Someone does not like Angelas Backlinks

[MisterMunch]

I was registering my site on some of the old sites from Angelas package. Here is the terms of service from one of the sites:

"No Free Advertising - ATTENTION SPAMLINKERS

The Netscape Unofficial FAQ does not allow FREE advertising. Posting an ad-link (commercial) in our forums,in a signature or anywhere in your profile information, etc., is strictly prohibited and will lead to termination of account and removal of the post that includes the link. If you wish to advertise on The Netscape Unofficial FAQ or do not understand this policiy, please contact The Webmaster for more information and/or rates. Also note that any user violating this agreement and the account terminated will be listed in our forum for all to see. Your IP and domain will also be listed on several of the major BlackLists such as SpamCop and Spamhaus..


A violation of the above "No Free Advertising" will result in the forfeiture of your private data as well as posting your violation on our public forum.

HERE IS THE SCARY PART:

Also Note: If you purchased a 30-site list you got ripped off. Do not even THINK about attempting to post a link in our forum as you may be included in legal action."

It seems like what we are doing is not so accepted as we would have hoped. Still the method work, so I just have to move over to the next site.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Empty threats, but amusing (and old news, actually).

In the end, it's their site and they can do as they please with it and if they don't want advertising links in profiles, they are free to exclude them.

[Marhelper]

It is their site and they have the right to do and say as they wish. With all the black hatters that got the links, I guess they are not happy about it.

[Paul Myers]

They certainly have the right to set whatever policies they want for their site. No argument there.

That being said, they're not entirely ... ummm ... clear on the concept. Listing an IP address is pointless in a case like this, given how easy it would be to change, and how little definite correlation there usually is between a URL and the ISP account used to post it. They're just begging to get sued if they follow those public disclosure/accusation policies and it turns out that someone set another company up.

The most ridiculous is the assertion that you'll end up on a Spamhaus blacklist for doing this. Unless he's lost his mind and forgot to tell the world about it, Steve's made no such list available through his service.

If they don't want the links posted, don't post them there. But pay no attention to those kinds of silly threats.


Paul

[Jeremy Kelsall]

On the site in question though, don't mess around with it...

They are actually listing peoples names and websites and labeling them as spammers. I personally recognize a few Warriors names on the list

With all of these sites, If you go to them, make a profile and then hit them in a couple of weeks for the link you would probably be OK and not considered a "spammer" if you participate in the site for a bit...

[MisterMunch]

I did of cource not post my links on their page. If they don't like me I will leave them alone.

My hope is that Angela soon start a new service. Only 100 members allowed. The list might cost 50 bucks a month, but it will not be as saturated. Just an Idea, but I want to be part of that service. Angelas Premium (please PM me if you start this)

[Jeremy Kelsall]

lol

Originally Posted by MisterMunch

I did of cource not post my links on their page. If they don't like me I will leave them alone.

My hope is that Angela soon start a new service. Only 100 members allowed. The list might cost 50 bucks a month, but it will not be as saturated. Just an Idea, but I want to be part of that service. Angelas Premium (please PM me if you start this)

Careful....statements like this could start World War 3 - Trust me, I know first hand

[JJOrana]

It's not Angelas backlinks, it's the spammers backlinks. I don't think Angela is telling people to spam sites.

[MisterMunch]

I am pretty sure they are reffering to Angelas package.

I did not start this thread to talk down on Angela. She is a good girl with good intentions. Still those lists are a spammer's paradice.

I do not like to think that I spam these sites. I know the value of their websites is increasing for each member. Still those feedbacks from the sites i submit my links on make me wonder.

[GuerrillaIM]

Originally Posted by MisterMunch

I did of cource not post my links on their page. If they don't like me I will leave them alone.

My hope is that Angela soon start a new service. Only 100 members allowed. The list might cost 50 bucks a month, but it will not be as saturated. Just an Idea, but I want to be part of that service. Angelas Premium (please PM me if you start this)

You can find the sites yourself esily enough. Just learn how to use google search properly. Check out this really good page:

Google Search Operators - Google Guide

[Paul Myers]

I am pretty sure they are reffering to Angelas package.

Considering they mentioned her by name in the post on the issue, that's a pretty safe assumption.


Paul

[ExRat]

Hi,

It's not Angelas backlinks, it's the spammers backlinks. I don't think Angela is telling people to spam sites

So what is she telling them to do? Join the community, help out and get a backlink in the progress?

It seems like no-one is willing to say anything that might sound like it's suggesting that the backlinking system being sold isn't perfect.

Let's look at the different shades -

a) you create a unique (spun) article and place it on a major web 2.0 type site, that offers people the right to create a blog/article/hub. And you get a backlink or two. Most people are aware that if your article is too promotional it will most likely get removed, so it does have to offer some kind of value (or appear to).

These sites are not 'mom & pop' sites, they are major start ups with venture capital backing and reasonably large staff in place to monitor and protect the investment. Their business model is based upon offering someone a platform to display their content and they are aware that their customers would like something in return - a backlink.

b) the type of site discussed in the OP - it appears to be a small, unmonetised (voluntary) set up, that is there purely to help others. I presume that the links are being placed in a profile, not in a helpful post in the forum.

In my opinion, if you don't see any major ethical difference between these two methods of gaining backlinks, then you probably don't see any major ethical difference between robbing a bank, OR robbing a pensioner/child/charity. And I doubt whether you would have the inclination to do any member-moderation here, because presumably this forum is 'fair game' too.

There are many grey lines in business, that most of us can/have crossed easily when we don't think rationally about our actions, or act too hastily.

But every time this is mentioned here, there only seems to be one voice presenting one side and one opinion. The last thread I saw had some shameful responses towards a bloke who was simply desperate to stop the spammers on his site. Yes, his threats may have been laughable, but he was desperate - obviously.

I'm just pointing out that not everyone here is so desperate to secure backlinks that they cross the lines without stopping to think about it first, and sometimes even making a U-turn. If the people being spammed ever come here, I don't want them to think that every single person here doesn't give a damn about other people running legitimate websites, whether they are trying to make a living from it OR they are voluntary.

There are plenty of places out there where you can get links as long as you are willing to create a little unique content to put around it. These things have a habit of proving that 'what goes around, comes around.' Why do a dump in your own backyard, when people with deep pockets are creating huge places especially for this, as long as you apply a little polish to what you leave there?

I know the value of their websites is increasing for each member

That's highly debatable. Are the site owners thanking you for increasing the value of their site? Unlike most IMers, they're probably not interested in inflating their member numbers, probably because they offer a voluntary service.

[Ldimilo]

The issue isn't just with Angela and her link builder members. Bluefarts have been using forum profiles for years now. The idea is this. You post a link, ad or whatever in your profile. The only difference is they then inundate the profile page with 1,000's of low quality links and get the page itself ranked for terms like viagra.

Google will eventually figure this one out. I actually discussed this with one of the SEOMoz experts about 4 months back....

The bottom line is backlinking in profile pages will eventually be discounted.

And, I hate to say it but it is kind of spammy. After all, dropping a link just for your own benefit and NOT for the benefit of the community you are raiding really puts you in the same place that bluefart marketers are doing. The only difference is it isn't automated.

I am not hating on Angela's program though. I just think that we, as marketers are trying to side step the truth because it doesn't benefit us to recognize it.

[ExRat]

Hi Tina,

Angela says over and over to provide value to the site

I haven't seen Angela's product.

I presume you have seen it? Could you tell me what type of value she recommends offering? Doe she tell her buyers that they should join the community and make helpful posts there, for example?

I'm finding it hard to imagine how she would do this, other than just saying vaguely - 'make sure you add value to the sites.' How DO you add value, other than my suggestion above?

Also, why do they list her in the spammer's list? Presumably, Angela would have set an example by adding value herself?

[Ldimilo]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Tina,

I haven't seen Angela's product.

I presume you have seen it? Could you tell me what type of value she recommends offering? Doe she tell her buyers that they should join the community and make helpful posts there, for example?

I'm finding it hard to imagine how she would do this, other than just saying vaguely - 'make sure you add value to the sites.' How DO you add value, other than my suggestion above?

Also, why do they list her in the spammer's list? Presumably, Angela would have set an example by adding value herself?

You took the words right out of my mouth. I mean, let's say you use Ozzy's (osbourne) forum. How much VALUE could most of us provide to the forum, assuming that you don't like metal music?

The funny thing about forums is that they are typically tight niches that interest a very small segment of the population. Considering that there are normally 10-15 forums in there, you have to think that that is a lot of time adding VALUE for a profile link, right?

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

The problem isn't the backlink packet. The problem is with the people who are not doing things properly and are just trying to get a quick link. Angela says over and over to provide value to the site and not just post a quick link. Unfortunately, many are in too big a hurry to show some respect for the site owners.

Tina G

She may say that however Angela and Paul are running a WSO for their backlinking service, separate from the packet distribution, and it doesn't indicate that they're also contributing to the communities.

Any "value" most people would contribute would be the equivalent of the one-liners that are so popular on this forum. I'm sure those people tell themselves they're adding value here too.

I'm not bashing Angela and to some it's worth $5 to find one high PR site/month that they can contribute to, however that's not how the packets are promoted or being used.

[cashcow]

It kind of cracks me up that people are surprised that these other site owners take offense to the tons of links everyone is posting.

If you actually went to the sites and looked at the links, you wouldn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that they are spammy.

Imagine how you would feel if all of a sudden your nice lily white community site was bombarded with links to sites like buy-viagra-now.com and easy-fast-weight-loss-overnight.com?

And most people are just creating an account and dropping the links with no intention of contributing to the community - I mean really, who could contribute to all the sites? Who has time to go into 30 different sites each month and add value while all the while still visiting the past months 30 sites and those before that?

But what is really funny is that most of the people using these would probably be really shocked to realize that they are spammers. Yep, that's right, if you are going to these sites to quickly setup an account and drop your links then you, my friend, are a spammer.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no lily white angel and I like to get as many links as I can the quickest way possible. But I'm also under no illusion as to the fact that a lot of the methods are spammy and I am prepared for the consequences. Are you?

Lee

BTW - this is not directed at the OP in any way, it's just that I've been following the other similar thread and I just had to get this out. Sorry!

[Jeremy Kelsall]

I tried to bring up many of these points and got pretty much beat down for it lol

The thing about the links is this...If you are going to use them the way a majority of people use them, which is to add no value whatsoever, then you run the risk of having to admit that at least to a small degree that you are a spammer. I am guilty of this with many of my link building efforts, I have no problem admitting it.

The other problem is, there is simply to many people crashing the gates at once. 1000 new sign ups and links flying all over the place is bound to sound the alarms. Even on my high traffic sites, when I see an influx of an extra 500 or more visitors a day, I try to find out where they are coming from and I don't imagine that many of these site owners are any different.

[Ryan Shaw]

if this method is discounted by google; all of our work will be for nothing anyway; we should probably still to more white hat methods

[Steven Carl Kelly]

I think a decision on the continued use of these packets is something that some folks may have to face. Personally, I believe that it is easy and cheap enough to pay someone a couple of dollars to find unique places with good PR to place legitimate links and avoid the mad rush of packet subscribers.

[Tony X]

I think it's a combination of spammers (people giving away her packets on other sites) and her ever growing list of new subscribers.

If her and paul wants to do what's best for their list, I think it's time to re-evaluate what's going on. You know that people are giving your packets away for free.

And you know that you have a huge list of people wanting backlinks.

I'm sure with some masterminding and discussion, Angela and Paul can come up with a solution to this problem.

I don't think contributing a little bit and posting links later will help. Some of the webmasters are pissed at what's happening to their sites.

I admit, I do use her packets and they work great. It's just that at the end of the day, I'm spending time and money building backlinks to those sites, and they end up getting deleted within a few days.

So, it's becoming pointless to add the links in the first place. I think that's the major problem that people are having.

[ExRat]

Hi Tina,

The problem isn't the backlink packet. The problem is with the people who are not doing things properly and are just trying to get a quick link. Angela says over and over to provide value to the site and not just post a quick link. Unfortunately, many are in too big a hurry to show some respect for the site owners.

Based on what you said (above) I just read the salespage in the WSO.

I see absolutely nothing in there about respecting the sites, adding value, or staying white hat.

But I did see -

all you have to do is follow the simple instructions and your link is left on each site. It's a quick and easy process that you can do all at once, or you can leave one link every day each month.

You don't have to only get links from "related" sites. NOT ONE of the sites I used for my article's backlinks were related to the theme of the article. Not one.

Hi Jeremy,

I tried to bring up many of these points and got pretty much beat down for it lol

I'm unflinching and ready, armed with truth and logic. I'm no angel myself, but I call it how I see it. I actually kept quiet while the other threads have passed by, even though the attitudes displayed weren't particularly wholesome and in some cases, hypocritical - but if that kind of attitude is allowed to continue here endlessly, unchallenged, then something is very wrong.

It's one thing changing a few words in the forum (RE - bluefart), but when people are coming here and starting threads telling warriors to stop what they are doing because it is damaging their sites, and all they get is abuse and their thread deleted, then the least that can be done is to have a frank discussion about it, as opposed to everyone cowering in fear and acting like it's nothing to do with us.

I challenge anyone to go and look at the site in question, see the admin there who has been forced to make new threads highlighting the problem and naming and shaming, see his post count and join date, and then look at their posts in their forum where they are helping strangers who are having OS problems for nothing AND they're still being nice to people even when they are asking dumb questions and not providing the info already asked for - and then come back here and tell us that it's fine to go and spam the place when there are hundreds of other places available to get links, with the only downside being that you might have to do a little work.

They can't even justify it by saying that it saves time - if people learn to spin their articles a little and get some automation going on (that they might have to pay for (shudders)) they can happily bombard web 2.0 sites all day long AND they're not breaking the site's TOS - they want you to do it, as long as the content is readable and at least a little helpful (but that might take a little work).

[jasonl70]

I don't really see how having a link in ones profile harms the sites in question. It's not the same thing as posting one liners to get sig links posted. A lot of these webmasters don't even realize the point of the links - they think people are trying to get direct traffic via those links.

Before I hired this out, I did as Jeremy suggested - create the account, then come back a few weeks later to add my link to the profile. I'm now in the process of teaching a friend how to find these sites on his own, and paying him to do it all for me.

[ptone]

Funny that in the same thread on the site in question, the site admin offers a better way to get links...buy them from him. I am quoting from that thread:

Our advice is to pay for your links from a reputable and proven source, such as our link manager firm:

This, of course, is considered b l a c k h a t by Google.

I'm not saying this makes anything mentioned here right or wrong...I'm just sayin'.

[MisterMunch]

One truth is that the profile pages we make will not be in the face of the users of the site. It is like someone registered on this forum and never made a post.

We would not know about it.

The only problem with the hidden profile pages is the server issues, but that cant possibly count for much. Even if 10.000 people does it the data size would not be much to speak of. I mean the grapics are alreaddy there. We are only talking about a new colomn in a database.

[MisterMunch]

Originally Posted by ptone

Funny that in the same thread on the site in question, the site admin offers a better way to get links...buy them from him. I am quoting from that thread:
This, of course, is considered b l a c k h a t by Google.

I'm not saying this makes anything mentioned here right or wrong...I'm just sayin'.

Yes, it was a little funny to see TLA in the forum talking about "better ways to get linx". We all know how their reputation with Google is.

[Cash37]

Yeah that link list pretty much killed itself

[Paul Myers]

I didn't see the thread Roger is referring to, which may be good for some of the people in it. If someone comes in here asking folks not to abuse their sites, the proper response is simple: Stop doing whatever they've asked you not to do. I can promise you that anyone I see hassling such a person will not be pleased with the outcome.

The packets Angela sells are like many other tools. They can be used properly or as a source of abuse. If you use them in abusive ways, you're no different from the people who come here and mess with our discussions. And you deserve the same treatment.


Paul

[Adrian Cooper]

I have seen this sort of situation and behaviour countless times over the years.

Back link lists are all well and good, like blog networks and other ways of planting links, but people forget that Google index every site, and their algorithm is finally tuned for detecting behaviour that is not "normal". I read the Google patents.

With the best of intentions, there are very, very few people, who, when presented with a mouth watering package of back linking sites, can resist the "kid in a candy shop" situation and blast way too many links at their own site home page.

Google see that, track the links back to the origin, and see what is going on before often neutralising it the links and probably your own site in the process.

The only way to use say 30 backlinks - I have never seen Angela's package BTW - is to add one every two or three days max, pointing to different inner site pages, using different anchor texts profiles.

it is a highly complex and disciplined process.

I would personally be happy to pay for say 5 really high quality PR7 backlinks on the right sites, and would add them at the rate of one per month - if that.

I know Angela's intentions are honorable, and she provides a great service, but I think a radical re-think is required in terms of numbers of links and how they are managed.

Google are never tricked for long.

[ExRat]

Hi Jason,

I don't really see how having a link in ones profile harms the sites in question. It's not the same thing as posting one liners to get sig links posted. A lot of these webmasters don't even realize the point of the links - they think people are trying to get direct traffic via those links.

I realise that many people think like that, and I understand why to some extent, but you only have to put yourself in the shoes of the person to understand.

They HAVE to delete the links. If they don't delete the links, it quickly gets to a point where it is obvious to anyone who is looking that they are not removing spam links. Guess what happens next?

The guy gets up one morning to find that his site is down, because automated tools overloaded the server. Or he finds that his site is linking out to every kind of porn/hate/violence site you can think of.

So he has two choices - either delete every bit of spam, or get overwhelmed.

Surely, when you look at it that way, it's clearly obvious why he has to delete it, and obvious why it's a complete and utter nightmare for someone who would prefer to spend his time doing what he's best at - helping people solve their PC problems for free.

Hey I'm a marketer too. But because I'm a marketer and because I also own websites I have this ability that seems to evade many marketers in here, which is to see things from the other person's point of view.

Also, as I've already touched upon, because I'm a marketer it seems wise to me to take the path of least resistance that is right in front of all of our noses - Web 2.0 + some content.

[SaSeoPete]

Did anyone get that email from Angela earlier today? The whole process is now automated.

"So after 12 months of constant improvement, how can I make the links even better... Well actually, I haven't. My partner Francis Murray has. He's taken my link packets, injected them with steroids and strapped rocket boosters to the sides. That's right, he's automated them. Those of you who have asked me about this, it's here.
It takes people around 3-8 hours on average to complete a 30 backlink packet (and worth every minute) but using Francis' technique you can be done in an hour to an hour and a half.
You have to see it to believe it, just watch the video...
http://www.automateangelaslinks.com/
*Note:I removed the affiliate link*



Let me know what you think, Pete"


So what happens if everyone starts using that service now?

[Matt Maiden]

I've often wondered about the thin digital line between "providing content" and "spamming" when it comes to EzineArticles and other directories that encourage 3000 articles on the same subject.

I realize that Ezine articles is getting something (Google cash) for the many articles but how different is it when it comes to "contributing" when you are talking about writing 10 articles a day on the same damn thing?

Many social site owners get their "payoff" from having thousands and millions of "members" and are willing to let anyone sign up as long as they, the "members" don't do anything to harm the good name of the parent site.

The exchange is the allowing of "members" to get their own "payoff" (a link).

Are they, the social media moguls like Seth so naive to think that there really are 3 billion people in the world that want or need to express themselves through writing "lenses", blogs, articles, and tweets?

No. At the core there is this unspoken knowledge that over half of the activity on the Internet is designed to sell sh*t.

Maybe after Google's site gets big enough off of the backs of the little entrepreneurs that they feel they don't need us anymore so they keep changing the rules.

Maybe Seth and Chris Brogan have become gentrified sophisticates to the point that they no longer want to associate with us lowly "entrepreneurs" any longer but that does not alter the fact that they are also paying their bills from the web.

So, maybe in the TOS's the definition of "contribution" should be laid out and the levels of said "contribution" and expectations should be explained better and more thoroughly.

Maybe they should state upfront that they are only accepting poets and teenagers full of angst.

[Adrian Cooper]

Originally Posted by SaSeoPete

It takes people around 3-8 hours on average to complete a 30 backlink packet (and worth every minute) but using Francis' technique you can be done in an hour to an hour and a half.
You have to see it to believe it, just watch the video...

And probably less than that to run the risk of killing the site or getting it sandboxed.

Look at it from Google's perspective - what are the odds of any random site receiving 30 really high PR backlinks in the space of an hour and a half under normal Internet conditions?

Infintesimally small at best.

And, as I said before, they will also track the links from the origin to all target sites and deal with both ends.

Natural, high PR linking, under normal circumstances, an authority site "voting" for a page on a smaller site, may happen once every few weeks or months.

You people have got to realise that Google have thousands of PhD software engineers constantly working on that algorithm. I saw "natural linking" in a patent about 7 years ago - it is absolutely fundamental.

In actual fact, one really good PR 7+ backlink to an inner page, with good inner-linking, will do vastly more good than hitting the home page with any number of links of any PR.

I think Angela should definitely carry on, but restrict sales to one link per month for an annual fee or whatever.

Otherwise everyone loses because Google just crank up the algorithm again to start discounting links from forums, blog comments and so on.

[Adrian Cooper]

Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden

I've often wondered about the thin digital line between "providing content" and "spamming" when it comes to EzineArticles and other directories that encourage 3000 articles on the same subject.

EZA value is really in the direct traffic.

Google will kill the backlink benefit sooner or later - Cutts was talking about it a couple of years ago - or article directories in general.

Google also have a policy of allowing sites to police themselves for spam etc.

A couple of years back one of the best kept secrets was Wikipedia, but as soon as the mass IM crowd found out, it was dead in weeks.

[ExRat]

Hi Matthew,

Many of your points made EG -

No. At the core there is this unspoken knowledge that over half of the activity on the Internet is designed to sell sh*t.

...touch upon the reasons why any self respecting link-builder should be drawn towards web 2.0.

When certain companies tell us not to scrape or to sell links or we will have our businesses 'punished', when their business are built upon those two things, and then they also give us some free hosting for as many blogs as we like....it makes the ethical dilemmas a little easier to chew over, hence removing the need to target the 'little guy' for our backlinks.

[Matt Maiden]

Roger,

As far as link building I honestly think that the best thing to do for your business is to write quality content for your site first. Develop a site and then the people with the "good" links will not have a problem linking to you.

Makes it easier than running around looking for big sites to link to. It makes better sense to me too considering the fact that these sites can decide at any time to remove your links.

I guess my rant is about these sites that are set up to make money but act like they are altruistic as soon as somebody else finds a way to hitch a ride.

As the owner, they have the right to make whatever rules they want. They have the right to refuse service to anyone.

But I don't like the hypocrites that go after entrepreneurs like we are evil bastards destroying the peaceful serenity of the Internet.

Especially when half of it was built off of our backs.

[Lisa Gergets]

Originally Posted by ExRat

There are plenty of places out there where you can get links as long as you are willing to create a little unique content to put around it. These things have a habit of proving that 'what goes around, comes around.' Why do a dump in your own backyard, when people with deep pockets are creating huge places especially for this, as long as you apply a little polish to what you leave there?

EXACTLY. You're there anyways, how hard is it to add a little relevant content? Another 2 minutes? Add that to 30 backlink sites and you've got an extra hour of work. What's that to us, who work 12 hour days anyways?

[ExRat]

Hi Tina,

I thought the intention was to use the packets to help find places to develop as true niche members, not simply as a link getting exercise. I signed up figuring on only being able to use a small percentage of the sites - the ones that fit in with the niches I'm developing.

If everyone were like you, the world would be a much sweeter place. I didn't enjoy picking on you to make my point, but it was a 'mercy-picking' - it needed to be done

Hi Matthew,

But I don't like the hypocrites that go after entrepreneurs like we are evil bastards destroying the peaceful serenity of the Internet.

Especially when half of it was built off of our backs

Half of it? You're being generous. I've just been having a similar conversation in another thread about the Squid regarding some advice I gave in here when it was just taking off. The point being - if someone is going to use them for some self-benefit - make sure you can afford to lose it in one fell swoop and don't whinge when you do - particularly if you were warned about it right at the start, but got sucked into the hype.

If ysomeone can't afford to lose the work, then they should do what you advised above and create something remarkable that attracts natural links. Leo (post #16) made a great post on his blog about 'remarkable content' a while back, and most of his posts demonstrate the concept.

[Matt Maiden]

Originally Posted by ExRat

- if someone is going to use them for some self-benefit - make sure you can afford to lose it in one fell swoop and don't whinge when you do - particularly if you were warned you about it right at the start, but got sucked into the hype.

Exactly.

We all know, or should that business on the Internet is a symbiotic relationship that can change at any time.

Don't come in here crying that "life isn't fair" when it does.

A stable business requires that you control most of the elements that determine your profit and to me, building a business on Google's ranking and shotgun link building is not that stable.

So many people come in here complaining that they are losing money because Google changed it's ways of doing things.

But if you're going to build a house of cards don't do it in Chicago.

[kindsvater]

If that website thought they had problems before, now that they've unwittingly turned themselves into a BIack Hatters paradise they're really going to have problems.

Imagine: signing-up as your competitor and linking to their domain, so that they end-up on a defamatory blacklist.

That is going to happen more than you can imagine.

Since the blacklist is created by the website, and not someone else, their immunities for liability just disappeared.

[jasonl70]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Jason,

I realise that many people think like that, and I understand why to some extent, but you only have to put yourself in the shoes of the person to understand.

They HAVE to delete the links. If they don't delete the links, it quickly gets to a point where it is obvious to anyone who is looking that they are not removing spam links. Guess what happens next?

The guy gets up one morning to find that his site is down, because automated tools overloaded the server. Or he finds that his site is linking out to every kind of porn/hate/violence site you can think of.

So he has two choices - either delete every bit of spam, or get overwhelmed.

Surely, when you look at it that way, it's clearly obvious why he has to delete it, and obvious why it's a complete and utter nightmare for someone who would prefer to spend his time doing what he's best at - helping people solve their PC problems for free.

Hey I'm a marketer too. But because I'm a marketer and because I also own websites I have this ability that seems to evade many marketers in here, which is to see things from the other person's point of view.

Also, as I've already touched upon, because I'm a marketer it seems wise to me to take the path of least resistance that is right in front of all of our noses - Web 2.0 + some content.

You have a point - but do they actually monitor all the profile links? And how do they determine 'intent' (after all, they do allow profile links)?

Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper

what are the odds of any random site receiving 30 really high PR backlinks in the space of an hour and a half under normal Internet conditions?

I've been doing SEO for many years - it can take google days/weeks/months to find the links (if they even DO) - they have no idea WHEN the links first showed up, let alone if they were within hours of each other. Plus, it really is not uncommon to get a bunch of links in a short period of time. Think of blogs, hot news topics, etc..

Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper

EZA value is really in the direct traffic.

Google will kill the backlink benefit sooner or later - Cutts was talking about it a couple of years ago - or article directories in general.

Google also have a policy of allowing sites to police themselves for spam etc.

The concept of Backlinks is the foundation that google built itself upon.

They may kill off links from known article directories, but if they discount all backlinks that leaves them with only onpage factors - which are 100% controllable and manipulated by the webmaster.

Offpage factors by their very nature are more difficult to manipulate compared to onpage factors, so I can't see them ever going away.

[skydivedad]

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

The problem isn't the backlink packet. The problem is with the people who are not doing things properly and are just trying to get a quick link. Angela says over and over to provide value to the site and not just post a quick link. Unfortunately, many are in too big a hurry to show some respect for the site owners.

Tina G

I'm attempting to undestand how that can be done now that Angela and Paul are endorsing and selling Francis Murray's automation product for Angela's monthly backlink package.

"My partner Francis Murray has. He's taken my link packets, injected them with steroids and strapped rocket boosters to the sides. That's right, he's automated them. Those of you who have asked me about this, it's here. It takes people around 3-8 hours on average to complete a 30 backlink packet (and worth every minute) but using Francis' technique you can be done in an hour to an hour and a half."


Ok, any suggestions on how to add "value" to 30 sites in 90 minutes I'd like to hear about it. Heck if you can accomplish that in 3-8 hours I'd like to hire you.


I've said it here before and I'll repeat it again. "Don't use these techniques on domains you have long term plans for..." Like others in this thread I can't see any blame with these site owners.

[Carl Pruitt]

Originally Posted by MisterMunch

This was not at all intended to attac Angela (as I have stated earlier).

This whole thread started because I read through the TOS on one site in her package and found a direct reference to the warrior forums members that uses the package in the TOS calling us Spamlinkers and that we had been scammed (and we are not). They also threatned to lawyer us if we posted any links.

I thought it was scary and a little bit funny at the same time. Wanted to share it.

It turned out that this was a discussion that we needed to have.

I found it amusing that in the same post, that guy is saying "clickbank is a scam" as if Clickbank is a product. There are also several article directories being named as spam domains in his list when the offending posters were linking to their articles on those domains. At any rate, as has been said before, everyone should just move on from places they're not wanted.

I have two immediate thoughts about this discussion.

The first is that different people seem to start new threads about this exact same issue - even one that already included the above mentioned spammers list - every day as if it is new information. I guess I need to just stop reading them!

The second is that any type of link building of this sort falls into a gray area. It definitely isn't completely natural link building where other people are noticing your work and linking to it, but it can be used for good or evil depending on the person implementing the technique. To paraphrase what one popular promoter of dominating the web 2.0 conversation constantly reminds his students, if you are going to try to take advantage of the gray area you can't whine about losing a few links or having a few lenses locked or blogs taken down or bookmarking accounts closed. It happens. You just move on to the next one. Anyone who isn't ready to deal with that should use other methods.

[Tom Brite]

Very old news!

However there is alot of 'talk' about angelas backlinks not being anything like they use to be!

In fact i know that alot of people have left the backlink packs recently due to all the problems, and alot are moving to finding their own backlinks instead.

Tom Brite

[Pat Jackson]

Originally Posted by skydivedad

and what does that have to do with my comment? Where did I say backlinks are bad? For that matter link dropping is a marketing technique link spamming is as well but when you find your domain in the sandbox don't cry about it. If you're going to use these techniques do it with domains you don't mind losing. Pretty simple.

Oh, so I guess I'll just outsource someone to send these links to all of my competitors sites and then I'll reign supreme throughout the SERPS..

[Marhelper]

I am waiting for Angela to show up ...

[MisterMunch]

Originally Posted by Pat Jackson

Oh, so I guess I'll just outsource someone to send these links to all of my competitors sites and then I'll reign supreme throughout the SERPS..

I can smell a sence of irony there, but that would be stupid.

Threat them a nice cheap 2000 directory listing package instead.

[adamv]

Originally Posted by Marhelper

I am waiting for Angela to show up ...

I wouldn't hold my breath. There was another thread along the same line as this one that started out as an experiment that a newbie was doing using Angela's backlinks which then cascaded out of control into a pretty heated debate.

I have not seen her post in that thread for a couple of days and I'm not really expecting her to come into this one and argue the same points. I suppose it could happen though.

[Pat Jackson]

Originally Posted by MisterMunch

I can smell a sence of irony there, but that would be stupid.

Threat them a nice cheap 2000 directory listing package instead.

I thought the "" was a good indication that I was being sarcastic. To suggest that you're going to "lose" your domains by obtaining these types of backlinks from high PR sites is ridiculous.

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by jasonl70

I don't really see how having a link in ones profile harms the sites in question. It's not the same thing as posting one liners to get sig links posted. A lot of these webmasters don't even realize the point of the links - they think people are trying to get direct traffic via those links.

Some of the sites, including the one where the angry owner posted here, have an site activity log that displays on the front page of their site. At the time the site owner posted here the majority of the "activity" was people signing up for the site and all the profiles I looked at had nothing but links. I'm not sure it matters but in this case the owner and users were directly affected.