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

[Mugil]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

While Google might count a few pages from a few Authority Websites, it doesn't generally count pages. It counts websites.

Are you saying that Google doesn't rank pages but sites?

The hard fact is that each page is ranked separately, even in Google. I'm sure many people can confirm this (like the guys at Stompernet, Josh Spaulding etc. who I consider as SEO experts)

Whatever you search in Google, you always see pages in the SERPS, not sites.

The reason why Yahoo shows more pages than Google is because they have different algorithms. For example, if your search for "dog grooming", Yahoo might find http://myveryowncatgroomingtips.com/ somehow relevant to this search term and show it in the SERPS but Google might not find it relevant.

I think that these searches you did, show that Google is more "picky" than Yahoo. Nothing more.

And the reason why some sites are ranked better in Google is because of the pagerank (and I'm not talking about toolbar pagerank) that is passed by the internal linking of that site. For example, if we had a site that has 3 pages, A, B and C, which are all link to eachothers, and you build external links to page B, and pagerank is passed from these external pages to page B.

Because page B links to pages A and C, page B passes pagerank to these pages although no external page links to A nor C. If B has very high pagerank, pages A and C also get quite a lot of pagerank and thus they rank better.

Here's a picture that says it all: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/pagerank.png (those balls are pages, not sites).

Don't we agree on this?

And btw, here's a post about competition analysis that you might find interesting: SEO: Number Of Competing Pages Is The Wrong Measure | MasonWorld Internet Marketing Strategy | Mark Mason | Internet Based Marketing Blog

I just wanted to clear up these things.

[AndyBlackSEO]

The results in Google are definately pages. I thought this was common knowledge with all internet marketers. Askloz does know his stuff when it comes to SEO. I know that for fact.

Although, on the other hand Angelas packets DO work. I've seen great results for decent keywords. ie - top 5 on page 1 for my main keywords. I've seen huge jumps within just a few weeks. ie - page 5 to page 1 etc. Hopefully they'll improve or at least stay there.

[CTABUK]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

No, Google counts websites and Yahoo counts pages. That's why EVERY PAGE that your link is on is counted in Yahoo (Site Explorer) and why Google counts (and shows, if it shows your link at all...Google doesn't show every link) your link ONCE per domain.

Again, look up the keyword Angela in Google and then look it up in Yahoo. In Google, there are 83 million results. In Yahoo there are 248 million results.

What a load of 'piffle' I suggest you read this. All pages are listed by Google, it's called 'longtailed url's' and is based on relevance of linking - not the foolbar pr.

Here, please read and digest The PageRank Myth The Missing Link

[ripsnorta2]

Angela, I'm not picking sides here, but the fact that Yahoo has more results than Google is probably more to do with the fact that they are far less picky than Google when indexing pages.

Yahoo ignore the no-follow attribute too (I think this is Googles invention and only they use it) so that might also account for the higher numbers.

[texasag90]

Originally Posted by CTABUK

What a load of 'piffle'

I think I agree, but I don't know what 'piffle' is.

[Okane]

Originally Posted by CTABUK

[..] is based on relevance of linking - not the foolbar pr.

The backlinks in my (and other user's) "angela experiments" couldn't be any more "irrelevant": Just the keyword in the anchor text placed in an environment that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever with the keyword itself.
The only thing that these backlinks have in common is that they are placed on high PR sites.

Don't get me wrong. I want to understand the reasoning behind your comments and I'm sure you are far more experienced in this than I am.

Originally Posted by CTABUK

Here, please read and digest The PageRank Myth The Missing Link

Sorry, but do you really think that the example given in that article makes sense? I'd be disappointed...

[CTABUK]

Google rates a site on 'content' - now, if you create a site and see it become indexed for it's keyword/url title - then what you are seeing is the 'new to google' experience.

Put yourself into the 'I am a google bot' syndrome. You are searching for sites based on the search term, and a new site comes into vision with that term or anchor text - you show it in SERP. Now, if that site simply sits there unchanged, it will drop in SERP - Googlebots are not geared up to see the Internal pagerank, never have been - it would mean the bot making two trips. It's all about content and relevance. Both on cached keywords relating to other searches, and the anchor text.

You may find this thread useful.
http://www.webproworld.com/search-en...h-content.html

[ripsnorta2]

Originally Posted by billyboy

could google change this soon? I mean rthe whole "backlink thing" is getting killed now and manipulated to death by SEO's and Black hatters. Aren't they going to change it?

I'm not sure how. The web is just that, a web of links. That's the fundamental underlying architecture, it can't be anything else.

The only way for Google to counter manipulated backlinks is to either manually check each link for veracity or to develop an automatic method. The web is way to big for manual checking and I'm not sure an automatic method for doing link checking cannot be gamed somehow.

Unless they've developed a human level AI, I think backlinks are safe.

It would be ironic if the AI that enslaved or destroyed humanity (Skynet/Matrix) evolved from Googles link checking algorithms.

[affiliated survivor]

I think PR is important. Why?
What kind of links have the major sites that rank on the best keywords? They have footer links and sidebar links on high PR sites. Sites that often are not closely related. What would you prefer? A footer link at EZA or an anchored link in a very relevant article?

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by AndyBlackSEO

The results in Google are definately pages. I thought this was common knowledge with all internet marketers. Askloz does know his stuff when it comes to SEO. I know that for fact.

Although, on the other hand Angelas packets DO work. I've seen great results for decent keywords. ie - top 5 on page 1 for my main keywords. I've seen huge jumps within just a few weeks. ie - page 5 to page 1 etc. Hopefully they'll improve or at least stay there.

What I'm saying is that Google ranks each SITE for the keyword and Yahoo ranks each PAGE. For example: I have 4, 046 posts here on the Warrior Forum. I have Angela in my signature file as a backlink. If you were to look in the Yahoo Site Explorer, you'd probably see most of those PAGES where my sig file is listed. Yahoo lists, in their index, every PAGE where my sig file sits as a result for the keyword Angela. Google counts the Warrior sig file Angela as ONE result. Therefore: Yahoo has 4,046 (well, fewer than that, as my sig file appears more than once on some pages) results listed for the keyword Angela because of my sig file here on the Warrior Forum while Google has ONE result listed because of my sig file.

I know that what you SEE in Google's index is pages. I could rank in Google for my Angela PAGE (which I do) and then again in Google for another PAGE on my website for another keyword. That's NOT what I'm saying.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by ripsnorta2

Angela, I'm not picking sides here, but the fact that Yahoo has more results than Google is probably more to do with the fact that they are far less picky than Google when indexing pages.

Yahoo ignore the no-follow attribute too (I think this is Googles invention and only they use it) so that might also account for the higher numbers.

The numbers in Yahoo for every keyword are many TIMES higher than Google. If this was simply due to them being less picky, or due to them allowing No Follow links, they'd have a few hundred more pages listed usually for each keyword, not FOUR TIMES more pages.

[Matt James]

Just nipping back to the subject of your actual competition being your search term within quotes i.e. "cheap car insurance"...

Angela, Loz may be far from the most gracious guy in the forum, but unfortunately he is right. I've seen you come a cropper on this a few times but I think it's just a slight misunderstanding on your part.

See, nobody is saying that people will type in their search term in quote marks. But if you want to know your true competition, you have to run a search in quotes to see which web pages contain your phrase in its entirety.

If you run a search without quotes that just gives you web pages which contain the words somewhere on the page... not necessarily in the order of your key-phrase.

So... your TRUE competition only shows up when you type it in using quotation marks.

It's nothing to do with what people type into Google but how Google ranks your site.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Matt James

Just nipping back to the subject of your actual competition being your search term within quotes i.e. "cheap car insurance"...

Angela, Loz may be far from the most gracious guy in the forum, but unfortunately he is right. I've seen you come a cropper on this a few times but I think it's just a slight misunderstanding on your part.

See, nobody is saying that people will type in their search term in quote marks. But if you want to know your true competition, you have to run a search in quotes to see which web pages contain your phrase in its entirety.

If you run a search without quotes that just gives you web pages which contain the words somewhere on the page... not necessarily in the order of your key-phrase.

So... your TRUE competition only shows up when you type it in using quotation marks.

It's nothing to do with what people type into Google but how Google ranks your site.

Yes, I know this. I already said I know this. I have said it from the beginning. I DO know this. I know that your "true competition" is what you see when you use quotes. I have known this from the very beginning and I never said that wasn't true.

However, what marketers want to rank high for is what their customers will see when THEY do a web search. And most customers WON'T use quotes. Many people don't even KNOW about using quotes for searching.

[Matt James]

However, what marketers want to rank high for is what their customers will see when THEY do a web search. And most customers WON'T use quotes. Many people don't even KNOW about using quotes for searching.

That's what I mean. That's what we all mean! LOL, this is funny Angela, I hope you don't think I'm having a go at you here...

If you do your competition with quote marks you can see your ACTUAL competition because Google will always rank your site higher than the ones with the keywords split up over the page so...

You will eventually rank at the top without the quotes anyway.

Yes... what your customers actually type in.

Searching WITH quotes just gives US an idea of the ACTUAL competitors. Folks with the keyphrase split up all over their web page aren't our competition at all. Google will always rank our page above them simply because we have the words in the right order. Make sense? I'm confusing myself now...

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Matt James

That's what I mean. That's what we all mean! LOL, this is funny Angela, I hope you don't think I'm having a go at you here...

If you do your competition with quote marks you can see your ACTUAL competition because Google will always rank your site higher than the ones with the keywords split up over the page so...

You will eventually rank at the top without the quotes anyway.

Yes... what your customers actually type in.

Searching WITH quotes just gives US an idea of the ACTUAL competitors. Folks with the keyphrase split up all over their web page aren't our competition at all. Google will always rank our page above them simply because we have the words in the right order. Make sense? I'm confusing myself now...

LOL, I don't know if you're confusing yourself but we both know what your saying is true. For example: If I had a page about Blue Sailboat Masts and I looked for Blue Sailboat Masts without quotes, what I'd see is all the sites that have Blue, all the sites that have Sailboats, and all the sites that have Masts. I would not be seeing only the sites that have Blue Sailboat Masts as a subject. I know all of this.

However, marketers want to be at the top for what their customers will see when they do searches.

Also, when you have one-word keywords, how is it that "Angela" is different from Angela? Or "Backlinks" different from Backlinks? For my own keywords, I AM at the top for my "true competition" because my keywords are only ONE WORD.

In any case, the backlinks work to get you at the top of the results your customers will see when they do a search for your keyword. While that might not be the "true competition", as some have said, all those results are results that you would HAVE to beat if you want to get to the top of what your customers will see.

[Matt James]

Also, when you have one-word keywords, how is it that "Angela" is different from Angela. Or "Backlinks" different from Backlinks? For my own keywords, I AM at the top for my "true competition" because my keywords are only ONE WORD.

Hehe, you're right when it's one word, they are no different but in Google... "cheap car insurance" IS different from cheap car insurance. That's why you have to do a search within quotes. Otherwise Google will display all those guys you're not really competing against.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree even though we're kind of in agreement

Your backlinks DO work Angela, of course they do, but sometimes the competition to get to the top of Google isn't as steep as you think...

However, marketers want to be at the top for what their customers will see when they do searches.

Of course! But that has nothing to do with checking your competitors using quote marks.

It's just a way for us to know how easy it is to get to the top of The Big G.

That's it... I'm off. Happy trails!

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Matt James

Hehe, you're right when it's one word, they are no different but in Google... "cheap car insurance" IS different from cheap car insurance. That's why you have to do a search within quotes. Otherwise Google will display all those guys you're not really competing against.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree even though we're kind of in agreement

Your backlinks DO work Angela, of course they do, but sometimes the competition to get to the top of Google isn't as steep as you think...



Of course! But that has nothing to do with checking your competitors using quote marks.

It's just a way for us to know how easy it is to get to the top of The Big G.

That's it... I'm off. Happy trails!

Yes, I think you and I ARE saying the same thing. However, it might be SUPER easy for me to "compete" with Blue Sailboat Masts, because I'm sure there aren't very many sites that are trying to compete for that word. Heck, I could probably be number one within an hour. But what good is being number one going to do me if I am number 867 for the keywords without quotes? That's what I have been saying all along. My number one ranking for "Blue Sailboat Masts" is cool...I can brag.

But monetarily speaking, it won't do me ANY good at all. That's because I am actually number 867 when the people who I want to buy my product are searching for those keywords.

[Matt James]

Ok I hung around...

But what good is being number one going to do me if I am number 867 for the keywords without quotes?

Ah I get it now, I see where we're getting mixed up.

Angela... if you beat the competition with quotes you WILL be top of Google without quotes anyway. That's what we mean by TRUE competition... those are the guys you need to beat to get to the top!

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Matt James

Ok I hung around...



Ah I get it now, I see where we're getting mixed up.

Angela... if you beat the competition with quotes you WILL be top of Google without quotes anyway. That's what we mean by TRUE competition... those are the guys you need to beat to get to the top!

How do you figure that if I am at the top WITH quotes I will be at the top without quotes? There are quite a few MORE websites when you don't use quotes. "Blue Sailboat Masts" has 3 results. 3. Like I said, I can be at the top within the hour. But Blue Sailboat Masts has 24,900 results. Now, the backlinks are powerful enough that I could be at the top for that quickly, anyway. But that's not because "if you're at the top with quotes, you will be at the top without quotes". That's just because the backlinks are powerful.

You don't automatically end up at the top for your keyword without quotes just because you are at the top for your keyword WITH quotes. It doesn't work that way, especially in the VERY competitive markets.

[Matt James]

You don't automatically end up at the top for your keyword without quotes just because you are at the top for your keyword WITH quotes. It doesn't work that way, especially in the VERY competitive markets.

Sure you do. Look... searching within quotes doesn't give us a whole separate list of sites, it just shows us the sites that have the phrase with those words in that order.

So that's who you're really competing against.

A search without quotes gives us those sites as well as sites that have the words split up all over the page. These latter sites will be beaten automatically because our phrase is more relevant.

Do you think Google will rank a site for the term "cheap car insurance" which contains the phrase exactly below one that has the words split up all over the page? Of course not.

That's why I'm saying searches within quotes are your REAL competition.

And again... I'm not saying anybody searches for anything within quotes except for us marketers. We do that so Google gives us results with the complete phrase in that order. That's who we have to beat to get to the top!

Right, I really am going now...

[raiko]

Wow, this thread has definitely gotten off of the original posters topic. Always seems to happen this way. The reality is that if I have a website that ranks #1 for the term cheap car insurance I'm going to make so much money that I'll be too busy buying islands in the Caribbean to post here any longer.

Stepping back from all the alleged SEO knowledge being thrown around here isn't it really the actual results that matter most? Quite a few SEO gurus were Google slapped a while back. Does that mean they don't know what they are doing? Or perhaps that what was working well for them at that time suddenly became less effective. Who cares what the "true" competition is if I'm ranking well and making money. Since the search algorithms are not exactly known it's impossible to say with certainty what will work or not work at any particular time. It could change tomorrow - and probably will.

I'm actually more interested in the original posters results then all the bickering about "true" competition etc. Most SEO gurus will not provide specific tests of their knowledge just as most IM marketers will not show their own true results from utilizing their own product. Mainly because if they fail to produce good results their status of "guru" will be lost. In this thread we possibly have an actual test of a specific technique. I look forward to seeing the results regardless of the detailed aspects underlying the SEO involved. If anyone wants to prove that their system or knowledge is better then feel free to start a thread and test your system so we can all see the results. You don't have to reveal details, just follow a similar path as this thread (preferably without the bickering - or piffle). Then we can all see who is a guru and who isn't. If not then why post in these threads anyway?

Just my 2.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Matt James

Sure you do. Look... searching within quotes doesn't give us a whole separate list of sites, it just shows us the sites that have the phrase with those words in that order.

So that's who you're really competing against.

A search without quotes gives us those sites as well as sites that have the words split up all over the page. These latter sites will be beaten automatically because our phrase is more relevant.

Do you think Google will rank a site for the term "cheap car insurance" which contains the phrase exactly below one that has the words split up all over the page? Of course not.

That's why I'm saying searches within quotes are your REAL competition.

And again... I'm not saying anybody searches for anything within quotes except for us marketers. We do that so Google gives us results with the complete phrase in that order. That's who we have to beat to get to the top!

Right, I really am going now...

I see what you're saying. You're saying that because we've optimized our page for the keyword, it usually will be higher for the keyword without quotes. That makes sense, however, you still will have some disparity between where you will end up on the "quotes" results and where you will end up on the "no quotes" results. And marketers want to be at the top of the search results without quotes, which is what their customers will see.

Marketers aren't the ONLY ones who use quotes, though. My mom is an Associated Press reporter and I know that SHE uses quotes when she searches.

I don't think she knows ALL the 'search tricks' that we marketers know about, though.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by raiko

Wow, this thread has definitely gotten off of the original posters topic. Always seems to happen this way. The reality is that if I have a website that ranks #1 for the term cheap car insurance I'm going to make so much money that I'll be too busy buying islands in the Caribbean to post here any longer.

Stepping back from all the alleged SEO knowledge being thrown around here isn't it really the actual results that matter most? Quite a few SEO gurus were Google slapped a while back. Does that mean they don't know what they are doing? Or perhaps that what was working well for them at that time suddenly became less effective. Who cares what the "true" competition is if I'm ranking well and making money. Since the search algorithms are not exactly known it's impossible to say with certainty what will work or not work at any particular time. It could change tomorrow - and probably will.

I'm actually more interested in the original posters results then all the bickering about "true" competition etc. Most SEO gurus will not provide specific tests of their knowledge just as most IM marketers will not show their own true results from utilizing their own product. Mainly because if they fail to produce good results their status of "guru" will be lost. In this thread we possibly have an actual test of a specific technique. I look forward to seeing the results regardless of the detailed aspects underlying the SEO involved. If anyone wants to prove that their system or knowledge is better then feel free to start a thread and test your system so we can all see the results. You don't have to reveal details, just follow a similar path as this thread (preferably without the bickering - or piffle). Then we can all see who is a guru and who isn't. If not then why post in these threads anyway?

Just my 2.

Excellent point and this IS what people are interested in. I hope that people have recognized, though, that I have been very transparent with my own results, so that people could take a look at them and see that everything I have 'claimed' is 100% true.

Who cares what the "true" competition is if I'm ranking well and making money.

And this is exactly what I have been saying the ENTIRE time.

[Okane]

Originally Posted by Matt James

Do you think Google will rank a site for the term "cheap car insurance" which contains the phrase exactly below one that has the words split up all over the page? Of course not.

Not true. Try yourself...

"how to find a cheap car"
"best cupcake recipe"
"make money without risk"

...and so on.
The winner with quotes is not automatically the winner without quotes.

However, I think everybody knows about the with/without quotes stuff, so no need to discuss this further.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by raiko

I'm actually more interested in the original posters results then all the bickering about "true" competition etc. Most SEO gurus will not provide specific tests of their knowledge just as most IM marketers will not show their own true results from utilizing their own product. Mainly because if they fail to produce good results their status of "guru" will be lost. In this thread we possibly have an actual test of a specific technique. I look forward to seeing the results regardless of the detailed aspects underlying the SEO involved. If anyone wants to prove that their system or knowledge is better then feel free to start a thread and test your system so we can all see the results. You don't have to reveal details, just follow a similar path as this thread (preferably without the bickering - or piffle). Then we can all see who is a guru and who isn't. If not then why post in these threads anyway?

Just my 2.

Just a quick note about this, though. If there is to be an "experiment" to show whether my method works or not, it has to be an 'experiment' of ONLY my method. You can't add something to it, or do it "with a slight twist" or any of that, as that won't be actually an 'experiment' of my method. If someone wants to pick a keyword that has 500,000 or fewer results and write an article and put it on Goarticles and use ONLY the backlinks in my packets and nothing else, then that person can tell us what their results were as far as ranking in Google's index.

Check your results to start out, whether you were actually IN the index for that keyword or whether you were not, and then tell us where you ended up after using the backlinks. I would do the backlinks and then give it a few days so that you can be sure Google "saw" all the links.

You might want to do the experiment with one packet and track your results and then do another packet and track your results again. But an experiment of my method with something else added to it is not a real experiment of my actual method, no offense intended toward anyone.

[blase40]

Its important that you dont vary the anchor text or you will be wasting your efforts to achieve mediocre. I'm sure it is possible that at some point you can get penalized for this... though I'm not sure how it will work. If you got penalized for this, you could simply generate a ton of backlinks for your biggest competitor and get them penalized.

Originally Posted by hommi_16

I'm not an SEO expert by any means but my understanding is that if you don't vary your anchor text you may be eventually penalized.

Everyone talks about looking natural and if every site that is linking to you uses the same exact word/phrase then it may cause an issue. I don't think it will happen right away but I think that it will happen.

[blase40]

This isn't entirely true. While there are a lot of crappy directories out there, there are several that are an absolute must in terms of submitting too.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Well, I'm not trying to say that ONLY my method is effective. However, number 1. I DO know that directories are NOT good anymore. They are being seen as nothing more than "link farms"

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by blase40

This isn't entirely true. While there are a lot of crappy directories out there, there are several that are an absolute must in terms of submitting too.

That may be true, but I DO recommend that people stay away from directories:

Up until a short time ago, Google actually advised people to submit to directories in their Google Webmaster Guidelines. After all, in theory, submitting to a directory could be done for perfectly legitimate reasons, like driving traffic to your site, or helping the search engine spider to find your site in the first place.

The fact that this advice was removed from the guidelines is telling. It shows that Google has recognized that the practice of submitting to directories has been so abused as a way to manipulate their algorithm, that it has negatively impacted their ability to detect the best sites with the best content. Google needs to be able to recognize “natural" back links to a site, not ones that were acquired in such an easy way with little to no value driving it. Again, how easy is it to create a simple links page directory, or simply submit to a directory to acquire a link back to your site?

Submitting to Directories - Is it Really Worth it?

Here is another article about directories:

Submitting to Directories - Free Submission Tips

While there still might be a few good directories out there, I usually advise people to stay away from them. You can get more good backlinks of various types from the packets and you don't run the risk that you "might" get penalized.

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by raiko

Wow, this thread has definitely gotten off of the original posters topic. Always seems to happen this way. The reality is that if I have a website that ranks #1 for the term cheap car insurance I'm going to make so much money that I'll be too busy buying islands in the Caribbean to post here any longer.

Stepping back from all the alleged SEO knowledge being thrown around here isn't it really the actual results that matter most? Quite a few SEO gurus were Google slapped a while back. Does that mean they don't know what they are doing? Or perhaps that what was working well for them at that time suddenly became less effective. Who cares what the "true" competition is if I'm ranking well and making money. Since the search algorithms are not exactly known it's impossible to say with certainty what will work or not work at any particular time. It could change tomorrow - and probably will.

I'm actually more interested in the original posters results then all the bickering about "true" competition etc. Most SEO gurus will not provide specific tests of their knowledge just as most IM marketers will not show their own true results from utilizing their own product. Mainly because if they fail to produce good results their status of "guru" will be lost. In this thread we possibly have an actual test of a specific technique. I look forward to seeing the results regardless of the detailed aspects underlying the SEO involved. If anyone wants to prove that their system or knowledge is better then feel free to start a thread and test your system so we can all see the results. You don't have to reveal details, just follow a similar path as this thread (preferably without the bickering - or piffle). Then we can all see who is a guru and who isn't. If not then why post in these threads anyway?

Just my 2.

Couldn't agree with you more. And since I was the original poster, I will give an update:

As of today, I am still bouncing from Page 4 to Page 5 in the results. I have only used the search term "Panic Attack Heart Symptoms" (no quotes) with one article at GoArticles and now about 60 backlinks pointing to the affiliate link that is listed in the article. It seems to be taking people 2 weeks or more to see any real movement. I am giving it another week!

[richnash33]

Originally Posted by belgirl

Couldn't agree with you more. And since I was the original poster, I will give an update:

As of today, I am still bouncing from Page 4 to Page 5 in the results. I have only used the search term "Panic Attack Heart Symptoms" (no quotes) with one article at GoArticles and now about 60 backlinks pointing to the affiliate link that is listed in the article. It seems to be taking people 2 weeks or more to see any real movement. I am giving it another week!

Maybe I am missing something but why would the backlink be pointing to the affiliate link within the article and not the actual url of the article itself?

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by richnash33

Maybe I am missing something but why would the backlink be pointing to the affiliate link within the article and not the actual url of the article itself?

No, the backlinks point to the article itself. You are "borrowing" the strength of the article directory to get your ARTICLE to the top of Google. From the article, people will click your affiliate link and buy your product. You have a lot better chance of getting the article to the top of Google more quickly and in a higher position than you have your affiliate link, at least right away.

[samcarson]

Angela I totally agree with you that the article has a better chance, in other words this may be called - "Promote the Promoter". However very few people click on the affiliate link in the resource box. Of the few that do click and land on our site, again only a few read thru the article or post and click to final merchant landing page.

Instead if we promote our own site, we are eliminating one layer and statistically improving our CTR. This however may take longer than the article strategy.

What I dont get is, do we get links to all the pages of the site? So if a site is promoting 25 products, do we get backlinks just to home page or all the 25 pages?

Thanks

Sam

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

No, the backlinks point to the article itself. You are "borrowing" the strength of the article directory to get your ARTICLE to the top of Google. From the article, people will click your affiliate link and buy your product. You have a lot better chance of getting the article to the top of Google more quickly and in a higher position than you have your affiliate link, at least right away.

OH CRAP. You mean my backlinks should be pointing to the article? UH OH. LOL...Time to revise my experiment.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by samcarson

Angela I totally agree with you that the article has a better chance, in other words this may be called - "Promote the Promoter". However very few people click on the affiliate link in the resource box. Of the few that do click and land on our site, again only a few read thru the article or post and click to final merchant landing page.

Instead if we promote our own site, we are eliminating one layer and statistically improving our CTR. This however may take longer than the article strategy.

What I dont get is, do we get links to all the pages of the site? So if a site is promoting 25 products, do we get backlinks just to home page or all the 25 pages?

Thanks

Sam

Well, I know that people write articles all the time for the click throughs. There are some very prolific article writers who make most of their money via the click throughs of their articles. Sean Mize is one of them. Steven Wagenheim is another.

Remember that my program is not just about writing articles and doing backlinks to them. One key that people aren't remembering is that my program talks about focusing on a "desperate buyer" situation: some sort of painful, life-altering problem that people would give their eye-teeth to be free of. People like this aren't just browsing through articles as "window shoppers". They are looking for an answer to alleviate their pain and they want that answer NOW. The click-throughs for stuff like this is a LOT higher than it is on an average basis.

In any case, of course it's a good idea to link to your article and your site. Then both get the benefit of the backlinks.

If you have 25 different pages with 25 different products on your site, you will need 25 different links on the sites. Many of them will allow a good group of these links and then you can go back through them and set up new profiles for the rest of your links.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by belgirl

OH CRAP. You mean my backlinks should be pointing to the article? UH OH. LOL...Time to revise my experiment.

Well, if you've got a pretty good spot already and it was your SITE you've been pointing to, imagine how much better the article can do?

The idea is that the article has tremendous "SEO power" already and it ranks faster and better than your site does.

[belgirl]

Well I changed 30 of my backlinks to point to the article itself. NOW let's see if I get some traction...stay tuned...

[Wendy Hearn]

Originally Posted by George Dube

Anyone had any luck toggling the "%" sign in front of the day of birth, month and year within the .csv file created?

My .CSV file seems to be changing the position of the percentage sign from the front of the numbers to the back...making the month become, for argument's sake, 5% instead of %5.

I've read on .csv files and it seems there really is no easy picnic around this issue?

Any successes at all?

Highly appreciated.

Hi George,

When I use Open Office to change the .csv file it works, but if I accidentally open it in Excel, then I have the problem you're talking of. Worth trying Open Office if you're not already?

Wendy

[Barry Walls]

Great thread...

Askloz....relax...instead of working to prove Angela wrong...be more constructive and give some helpful advice as to what you think people should be doing...then between you we will get to an optimal solution. This is the goal...yes?

I have a few questions about this.

Angela...you say to look for <500k searches without brackets, over 100 uniques per day according to wordtracker.

None of my keywords fit that...so...

More competitive keywords...I can get a guy to build 200 of these links in a day for more difficult to rank for keywords. No problem according to the PDF? So do it once, in one go and forget it?

So far, Ive got this understanding....

Don't change anchor text, point all links with same anchor text to an internal page optimised for that keyword.

Also, I have a brand new blog with 20 articles on it. I'd rather link to that than Goarticles. Issues...time delays? Any others I should be aware of? How long will the time delay be?

With multiple links back from each site, I use different keywords in the anchor text and point up to three to different pages. Can all be on one domain or is it one on my domain, one on goarticle and maybe to a hub page? Only one page per domain is optimal and counted for each site I link from? Is that right?

All the best

Barry

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Allintitle shows you WEBSITE TITLES. Of COURSE that's going to be the same in both search engines. You are looking up the number of websites with Angela in the TITLE. That will be the same across the board. If you look up the keyword Angela in Google, there are 83 million results. In Yahoo, there are 248 million results. That's because Google counts entire websites and Yahoo counts pages.

While it's good to put your keywords in your title tag, those sites are not the only sites your searchers will see when they plug your keyword into Google. What we who are doing SEO for our websites care about is: will our searchers (most of whom will NOT be using quotes) see us at the top of the results when they plug in our keyword?

Most marketers know about "real" competition and the allintitle search command. None of that matters if the people who are searching don't find our website at the top when they search.

You can tell me I'm wrong about EVERYTHING. My customers DON'T CARE about that. What they care about is that my product gets their website in front of the eyes of the people who are searching for their keywords. That's the bottom line.

Wow ok no offense but you are talking crap here, Google does not index websites?? Google index pages!

[AndyBlackSEO]

I have just pointed my links to my own sites. I've had no problem ranking well. No.5 out of over 600,000,000 results. Not too bad.

I may try the article method though for something else and see how that goes.

Is anyone here experiencing increased sales via their articles by using Angelas method?

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

That may be true, but I DO recommend that people stay away from directories:

Up until a short time ago, Google actually advised people to submit to directories in their Google Webmaster Guidelines. After all, in theory, submitting to a directory could be done for perfectly legitimate reasons, like driving traffic to your site, or helping the search engine spider to find your site in the first place.

The fact that this advice was removed from the guidelines is telling. It shows that Google has recognized that the practice of submitting to directories has been so abused as a way to manipulate their algorithm, that it has negatively impacted their ability to detect the best sites with the best content. Google needs to be able to recognize “natural" back links to a site, not ones that were acquired in such an easy way with little to no value driving it. Again, how easy is it to create a simple links page directory, or simply submit to a directory to acquire a link back to your site?

Submitting to Directories - Is it Really Worth it?

Here is another article about directories:

Submitting to Directories - Free Submission Tips

While there still might be a few good directories out there, I usually advise people to stay away from them. You can get more good backlinks of various types from the packets and you don't run the risk that you "might" get penalized.

Angela, there are hundreds of thousands of directories on the web, yes many of them are useless, but there are still thousands of directories who hold a lot of value and respect in the eyes of Google. Many of those directories are extremely hard to get into, they only accept quality and non affiliate websites. Now please tell me how a mathematical algorithm is EVER going to beat human perception and quality control when it comes to this sort of stuff? Google knows this, and if they find websites in good directories they immediately know that the websites are of quality and value.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by belgirl

OH CRAP. You mean my backlinks should be pointing to the article? UH OH. LOL...Time to revise my experiment.

Haha lol this thread is really hilarious

[Barry Walls]

Andy

How many links to your own sites from each one of Angelas sites??

All the best

Barry

PS - Do you play poker?

[AndyBlackSEO]

Not that many. Some of Mays and some of Junes. However, I've only recently built links for the two word phrase which I'm currently at no,5 for. It was on page 5 a couple of weeks ago and moved up to page 1.

You see in my opinion, it's all about 'how' you set up your page to make your backlinks more powerful. I don't really want to say what I do so you'll have to fill in the blanks. A backlink on it's own on an unrelated page will not be as powerful as a backlink on a page that is backed up by other onpage elements. I'm not talking about being 'spammy' but completing a profile in such a way so that you are strengthening your links to make the whole page more relevant to your target keywords.

As for your question regarding poker... I used to enjoy playing but I'm not the Andy Black that you are talking of.. lol.

[jsherloc]

I have seen some GREAT results by using the backlinks for local business sites/blogs....the local online competition just does not stand a chance hehe.

I am about to use the links for some of my clients' YouTube videos...has anyone been using the backlinks for increasing their video rankings?

[Paul M]

Originally Posted by belgirl

OH CRAP. You mean my backlinks should be pointing to the article? UH OH. LOL...Time to revise my experiment.

SPLORF

Oh that's just epic.

You mean this thread has 200+ responses and over 4,000 Views
and you haven't even started the experiment yet...


-Paul

[richnash33]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

No, the backlinks point to the article itself. You are "borrowing" the strength of the article directory to get your ARTICLE to the top of Google. From the article, people will click your affiliate link and buy your product. You have a lot better chance of getting the article to the top of Google more quickly and in a higher position than you have your affiliate link, at least right away.

Few..I thought all of my backlinking to the article itself was wrong.

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by Paul M

SPLORF

Oh that's just epic.

You mean this thread has 200+ responses and over 4,000 Views
and you haven't even started the experiment yet...


-Paul

LOL...I know...sigh...Although really this is now an experiment trying two different methods. The first method was linking to the affiliate link itself. Now the experiment is linking to the actual article. We shall see if that changes any ranking.

[Barry Walls]

So...from one of Angelas sites, point one link to your blog and one to your article? Using eh same keyword? How about this link combo? any issues with this?

Keyword One - Article One
Keyword One - Blog Page One
Keyword Two - Article Two
Keyword Two - Blog Page Two

Is that accepted at these sites?

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

Wow ok no offense but you are talking crap here, Google does not index websites?? Google index pages!

Yes, I know that. However, what I meant (as I explained later) is that Google indexes ONE page per site per keyword and Yahoo indexes EVERY page per site per keyword. I gave the example of my signature file here on the Warrior Forum. Although my signature file shows up on THOUSANDS of pages here (as I have over 4,000 posts), Google has ONE page for that signature file in its index for the keyword Angela. Yahoo, on the other hand, has EVERY page that has my signature file in its index for the keyword Angela. That's why Yahoo has many TIMES more results in its index for every keyword than Google has. It's not a matter of Google being more "picky" as some have speculated. If that were the case, then Yahoo would have a few hundred to a couple thousand more results in its index. But it doesn't; it has several TIMES more results per keyword in its index.