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

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by 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

Hi Barry,

If you'd rather link to your blog, that is perfectly fine. The "experiment" here was for my guideline that was trying to help newbies get to the first page of Google and make sales quickly. Goarticles is the strongest article directory for moving REALLY HIGH and REALLY FAST in Google's index when you do backlinks to the articles. Sure~Ezinearticles often place high all by themselves. But they don't respond as well to backlinks. So if you are using that article directory, you are back to writing dozens of articles in hopes that one or two will "stick". But with Goarticles, you can write one article, do backlinks to it, and get on Page One rather quickly if your competition is 500,000 or less.

Now, there are people doing this "experiment" who are trying to place quickly with several MILLION results, and that's fine. They will eventually place. But not anywhere NEAR as quickly.

I link to my site and to my article on all the sites. That way, both get the benefit of the backlinks. You can put multiple links on each profile and that can be to whatever you choose. You can do several different anchor texts pointing to your domain or you can point once to your domain, once to an article, once to a Hubpage...whatever you want.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by 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?

That is totally fine.

[studio52]

That is very interesting, getting ranked high on a google search will mean the difference of actualy having your article read or not.

Thanks for this info.

[Barry Walls]

Angela...what if I did 300 links in a day...whats the impact?

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Barry Walls

Angela...what if I did 300 links in a day...whats the impact?

If you did 300 links in a day, you'd probably see a HUGE amount of movement up Google's index for whatever it is you are doing the backlinks for. Depending on the competition, you'd probably be on Page One. I've seen things move to Page One by the next morning after I did backlinks the night before.

Keep in mind that the "Google Dance" is normal; what happens is that after we get a good placement, our site either appears to be de-indexed or it goes back to a MUCH lower spot. This is normal; it happens to EVERYONE, but it's very temporary. Your site will be back up again very soon. I have no idea why Google does this, but it's obviously something that's written into its algorithm. It IS temporary, though.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by studio52

That is very interesting, getting ranked high on a google search will mean the difference of actualy having your article read or not.

Thanks for this info.

Yes, that is the whole point. And you don't have to write several dozen articles in hopes that one or two might be read by people. You can do it with just one article and that's nice, too.

You are most welcome.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by 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?

Localized results are really nice to work with, as they are SUPER easy to rank high for. With YouTube, you have the same sort of SEO "power" that you have with Goarticles. YouTube has High Page Rank and thousands of backlinks already, so YouTube videos generally rank very fast, too.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

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.

Yes, but the whole point is that these "human edited", high quality directories are usually No Follow; Google is recommending that to all of them.

[Angela V. Edwards]

As far as "experiments" go, Belgirl's is pretty close, except that she didn't realize she was supposed to be backlinking to her article instead of her affiliate link. However, from the communication I've gotten from people, people are all over the board as far as trying to make this work.

I recommend picking a painful, LIFE ALTERING problem that people will pay BIG money to solve. Not only will you get more click throughs for something like this, but you will get more SALES, as well. People are picking things from all sorts of non-painful niches: wedding designs, pet training, online poker, you name it.

I recommend picking competition without quotes of 500,000 or fewer. Again, people are all over the board. I've seen 33 MILLION for one person, 48 MILLION for another, etc, etc.

The only real "constant" I've seen is that people are trying to use Goarticles. But for 48 MILLION competing results, that might take until Labor Day to get to Page One. But people start worrying if they aren't on Page One by the following week.

I don't mind helping people for WHATEVER niche they have chosen, but it's a little frustrating when people think the method "isn't working", but they aren't using most of the steps IN the method. That's like trying to tell Oxy Clean that their product isn't getting the stains out of your clothes when the only thing you did with it is put a teaspoon of it in the washer with your clothes and didn't soak the clothes in Oxy Clean before laundering them. Sure, after about 150 washes, the stains will probably come out. But that's not how the product was recommended to be used.

Yes, the backlinks will work for EVERY niche in EVERY 'competition range'. But people need to be realistic about how much time it might take to see results when you've got double-digit millions of other competing sites. You also need to be realistic about the click-throughs if you've picked a "window shopping" type niche.

[MizzCindy]

I am not a customer of Angela's backlinks package, but from the overwhelmingly positive feedback evidenced here on the forum, I think it's clear her service is a good quality one. I'm always a big fan of people in the IM market offering products that truly give value, rather than some of the schlock that's floating around.

For that, I say kudos to Angela.

Angela, I know you've taken a beating here over what seems to be semantics to some. I think it's important to have correct information out there, though, since many members new to IM read what we write and accept it as truth. We all have to be careful to be factually correct, or to correct ourselves when we make a mistake. That's one of the key ways this forum will maintain it's overall value and standing in the IM community.

Having said that, I think either I'm misunderstanding your post (#210) or there's something amiss here.

...Google indexes ONE page per site per keyword and Yahoo indexes EVERY page per site per keyword...

This isn't true. If I google site:warriorforum.com "Angela", there are 755 pages indexed for the term Angela. If I google site:warriorforum.com "cash cow", there are 472 pages indexed. Without the quotes, it's 573 pages. So there are several pages from this site indexed for that keyword or keyword phrase as well.

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...

This example actually seems to support the argument that google is indeed more picky about how it indexes sites for specific keywords. Just because there is an occurrence of your sig file on multiple pages, that doesn't mean each of those pages is optimized to google's satisfaction for the word "Angela". If they're not, they won't get indexed for that keyword.

...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.

Again, if Google has a much more stringent algorithm for whether to index a site for a specified keyword, and if Yahoo is more loosy-goosy, then it would make perfect sense for there to be a great disparity between the numbers.

I've been reading this thread for awhile and I hesitated to post this. I have no interest in being part of a 'pile on', but I think it's an important concept we're discussing which needs clarification.

I will say it again, Angela's contributions to this forum have been packed with value and it appears that her backlinking package is well worth the price.

Cindy

[Angela V. Edwards]

Thank you, Cindy...your post is very interesting. Thank you very much for your response.

I did a search for my name on the Warrior Forum and it comes up multiple times because it's mentioned in many places. One result is my profile, another result is my WSO, another result is someone on another forum talking about me and the Warrior forum, another one is this thread, etc, etc. That doesn't mean that Google has multiple results for my sig file, although this thread came up a few times. But each page in a thread is unique to Google, maybe. It means (I think) that Google sees my name and the Warrior Forum mentioned in quite a few places. Heck, I found a few blogs where people were mentioning me and my backlink packets.

Yahoo's results are usually something like FOUR TIMES the Google results. It's not just a matter of Yahoo being less picky that Google. Like I've said, that would account for a few hundred to a couple thousand more pages in Yahoo's index. But we're looking at 238 MILLION (Y) as opposed to 83 MILLION (G), 4 BILLION (Y) as opposed to 1.5 BILLION (G), 50 million (Y) as opposed to 11 million (G), 125 MILLION (Y) as opposed to 25.8 MILLION (G) and on and on. This can't just be a matter of "pickiness".

SEO expert Brad Callen has always said that Google will give you credit for one backlink per IP (domain) and that's why Yahoo Site Explorer's "backlink checker tool" is SO much different from some of the others.

I don't know why Google indexes some pages and not others. I will have to do more investigating on this. But thank you again for your post, Cindy.

[julesbrad]

Would it be correct to say that

Google index every page
Yahoo index every page

but

Google only (in most cases) displays a single page - the most relevant to the search term
Yahoo displays a few pages from each site which are quite relevant results to the search term

[samcarson]

Angela how many back links do you recommend we do for each article or our own site? This is assuming the keyword is under 500,000 without quotes.

The other question I have is, is it better to start with the past months packets and progressively move forward or just pick any month and start.

Thanks a lot for your help and enormous patience

Sam

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by julesbrad

Would it be correct to say that

Google index every page
Yahoo index every page

but

Google only (in most cases) displays a single page - the most relevant to the search term
Yahoo displays a few pages from each site which are quite relevant results to the search term

That might be it, all right. I will have to look into that more because now I'm REALLY curious.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by samcarson

Angela how many back links do you recommend we do for each article or our own site? This is assuming the keyword is under 500,000 without quotes.

The other question I have is, is it better to start with the past months packets and progressively move forward or just pick any month and start.

Thanks a lot for your help and enormous patience

Sam

Hi Sam,

Thank you for your kind words. While it's possible to get to Page One with that type of competition with one packet, I would normally recommend 2 packets of 30 to be on the safe side. OR, my 30-link packet and Paul's 50-link packet should do it, too.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

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.

O ok, yes that is true, I apologize for not understanding you correctly

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Yes, but the whole point is that these "human edited", high quality directories are usually No Follow; Google is recommending that to all of them.

That is fine if those directories are no follow. Google have always been deliberately lying to the public about how they do things. I usually get my sites indexed by posting links on no follow websites like answers.yahoo.com, and google says they don't follow no follow links. They are LYING.

Google does follow no follow links, the only difference is they place no follow links through a whole different algorithm that immediately gives no value from forums, blogs etc... But from other sources they may hold some value.

No follow links from a directory like yahoo will definitely count, I have seen it happen with my own eyes.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Yes, I have heard this same thing, myself. Most people believe that Google DOES follow some "No Follow" sites and I also suspect they are not...er, "up front" about some things. Their algorithm is top secret and they really, really REALLY don't want their competitors figuring it out.

But you have a very good point, as there are many people who believe that Google does, indeed, count some No Follow links.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

The following is based on my experience and a few things I've been able to glean from sources who also know a thing or two...

Saidar is correct. Google will INDEX a site found from a NOFOLLOW link, it will NOT apply any link juice to the link itself. However, there's a little in-between space... while Google will not apply the "link juice" Google WILL consider the total number of links as part of the overall computation of a site's PR.

I don't recall every hearing/seeing anything official from Google saying they don't FOLLOW a nofollow link. In fact, the only thing official I've had from Google on the subject is as follows:

"From now on, when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results. This isn't a negative vote for the site where the comment was posted; it's just a way to make sure that spammers get no benefit from abusing public areas like blog comments, trackbacks, and referrer lists."

Note that Google says that the pages from those nofollow links "won't get any credit when we rank search results" NOT that Google won't follow the link and index the linked page.

YMMV, of course.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by belgirl

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.

You're number 14 out of 737,000 right now. What was that; less than a day?

[jonnoryan]

Actually, Adobe comes up number one in Google out of more than TWO BILLION (that's BILLION, with a "B") competing websites, with or without quotes, for the words "click here" which don't appear on their website anywhere. Can you imagine how many MILLIONS of sites must have used the anchor text Click Here for Adobe? Adobe has NEVER been penalized for that.

Angela , you cannot use this as an example. The reason Adobe is not penalized for this is due to the fact that it is not adobe that is posting these links . It is the webmasters themselves that are creating this anchor text on their site and Google knows this .

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

The following is based on my experience and a few things I've been able to glean from sources who also know a thing or two...

Saidar is correct. Google will INDEX a site found from a NOFOLLOW link, it will NOT apply any link juice to the link itself. However, there's a little in-between space... while Google will not apply the "link juice" Google WILL consider the total number of links as part of the overall computation of a site's PR.

I don't recall every hearing/seeing anything official from Google saying they don't FOLLOW a nofollow link. In fact, the only thing official I've had from Google on the subject is as follows:

"From now on, when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results. This isn't a negative vote for the site where the comment was posted; it's just a way to make sure that spammers get no benefit from abusing public areas like blog comments, trackbacks, and referrer lists."

Note that Google says that the pages from those nofollow links "won't get any credit when we rank search results" NOT that Google won't follow the link and index the linked page.

YMMV, of course.

I have read an article a few weeks ago where they quoted Google saying they don't follow no-follow links. Can't remember where I read it but it was from a reputable source

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by jonnoryan

Actually, Adobe comes up number one in Google out of more than TWO BILLION (that's BILLION, with a "B") competing websites, with or without quotes, for the words "click here" which don't appear on their website anywhere. Can you imagine how many MILLIONS of sites must have used the anchor text Click Here for Adobe? Adobe has NEVER been penalized for that.

Angela , you cannot use this as an example. The reason Adobe is not penalized for this is due to the fact that it is not adobe that is posting these links . It is the webmasters themselves that are creating this anchor text on their site and Google knows this .

Google works on an ALGORITHM. There are more than ONE TRILLION web pages online today. Google can't make up some rules for some sites and some rules for another. There are just too many sites. How does Google know, unless a human being looks at all my links, that *I* am the one doing the linking? It doesn't. And sometimes I use a Pen Name. How's Google going to know THAT'S me?? And what about webmasters who own more than one site and link one site to the other?

My husband figured out how long Google employees could spend looking at webpages if EVERY employee worked NON STOP without ANY bathroom, smoking, meal, or sleep breaks at ANY TIME all year. Remember this is absolutely NO breaks of ANY kind:

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.


http://investor.google.com/releases/2009Q1_google_earnings.html


One trillion divided by 365 days in a year = 2,739,726,027.39



2739726027.39 divided by 24 hours in a day= 114155251.14 items per hour


114155251.14 items per hour divided by 20164 GOOGLE employees = 5661.33 items per hour based on a 24/7/365 year, no time off at all.


5661.33 items per hour divided by 60 minutes in an hour = 94.355 items per minute.


94.355 divided by 60 seconds in one minute = 1.572 SECONDS are available for each item, based on every GOOGLE employee working NON-STOP, 24/7/365


That's also with no slowing down to look at some sites. 1.572 seconds per webpage per person. That's IT!! Google works based on an algorithm. That's how they HAVE to do things.

That's 1.572 SECONDS per webpage that could even be LOOKED at, if the employees didn't eat, didn't sleep, didn't smoke, and didn't go to the bathroom ALL YEAR. In order to penalize me because *I* am the one placing my links, a PERSON would have to KNOW what my user name is on all the sites and they'd have to know ALL my pen names as well. And they'd have to have a PERSON doing this for ALL the websites on the ENTIRE Internet who are getting backlinks for their own websites.

Google penalizes sites for "Google bombs" when it's OBVIOUS that an oddity has occurred and that someone is playing a prank and the keyword does NOT fit the linked-to site and it gets reported to them. They don't penalize sites for using the same anchor text on all their backlinks.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Google works on an ALGORITHM. There are more than ONE TRILLION web pages online today. Google can't make up some rules for some sites and some rules for another. There are just too many sites. How does Google know, unless a human being looks at all my links, that *I* am the one doing the linking? It doesn't. And sometimes I use a Pen Name. How's Google going to know THAT'S me?? And what about webmasters who own more than one site and link one site to the other?

My husband figured out how long Google employees could spend looking at webpages if EVERY employee worked NON STOP without ANY bathroom, smoking, meal, or sleep breaks at ANY TIME all year. Remember this is absolutely NO breaks of ANY kind:


That's 1.572 SECONDS per webpage that could even be LOOKED at, if the employees didn't eat, didn't sleep, didn't smoke, and didn't go to the bathroom ALL YEAR. In order to penalize me because *I* am the one placing my links, a PERSON would have to KNOW what my user name is on all the sites and they'd have to know ALL my pen names as well. And they'd have to have a PERSON doing this for ALL the websites on the ENTIRE Internet who are getting backlinks for their own websites.

Google penalizes sites for "Google bombs" when it's OBVIOUS that an oddity has occurred and that someone is playing a prank and the keyword does NOT fit the linked-to site and it gets reported to them. They don't penalize sites for using the same anchor text on all their backlinks.

Angela,

Statistically, for a web page to have 200 links pointing to it (the only links the website has) with the same anchor text is impossible, and Google knows this. You have to sprinkle other anchor text with your main anchor text otherwise Google will pick this up. This can be calculated mathematically and thus by any algorithm.

A website that receives links naturally will NEVER have exactly the same anchor text for all its links. Google can easily see if you are doing this manually by looking at the linking pattern and the anchor text.

You may not be penalized now, but if you keep this up you will definitely be caught within a year.

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

You're number 14 out of 737,000 right now. What was that; less than a day?

I am? I don't see my link....?? But if that is the case--about half a day to be exact. Snap.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

Angela,

Statistically, for a web page to have 200 links pointing to it (the only links the website has) with the same anchor text is impossible, and Google knows this. You have to sprinkle other anchor text with your main anchor text otherwise Google will pick this up. This can be calculated mathematically and thus by any algorithm.

A website that receives links naturally will NEVER have exactly the same anchor text for all its links. Google can easily see if you are doing this manually by looking at the linking pattern and the anchor text

Again, it's back to Google "looking at the link pattern and the anchor text". And again, you are attaching human properties to a Search Engine. In order to do this, you'd have to have one of two things:

1. Google employees would HAVE to take the time to actually LOOK at BILLIONS and BILLIONS of webpages all across the Internet, OR

This is because the change is designed to stop the pranks from happening rather than legitimate commentary about such activities. Google isn’t saying exactly how this is being done. But Google says it’s done automatically, without any human intervention.

2. Google would have to set up their algorithm so that websites could have XX amount of anchor text links and NO MORE. Obviously, some have thousands and some have MILLIONS; Adobe has many MILLIONS of the same anchor text. I have hundreds and hundreds of the same anchor text.

Again, this sort of thing is ONLY penalized when it's a prank and when it causes harm to someone or some website:

Cutts said that the new analysis technique works for bombs in other languages (jämmerlicher waschlappen is apparently one non-English bomb that’s been defused). It is also designed only to stop bombs where the “victim” themselves isn’t trying to rank for a term. For example, french military victories still brings up this parody page which wants to rank for that term.


As I said, Google’s not explaining how the new system is working. Looking at the words people use when they link to a web site is a key component on how Google determines relevancy. For example, thousands of quality links to Amazon using the word books within the link text itself helps that site come up in the top results for the word books in a search.

Google Kills Bush’s Miserable Failure Search & Other Google Bombs

[indie08]

Hello Everyone!

Here's an update....
Today, all 5 of my new goarticles are on page 1! Pos 6-8. Not bad. That was in about 4.5 days...Getting a pretty decent number of clicks on my e-bay links. No sales yet, however. Oh and this was with 2 packets....

[Angela V. Edwards]

That's excellent, Indie. The sales will probably start coming in, soon, too. Remember for most things, people are "window shoppers" and "lookie lous" before they buy. They're probably looking at what you are offering because they are thinking about buying such items.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by belgirl

I am? I don't see my link....?? But if that is the case--about half a day to be exact. Snap.

I see your Goarticles article at number 14.

[indie08]

Hello Angela,

I have a question. My recent 5 articles I submitted have less than 280000 comp without quotes and less than 18000 with quotes. I was wondering if you have ever outranked amazon. What I mean is the products I am promoting all have amazon in pos 3,4, and 5. In microniche finder it ranks the SOC at 24. If I build more backlinks over time do you think I could grab the top spot?

[Angela V. Edwards]

I haven't ever tried to outrank Amazon, but I DID outrank both MySpace and IMDB. So I would say that over time, you should be able to outrank Amazon just fine. It just may be a bit harder than some of your competitors.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Saidar

Statistically, for a web page to have 200 links pointing to it (the only links the website has) with the same anchor text is impossible, and Google knows this.

You and I will have to part ways here, Saidar. There are sites out there with exactly this circumstance and they are not penalized. Google doesn't have the time to fool around with sites that have 200 inbound links. Google devalues SOURCES of links, not individual links.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Saidar

I have read an article a few weeks ago where they quoted Google saying they don't follow no-follow links. Can't remember where I read it but it was from a reputable source

Well, the quote I provided was delivered by Google officially, in writing. On top of that, I know what I know. Plus, there's evidence to back this pattern of behavior.

You'll have to point out the quote you refer to.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Google can't make up some rules for some sites and some rules for another.

But they do. They're usually negative rules such as making sure a particular popular blogger doesn't rank for their own name when the blogger in question has pissed them off. They deindex sites that have a script they don't like, such as BANS or YACG. They also will give sites they favor special treatment in the algorithm and are apparently planning to expand this aspect over the next year as they emphasize brands.

Originally Posted by Saidar

Statistically, for a web page to have 200 links pointing to it (the only links the website has) with the same anchor text is impossible, and Google knows this. .... You may not be penalized now, but if you keep this up you will definitely be caught within a year.

Excellent! I'll have to take out all my competitors by getting them 200 links with the same anchor text.

Originally Posted by Saidar

I have read an article a few weeks ago where they quoted Google saying they don't follow no-follow links.

It was on Wikipedia with no reference cited.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

My own little "Angela Experiment":

I've known the power of backlinking for years. I've always done my own research, but this month I decided to subscribe to Angela's service. At five bucks, how could I go wrong? If Angela's links are quality, then the $5.00 a month is a no-brainer -- my time is worth a whole lot more than that.

Besides, my daughter wants to get into the online business and I thought providing backlinking services might be a business she might be interested in (she'd be using Angela's list as the source of the links she'll provide).

So my daughter and I started testing Angela's links for June. I'm showing her how to do the linking using a non-commercial site that we set up a while back but for which we have never done any off-page SEO. We're going slowly, a little at a time, and so far we're halfway through the June packet (we've set up the backlinks from Part 1 and Part 2 so far).

Guess what? Halfway through the packet, and for our targeted keywords, that site has moved from from about page 10 of Google to now being ranked #4 on page ONE.

Backlinks work, people. And Angela's backlinks package is worth every dime.

[Mark-Dickenson]

Dude, you need to learn some manners. Her name is not sweetie, its Angela...somebody that has a lot more respect on this forum than you do.

If you know so much about SEO, you sure don't know a lot about business. Angela's business is where it is at because she actually contributes and gets loyal customers because of it

I doubt you have any loyal customers...how 'bout actually contributing to a thread started by Belgirl instead of comming over here and blasting everybody and then asking her how much she is willing to pay

Sounds like a hustle to me

Originally Posted by askloz

If you know this, tell your followers about it. You've not mentioned it once since you've been boasting "Oh I'm at the top for a phrase that has 40,000,000 competing websites"... or what ever.

First off, it's not your competition, secondly, it's not websites. It's PAGES.

It's just annoying to see that someone who claims they can do SEO, don't get the facts right.



Ok, I don't want to pick a fight with ya sweetie, you've just proven that you don't know about the true competition and how to analyze it.

I suggest you go ahead and re-read the post-link I posted yesterday for everyone to read.

"Now lets say my TRUE competition is 858,000"... See what I mean? Proof you don't know what your competition is. There will NEVER, ever, ever be that many. It will ALWAYS be under 1000. If you do know, you don't come across that you do.

As Steve Crooks said in another post. The one I posted here for all to see so they can get their facts correct rather than coming off like an idiot saying they are sites, and not pages and their true competition is a trillion zillion or something.

One phrase could have 1 million result pages, another, could have the same, yet, once you analyze your true competition, the way I show - which is the RIGHT way, one could have 800 as their true competition, while another could have only 40. Now which one out of those 1 million result pages will be easier to rank for? the first phrase or the other? Surely the latter? But they both look on the outside to the average Joe they have 1 million pages that could share the same bragging rights? On the contrary.

Sweetie don't come out to me with a explanation, I know more about SEO than 90% of the people on this forum - in fact I teach SEO. I know that people wont use the phrase they are using most of the time with double quotes. I know this.

And you're wrong, people will go beyond page 2, 3, 4, 5. I do it all the time. I find that there's better sites sitting on page 2, 3, 4, 5 than they're are on page 1.

Peace

[Ryan6]

I'd just like to remind people that GoArticles could decide to scrub out affiliate links tomorrow and they can certainly take down your articles at any time. Build authority for your own blogs/websites, not some article submission site.

Sorry Angela, but some of the stuff you've said about Google is pretty amateur. That landing page looks like it was thrown up in 2 mins. I just wonder why someone would want to spend so much time trying to defend and talk people round for a few bucks. Any savvy marketer would be protecting their links and protecting their rankings. If they wanted to give away secrets it'd cost a great deal more than a few bucks.

Something just seems a little fishy, I mean, you're "student" isn't providing accurate search volumes, isn't using keyword anchor text in sig and hasn't even started this entire project. It's just one big plug, which in reality is paying someone to provide the tools to spam the crap out of some poor site.

[belgirl]

With all due respect Ryan this "student" has started the experiment and this "student" has provided accurate search volumes and furthermore, several people on this blog have already shown how successful they have been with this "experiment."

Originally Posted by Ryan6

I'd just like to remind people that GoArticles could decide to scrub out affiliate links tomorrow and they can certainly take down your articles at any time. Build authority for your own blogs/websites, not some article submission site.

Sorry Angela, but some of the stuff you've said about Google is pretty amateur. That landing page looks like it was thrown up in 2 mins. I just wonder why someone would want to spend so much time trying to defend and talk people round for a few bucks. Any savvy marketer would be protecting their links and protecting their rankings. If they wanted to give away secrets it'd cost a great deal more than a few bucks.

Something just seems a little fishy, I mean, you're "student" isn't providing accurate search volumes, isn't using keyword anchor text in sig and hasn't even started this entire project. It's just one big plug, which in reality is paying someone to provide the tools to spam the crap out of some poor site.

[Ryan6]

Originally Posted by belgirl

With all due respect Ryan this "student" has started the experiment and this "student" has provided accurate search volumes and furthermore, several people on this blog have already shown how successful they have been with this "experiment."

Ha ha, noticed you just added some keywords, well done. No need to lose your cool. People shouldn't have to pay for free links. All they are required to do is carry out a little research. If they're too lazy to do that then they don't deserve to get anywhere near that first page.

[jitendrakbharai]

Hi all,

I am using Angela's backlinks packets as well and the results are okay till now.But i know i have to work at it some more.

jitendra

[Angela V. Edwards]

People aren't too "lazy" to find great links. Go ahead and run this by Paul if you don't believe me, but it takes HOURS and HOURS and HOURS to find this many High Page Rank links. Unless a marketer has decided to give up ALL of his or her other projects and spend all his time hunting for links then my service is a tremendous time saver for people.

That's what people are paying me for, actually...the service of hunting up these links for them. I'm a Virtual Assistant of sorts.

[4morereferrals]

One of the most absurd comments Ive read on a forum in a long time.

Touche' - that took some doing.

Originally Posted by Ryan6

People shouldn't have to pay for free links. All they are required to do is carry out a little research. If they're too lazy to do that then they don't deserve to get anywhere near that first page.

[Ryan6]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

People aren't too "lazy" to find great links. Go ahead and run this by Paul if you don't believe me, but it takes HOURS and HOURS and HOURS to find this many High Page Rank links. Unless a marketer has decided to give up ALL of his or her other projects and spend all his time hunting for links then my service is a tremendous time saver for people.

That's what people are paying me for, actually...the service of hunting up these links for them. I'm a Virtual Assistant of sorts.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

One of the most absurd comments Ive read on a forum in a long time.

Touche' - that took some doing.

Now why is that moron? Do you know what research is? It means finding out this information for free on forums, studying your competitors and seeing where they got the links from. Simple stuff, doesn't cost a dime and will take probably an hour or so.

Notice that you're all going after the SAME LINKS at the same time and someone reported that these sites have prevented you from doing so now. It is YOU that are these spammers. Why not build great content that people will naturally link to? If you want one-way links then use social bookmarking sites, directory sites etc.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Ryan6

Now why is that moron? Do you know what research is? It means finding out this information for free on forums, studying your competitors and seeing where they got the links from. Simple stuff, doesn't cost a dime and can take probably an hour or so.

Notice that you're all going after the SAME LINKS and someone reported that these sites have prevented you from doing so now. It is YOU that are these spammers. Why not build great content that people will naturally link to? If you want one-way links then do the bookmarking, directory sites.

It is not ALL the sites that have prevented the links; it is only a few of them. And many of the links in my packets HAVE been social media type sites. Again, I am simply telling people where the great sites are without them having to hunt for them on a bunch of forums or using the same links as our competitors. We want BETTER links than our competitors, not the same ones. What good will having the SAME links as our competitors do?

[cryptone24]

How can I get Paul's backlinks please?

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by cryptone24

How can I get Paul's backlinks please?

Here are Paul's backlinks:

http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...inks-free.html

[Saidar]

I don't think you understand my point here, I only used 200 back links as an example. What matters is the percentage of links. Google can calculate in an instant what the average pattern of a site's link building activity is. There will always be a norm according to statistical laws.

When a website deviates from this pattern, Google will pick it up. And this will be a long term calculation, not a short term one.

If Google used such an algorithm, they would drastically reduce the sites they would have to manually review (percentage wise blackhatters are very few) . I don't believe they would bust a site on pure technical data, but when the red lights are thrown some manual reviewer would go take a quick look. This is easy to do, logic and they probably do it.

[Ryan6]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

It is not ALL the sites that have prevented the links; it is only a few of them. And many of the links in my packets HAVE been social media type sites. Again, I am simply telling people where the great sites are without them having to hunt for them on a bunch of forums or using the same links as our competitors. We want BETTER links than our competitors, not the same ones. What good will having the SAME links as our competitors do?

The guys that are sitting in the top few places of Google are there because of relevant links. If you take the top 10 sites and then find the links for each of them, you get a nice list. You can do this via sites like Alexa.

The point is that these links are relevant. I could name some PR 9 sites (i.e. Slashdot) where you could get some juicy links, but these won't pass much weight if their not on topic. They also need to be gradually built.

[discrat]

Originally Posted by askloz

If you know this, tell your followers about it. You've not mentioned it once since you've been boasting "Oh I'm at the top for a phrase that has 40,000,000 competing websites"... or what ever.

First off, it's not your competition, secondly, it's not websites. It's PAGES.

It's just annoying to see that someone who claims they can do SEO, don't get the facts right.



Ok, I don't want to pick a fight with ya sweetie, you've just proven that you don't know about the true competition and how to analyze it.

I suggest you go ahead and re-read the post-link I posted yesterday for everyone to read.

"Now lets say my TRUE competition is 858,000"... See what I mean? Proof you don't know what your competition is. There will NEVER, ever, ever be that many. It will ALWAYS be under 1000. If you do know, you don't come across that you do.

As Steve Crooks said in another post. The one I posted here for all to see so they can get their facts correct rather than coming off like an idiot saying they are sites, and not pages and their true competition is a trillion zillion or something.

One phrase could have 1 million result pages, another, could have the same, yet, once you analyze your true competition, the way I show - which is the RIGHT way, one could have 800 as their true competition, while another could have only 40. Now which one out of those 1 million result pages will be easier to rank for? the first phrase or the other? Surely the latter? But they both look on the outside to the average Joe they have 1 million pages that could share the same bragging rights? On the contrary.

Sweetie don't come out to me with a explanation, I know more about SEO than 90% of the people on this forum - in fact I teach SEO. I know that people wont use the phrase they are using most of the time with double quotes. I know this.

And you're wrong, people will go beyond page 2, 3, 4, 5. I do it all the time. I find that there's better sites sitting on page 2, 3, 4, 5 than they're are on page 1.

Peace

I am a little late in this game but this really bothers me.
askloz, I dont like your tone of voice with this young lady throughout this thread. You might be an expert on SEO and do very well with it. But if I was out in public and you were treating a woman like this and talking to her in such a rude and flippant tone in my presence like you are doing to Angela on this Forum I would really confront you man to man !! .
I have had all I can take with your 'sweetie' this and 'sweetie' that crap !! And 'crikey girl you dont know nothing '.

Quit the chauvonistic , arrogant attitude buddy !! And have more respect for women. Didnt your mom and dad teach you how to treat a woman ?

[Andy Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Ryan6

Now why is that moron? Do you know what research is? It means finding out this information for free on forums, studying your competitors and seeing where they got the links from. Simple stuff, doesn't cost a dime and will take probably an hour or so.

Research doesn't have to be free. I happily pay for both Angela and Paul's link packets every month because it saves me so much time. In the same way as I don't write my own articles, make my own graphics or do any number of tasks that it's just not cost effective to do for myself.

As an example. Let's say it'd take me an hour to find 30 high PR links (that seems low but I'll go with it). Saying no to Angela's packet is saying my time is worth less than $5 an hour. I value my time a heck of a lot more than that so I happily ship Angela money. Same logic goes for Paul and any number of other service providers.