites into a google penalty. I did only Angela backlinks, so there is probably something negative going on. About 1000€ in loss from the traffic loss I got from the Angela Links! Be aware folks!!

There may be a few factors why you are losing traffic.

Are you leaving any footprint? Don't focus on using Angela packs for backlinks. Add a variety. I use article marketing, blog posts, posting content to Web 2.0 and High PR profile sites like Angela packs. Mix them up.

What about the content of your site? Is the content relevant to the anchor text that you use in your link building campaign? Just mix a few variants.

Most important of all, make your link building looks natural.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by marketseeker

This is exactly the kind of junk people start believing and then pass it on as the real deal. Google does not use manual reviewers and even if they did the couldn't influence the serps, per Matt Cutts. And yes I believe Matt

Yeah, you could well be right and it's all a crock. On the other hand it might not be and the amount of time it takes to safeguard against any possible effects is minimal anyhow.

Sure, we can all go about our business in any way we choose. There's a lot of things going around that might or might not be true, relevant or even correct.

Personally I'd rather take steps to prevent anything affecting my sites, even if that "anything" includes things that might be junk and totally untrue. But that's just me.

[banker0679]

you're both right

just like this forum...the moderators dont have time to moderate every single post/thread but they come when someone hits the report button

just like the spam reports....you fill one out on your competitor and google moderators will review the site(s)

[bigbody300]

QUESTION FOR ANGELA --

HI, I signed up to your service, and i was wondering what site/free tool do you reccomend for determining:

- Keyword search volume
- number of competing sites to that keyword

So we know which keywords/niches to attack.

[marketseeker]

Originally Posted by Paxton

Yeah, you could well be right and it's all a crock. On the other hand it might not be and the amount of time it takes to safeguard against any possible effects is minimal anyhow.

Sure, we can all go about our business in any way we choose. There's a lot of things going around that might or might not be true, relevant or even correct.

Personally I'd rather take steps to prevent anything affecting my sites, even if that "anything" includes things that might be junk and totally untrue. But that's just me.

I guess I can see It your way if I had something to worry about I might feel the same way but I do everything according to the TOS and what is relevant to a surfer. So I think that in itself is safeguarding my work.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by marketseeker

I guess I can see It your way if I had something to worry about I might feel the same way but I do everything according to the TOS and what is relevant to a surfer. So I think that in itself is safeguarding my work.

relevant to a surfer

Which is just about the best point in this whole thread.

If a website offers value to a visitor, it probably fills all the search engine requirements to rank well.

Trying to game the search engines bots might work for a while but how many bots have credit cards or PayPal accounts?

Keep relevant to a surfer in mind and your websites will probably generate traffic and sales.

Nice thread - highly enjoyed

[4morereferrals]

Relevant to a surfer? OK....

My thoughts ..... 2 words - "click here" click here

Originally Posted by Paxton

relevant to a surfer

Which is just about the best point in this whole thread.

If a website offers value to a visitor, it probably fills all the search engine requirements to rank well.

Trying to game the search engines bots might work for a while but how many bots have credit cards or PayPal accounts?

Keep relevant to a surfer in mind and your websites will probably generate traffic and sales.

Nice thread - highly enjoyed

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by marketseeker

I guess I can see It your way if I had something to worry about I might feel the same way but I do everything according to the TOS and what is relevant to a surfer. So I think that in itself is safeguarding my work.

Relevant to which surfer? If someone searches for "denver bronco seats" are they looking to attend a football game or buy seats for their Ford truck in Denver?

As far as Google paying reviewers, they'd be stupid NOT to. Their results are their money and there's no way an algo can match a real human for quality.

Do the math...Google doesn't have to review everything. I'm sure the 80/20 rule is in effect to a great degree. I'd bet something like 10% of all searches produce 90% of Google's revenue.

So, they don't need to review all pages, on the SERPs for their "money" keywords.

Doing the math, one person could EASILY review 1000 pages per day.

A staff of just 100 people could review 100,000 pages per day.

AT $10 an hour, that's $1000 an hour for the staff, at 8 hours a day. That's $8000 a day.

$8000
x 365
-------
$2,920,000 dollars per year. I'll round off to 3 million.

For $3 mill, they can review 36,500,000 36 million page a year, using my math.

I suggest they could easily hire 10 times that many people at $30 million a year, and review 365,000,000 pages a year. That's 360 million pages...Or about 1/3 of a billion.

Total cost: $30 Million
Total revenue: 21 Billion a year.

I'm rounding off here, but Google only needs to spend 1 out of every $1000 dollars they bring in, or .001% of total revenue.

Again, this only has to be done on the "money makers", which are the same keywords we are all after. And I think the 1000 pages a day is very low. It doesn't take long to detect a splog. It's almost instant.

Doing the math and accounting, why wouldn't they hire real humans to protect their SERPs? IMO, they'd be stupid not to.

[Angela V. Edwards]

That all sounds good in theory, Kurt, but Google's employee numbers are actually DOWN now from the past:

Employees – On a worldwide basis, Google employed 20,164 full-time employees as of March 31, 2009, down from 20,222 full-time employees as of December 31, 2008.

Google Investor Relations - Google Announces First Quarter 2009 Financial Results

Just like any business, Google has to answer to their stockholders. And hiring thousands more employees would be a huge red flag.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

That all sounds good in theory, Kurt, but Google's employee numbers are actually DOWN now from the past:



Google Investor Relations - Google Announces First Quarter 2009 Financial Results

One, the difference in numbers is really insignifigant.

Two, my example was for 1000 people, which would be less than 5% of the total given, to protect their most important asset.

Three, that's for full time employees. They could hire 2000 part time employess, and they wouldn't figure into those numbers.

Four, these folks could easily be out-sourced as independant contractors over-seas and that wouldn't count in any employee stats, and be even cheaper.

Five, these don't have to be new employees. I theorized about this 5-6 years ago on this very forum.

Again, Google wouldn't be reviewing pages, they'd be reviewing the SERPs. They don't have to review pages that won't show up in the SERPs. Let the algo screen, then have humans review the rest.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Sure, they COULD do that. They also could hire these folks to sign up to Warrior Forum and Digital Point and all the other "webmaster forums", (like some people think) and 'spy' on webmasters all day long and buy WSOs and such. They could hire people to go out to public libraries and colleges and see what people are looking at on the computers there, too. This could go on and on. Google COULD hire a bunch of folks to do almost anything. We can't let the "Google could be behind every rock" paranoia dictate everything we do. Eventually, we have to either not take action, or do what works. And backlinks work.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Sure, they COULD do that. They also could hire these folks to sign up to Warrior Forum and Digital Point and all the other "webmaster forums", (like some people think) and 'spy' on webmasters all day long and buy WSOs and such. They could hire people to go out to public libraries and colleges and see what people are looking at on the computers there, too. This could go on and on. Google COULD hire a bunch of folks to do almost anything. We can't let the "Google could be behind every rock" paranoia dictate everything we do. Eventually, we have to either not take action, or do what works. And backlinks work.

My recent posts don't say not to take action, nor do they address links,or libraries or spies. They address the SERPs, which will take care of all those other factors.

The point you're trying to make is that as long as one takes action and gets links, it doesn't matter what the content is they are linking to.

Now answer this: You are the head of Google I am an accountant. I showed you these numbers. Why would you NOT do as I suggested? What part of it doesn't make sense from a business point of view?

I'll help you out: Corruption with the reviewers would be a problem. But they can easily be checked and they wouldn't have enough input to do any real damage. And because of this possible corruption could very well be the reason Google would be so "hush hush", as they wouldn't want people to know they may be able to bribe reviewers.

But that's still not enough.

[banker0679]

so it looks like google is monitoring the MILLIONS o keywords(SERPS)

that's believable....or should i say laughable

[Angela V. Edwards]

Yes, I understand what you were talking about, Kurt. But I'm simply showing you what OTHER folks have speculated, too. It's all conjecture, anyway. People say that Google COULD do a lot of things. But the results show that backlinks work for the SERPS. Your speculation is intelligent and makes a lot of sense. But it's still speculation and theory. That is what my point is.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by banker0679

so it looks like google is monitoring the MILLIONS o keywords(SERPS)

that's believable....or should i say laughable

Nope. Just their top money makers. Try reading before laughing next time.

[banker0679]

i did read...and i'm laughing

You obviously dont seem to know the SERPs real well

or I'm guessing that Google doesnt make a lot of money from Viagra because they choose to allow and ignore links for

viagra online - Google Search

Viagra Online....top 20 pages has 6 edu links that are HIJACKED or HACKED

i can find a lot more keywords that have the same problem.

so what's next?
tell us what are the other criteria since you said 'top moneymakers'

Originally Posted by Kurt

Nope. Just their top money makers. Try reading before laughing next time.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Yes, I understand what you were talking about, Kurt. But I'm simply showing you what OTHER folks have speculated, too. It's all conjecture, anyway. People say that Google COULD do a lot of things. But the results show that backlinks work for the SERPS. Your speculation is intelligent and makes a lot of sense. But it's still speculation and theory. That is what my point is.

Yes it is speculation and conjecture. So is saying that Google doesn't hire real people to inspect the SERPs of their top money makers. I've proven it is possible and makes business sense.

I also believe the costs I gave could be cut by 75%. I believe it would be easy to check 2000 pages a day per person and that the work could be outsourced overseas for $5 a hour.

People talk about the ranking algo all the time...But do you know that even Matt Cutts has admitted up to 90% of the processing goes solely to filtering out the spam? After this is done, now the ranking algo kicks in.

[tdpubs]

You should remember to research the acceptable traffic to the keyword as well. If you land on the first page of a keyword that only gets 3 searches a day, you might not see much profit.
Dennis Francis

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by banker0679

i did read...and i'm laughing

You obviously dont seem to know the SERPs real well

or I'm guessing that Google doesnt make a lot of money from Viagra because they choose to allow and ignore links for

viagra online - Google Search

Viagra Online....top 20 pages has 6 edu links that are HIJACKED or HACKED

i can find a lot more keywords that have the same problem.

so what's next?
tell us what are the other criteria since you said 'top moneymakers'

Show me those results in a few weeks or a month. They will totally turn over. The spammers just keep going.

They do have records of every Adsense click. I'll guess they know what makes them money. And who's to say Viagra is one of Google's most profitable keywords? It probably is, but it's up to you to prove it, since you used it as an example. But I also would bet there's plenty of other keywords worth more to Google.

You claim 1000 people can't check millions of keywords?

I bet 1000 people can each check the top 20 pages of 100 keywords a day. That's 3 million keywords (searches) per month.

I've proven it can be done. I'm not saying it is being done. But I'm tired of people saying it can't be. The numbers speak for themselves.

[banker0679]

i believe they do check the serps when a spam report is filled out....i dont think they randomly inspect all the SERPs daily or even weekly

it's just like this forum ..... moderators dont check every thread......but they do check it out when the report button is hit

i have also seen many money making keywords get manipulated and my friends who do affiliate marketing fill out spam reports and always complain that google doesnt do anything.

Google's first priority is to remove links that can harm their visitors


i have yet to see a money making keyword that IS NOT BEING MANIPULATING from one or two of the first top 10 sites.

i'm sure angela's site got reported a lot...and she still ranks which means that they may not even pay that much attention to spam reports

Originally Posted by Kurt

Show me those results in a few weeks or a month. They will totally turn over. The spammers just keep going.

They do have records of every Adsense click. I'll guess they know what makes them money. And who's to say Viagra is one of Google's most profitable keywords? It probably is, but it's up to you to prove it, since you used it as an example. But I also would bet there's plenty of other keywords worth more to Google.

You claim 1000 people can't check millions of keywords?

I bet 1000 people can each check the top 20 pages of 100 keywords a day. That's 3 million keywords (searches) per month.

I've proven it can be done. I'm not saying it is being done. But I'm tired of people saying it can't be. The numbers speak for themselves.

[Lisa Mills]

I too started an experiment using Angela and Pauls backlinks. My first site was already at position 3 for my chosen keyword and fluctuated between 3-5 weekly. This site is about 4 years old. My second site is fairly new, 8 months old, and was sitting at position 6 on Google for my chosen keyword. We thought that seeing as we ranked highly anyway it wouldn't take much to get us to position 1. We did about 60 of Angelas backlinks for both sites. We did the Google Dance and have ended up back at position 3 and the second site is now firmly lodged at position 7. This is over a period of around 2 months. We have now stopped pushing those keywords as we don't think its worth throwing more backlinks at them as the results haven't been favourable. We then moved on to different keywords. Again the results haven't been fantastic. We've done the dance and reappeared but are now slowly working our way down Google, not up. This keyword has used around 80 backlinks so far.

We also submitted to directories and used article marketing, so I'm sure they will be blamed for our lack of progress.

We are now focusing on Paul's backlinks. However on the sites we are posting on (we've only just signed up and are currently using Sept's packet) we can see an awful lot of spam and indeed some of the site's in Sept's packet actually say they have been overtaken by spam and are temporarily closed. So we are not expecting miracles.

In my honest opinion these backlinks should have been made available to say 100 subscribers and no more. They appear to have lost their effectiveness as too many people/spammers are using them. I even got banned from one site before posting my links!

[Texjd]

I have to agree with Lisa, the party is over on profile links, at least with published lists. That goes for any, not just Paul and Agenla's links. The abuse is over the top and you can't blame these site owners. And most are just turing off links, it's a very simple switch for most software. I don't think you get punished but you don't get the link.

Not sure why Lisa's and others web pages went down in serps, you never really know what Google is up to on the rankings. That's why you need to use different linking methods anyway, to provide a broad network of links.

Plus, you want links from multiple sources anyway. It's best to use a system that involves all the popular methods for getting links.

That's not to say that you can't find your own and still get some juice. Just don't go where the spammers go, there are plenty out there. And you might even find some that you do want to particpate in on a regular basis.

[masterbis]

Very useful discussion here. Gave me some ideas. However I have questions guys, please help me answer it. From what I know click bank require us to create our own landing page for very product we try to promote. Meaning, creating our own website and using our own hosting, so we can't just linked to our affiliate link (from the product): is this true? Or am I missing something here? Thanks in advance for taking time to explain this.

[anwar001]

Originally Posted by marketseeker

If you set up a google alert for what ever you are linking to you will see when the profile gets indexed. they happen very fast some in hours

Can you explain what alert we should set? I didn;t get you fully, but am very interested in knowing how to get my links indexed fast.

[Best Affiliate]

Originally Posted by anwar001

Can you explain what alert we should set? I didn;t get you fully, but am very interested in knowing how to get my links indexed fast.

Find a popular social bookmarking site that is particular to your niche. for example, for some of my keywords in my niche I noticed a particular social bookmarking site showing up consistently in the serps. That tells me Google likes that particular S.B. site for that particular niche. So then I took a big handful of my profile links to that social bookmarking site and bookmarked all those profiles. A couple days later I noticed that about 7 out of 10 of my profiles were then indexed and saw my rankings go up. This is just what happened with me im not saying this will work for sure but it did for me.

I really think social bookmarking is great for getting indexed fast. I usually ping my new web 2.0 sites, then submit their rss feeds, then go and bookmark them. My new blog posts get indexed in less than an hour now. However Im not for sure if its because of that reason or because I put up a new 500 word post 2-3 times a week. But try bookmarking 20 or so of your profiles and then check the next day and see if they are indexed. Hope that helps

[Pedersenmt]

I've been reading in DP that Angela's and Paul's link might be getting viewed as spam now, since so many people are using them? I have been pointing to some of my main sites and am now worried. Anyone who has SEO experience have any opinions?

Here's a couple of comments:

"a lot of the sites turn off the ability to spam profiles."

"The links aren't as effective, but, the concept behind finding the links is. So, you need to use the concepts to find new links (Which will always be effective)......"

"Not at all, it just make your site look like "spam site" "

So all you SEO experts, please chime in.

[nofearman]

Originally Posted by Best Affiliate

Find a popular social bookmarking site that is particular to your niche. for example, for some of my keywords in my niche I noticed a particular social bookmarking site showing up consistently in the serps. That tells me Google likes that particular S.B. site for that particular niche. So then I took a big handful of my profile links to that social bookmarking site and bookmarked all those profiles. A couple days later I noticed that about 7 out of 10 of my profiles were then indexed and saw my rankings go up. This is just what happened with me im not saying this will work for sure but it did for me.

I really think social bookmarking is great for getting indexed fast. I usually ping my new web 2.0 sites, then submit their rss feeds, then go and bookmark them. My new blog posts get indexed in less than an hour now. However Im not for sure if its because of that reason or because I put up a new 500 word post 2-3 times a week. But try bookmarking 20 or so of your profiles and then check the next day and see if they are indexed. Hope that helps

Are you uisng a SB tool?

[4morereferrals]

I would just like to chime back in here - as after all this was supposed to be about backlinking a Go article - optimized for the keywords:

Panic Attack Heart Symptoms

On a lark I checked google to see where that little blog I created ended up.

Well its now on page 1 - again, and appears it has been, and stupid me never took it serious enough to monetize as its been getting 2000 'hits" a month now for over 3 months - lol. About 150 unique visitors - without even trying [ really trying]

The original poster's GoArticle with the uber high PR backlinks from the packets is firmly on Page 2.

My point of joining the experiment was too stop all the Hoo Hah about 3 things ...

1. Why link up an article when you can backlink your OWN property first and foremost. I spun another parties GoArticle to make it uniquely my own and "on page'd" it enough to be mine and made it a BLOG[ post]. 1 hr. $10 for the domain name.

2. GoArticles and EZA Articles get indexed faster than your stuff. Well they did actually get in the index higher faster initially than my silly blog ... BUT the duplicate [ yes i typed duplicate] content I put out on my Backlink Goldmine report sites [ where i backlinked ] that allow blog posts - actually ranked faster and higher than the GoArticle originally used by the OP'r I had a piece of content on page one #3 or 4 originally for the term in question in the google index - under 5 hrs using BGM sites and duplicate content.

3. Lastly and most important to me ... the fallacy of these "High PR" links. I intentionally and purposely backlinked the blog and keywords using the skankiest and most [ by other warriors and seo's standards ] worthless low pr sites to put the backlinks on I had in my bag o' tricks.

All this nattering about profiles [ inner pages of PR 0 or n/a ] on a domain where the homepage has high pr ... pffffttt .... an inner page with PR 0 or n/a is a inner page with PR 0 n/a - no matter the domains homepage PR. Does that make the link any better or any worse? Ive come to my conclusions.

Does having the content being on Go or EZA give you more serp power or link juice? Doesnt seem to - ultimately.

Is this test or experiment the end all be all ? Nope


Here's one other element of the experiement that was important to me but may not be to you.

The thing to me that is very different about the original poster's tactics is - they went for the fewer links higher pr or Quality over quantity.

Whereas I set out to go the totally opposite direction - Speed and ease and quantity - fast fast fast. I went to easy fast automated sites where I could blast links and blog posts without moderator intervention, and used automation to Ping and Bookmark and draw the bots back to the Zero PR sites for spidering. I backlinked fast and furiously for about 5 days. As thats all the time I wanted to dedicate to the project.

Yahoo site explorer indicates I made over 569 backlinks to the site in that period of time.

[jasonmorgan]

You've been on the first page for a while now but I think you may have slipped a couple of spots from the last time I read this thread and checked out your site. You are also on page 2

Also shows that your backlinkgoldmine backlinks do have some life left in them. I know you were catching some flack over some changes made to those sites. I found that all it took was taking a couple of extra minutes to figure out the best place to add links and they are as good as (backlink)gold.

The number 1 site is an interesting one. As far as I can tell it is pure Angela or Paul backlinks.

Looks like you had a blog on one of your backlink sites also on page 2 but the account has since been removed. Digging deeper more of your backlink blogs show up. This gives me some ideas!

The experiment shows these backlinks work. My only problem with the experiment is it is targeting an almost zero competition keyword. I suppose if you are really good with keyword research or aim for a mass quantity of these low competition keywords you could do OK.

[4morereferrals]

the one that shows as the top go article is actually optimized for :

Panic HEART ATTACK symptoms - not the keywords ...

Panic Attack Heart Symptoms.

Google thinks we're too dumb to spell heart attack correctly. Interesting no?

Thanks for fixing it for us google :-)

[jazbo]

There are an estimated minimum of 200 million blogs on the net ALONE.

So with 20K employees, that means that if they manually review them all then each employee gets to do 10,000 manual checks.

So I think we know the reality of the "manual review" boogie monster now.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

That all sounds good in theory, Kurt, but Google's employee numbers are actually DOWN now from the past:

Google Investor Relations - Google Announces First Quarter 2009 Financial Results

Just like any business, Google has to answer to their stockholders. And hiring thousands more employees would be a huge red flag.

[fir3d]

I am considering buying angelas or pauls backlink packet, but is this for specifically ranking a goarticles article or will it help to rank your own money making site?

[Best Affiliate]

Originally Posted by fir3d

I am considering buying angelas or pauls backlink packet, but is this for specifically ranking a goarticles article or will it help to rank your own money making site?

It can be for articles but also for blogs or websites. However, you should make sure you include and do a thorough back linking campaign meaning getting links from different sources not just these authority profile links.

If you can surround your articles or sites that you want to rank in google for your chosen keywords with a solid linking strategy then you will see overall long term success ranking well in Google.

Good luck!