Make articles/posts to web 2.0 properties with a backlink to your main site

by Jensha
4 replies
  • SEO
  • |
How often does this work?

Is it the same if I do it manually or if I buy a serve for this?

I was reading this article "List Of Web 2.0 Properties and their corrisponding Page Rank"

And there from the top:

wordpress.com,pr9
livejournal.com,pr8
my.opera.com,pr8
tripod.com,pr8
tumblr.com,pr8
typepad.com,pr8
weebly.com,pr8
angelfire.com,pr7

etc.

Okay I know the list may not be as real as it looks but that's what I want to know is will it improve seo rankings for my site if I make a post with a backlink to my site for each of web 2.0 properties.

Or if this has been already talked here in the forum kindly share some link please because I haven't found any.
#articles or posts #backlink #main #make #properties #site #web
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

    I was reading this article "List Of Web 2.0 Properties and their corrisponding Page Rank"
    The article was incorrect. Those are not "their corresponding page ranks". Those are the page ranks of their own home pages. If your backlinks were going to be on their own home pages, then that might be helpful, but unfortunately they're not.

    It's similar to those lists one sees of "article directories arranged by page rank". Again, the page ranks quoted (e.g. "Ezine Articles = PR6") are the page ranks of those sites' own home pages, i.e. not where your article is published.

    Key concept: websites don't "have page ranks" - only pages have page ranks.

    Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

    will it improve seo rankings for my site if I make a post with a backlink to my site for each of web 2.0 properties.
    Probably not much. And not nearly as much as a backlink from a relevant site.

    Don't confuse "site relevance" (it matters to the value of a backlink) with "page relevance".

    However, this is unlikely to do you any harm, unless it looks to Google as though they're spammy, non-site-relevant backlinks and there are enough of them to look as if they might be software-made, or bought ("Fiverr backlinks"), in which case the Penguin updates might eat your site for breakfast. :p

    It's not something I'd dream of doing, myself.

    These threads might interest you ...

    Sites with spammy backlinks
    Calling out bad tactics
    ffiver seo recomendations?

    Of course, if you ask people selling backlinks, and software backlinking services, you'll get a totally different answer, as always. And sometimes even a range of name-calling insults about anyone whose opinion is a little more objective and reality-based than theirs, too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8383234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seekdefo
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      The article was incorrect. Those are not "their corresponding page ranks". Those are the page ranks of their own home pages. If your backlinks were going to be on their own home pages, then that might be helpful, but unfortunately they're not.

      It's similar to those lists one sees of "article directories arranged by page rank". Again, the page ranks quoted (e.g. "Ezine Articles = PR6") are the page ranks of those sites' own home pages, i.e. not where your article is published.

      Key concept: websites don't "have page ranks" - only pages have page ranks.



      Probably not much. And not nearly as much as a backlink from a relevant site.

      Don't confuse "site relevance" (it matters to the value of a backlink) with "page relevance".

      However, this is unlikely to do you any harm, unless it looks to Google as though they're spammy, non-site-relevant backlinks and there are enough of them to look as if they might be software-made, or bought ("Fiverr backlinks"), in which case the Penguin updates might eat your site for breakfast. :p

      It's not something I'd dream of doing, myself.

      These threads might interest you ...

      Sites with spammy backlinks
      Calling out bad tactics
      ffiver seo recomendations?

      Of course, if you ask people selling backlinks, and software backlinking services, you'll get a totally different answer, as always. And sometimes even a range of name-calling insults about anyone whose opinion is a little more objective and reality-based than theirs, too.
      Of course the web 2.0 sites' home page only has the PR but what about the domain authority. It is better to build a page on those sites rather than some un known un heard of site. Secondly if we build backlinks to these web 2.0s in time they gain a page rank. Every site does. However its going to be quite hard. I'd rather buy some top level domains with Good PR and link to my sites from the home page
      Signature

      Brevity is the soul of wit

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8385154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author andishm
    Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

    Okay I know the list may not be as real as it looks but that's what I want to know is will it improve seo rankings for my site if I make a post with a backlink to my site for each of web 2.0 properties.
    Yes you can create good quality content blog on web 2.0 blogs sites as well as can create tiered links to them so that later on in few weeks they start passing link juice to your main site.
    Signature
    Backup.Countryâ„¢ - Automated cloud backups for PC, Laptop & Servers
    Logon to https://backup.country/
    31% Off Coupon code: WORLDBACKUPDAY
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8389465].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    Yeah, there's better ways than others to create backlinks from Web 2.0 sites.

    Using a poster to "blast" your site with hundreds of links in a few days would be an example of how not to use web 2.0's for backlinks.

    WH's and article marketers may not like it, but I don't like article marketing - it doesn't mean that it can't work. It's a matter of opinion and application of the preferred methodology.
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8391259].message }}

Trending Topics