WEB 2.0 - Backlinks ?

by maryz
32 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hello,

Can someone please advice me after how many posts give a backlink again to my money site ?

I have some WEB 2.0 sites. I already posted 5 unique articles to each WEB 2.0 and I did not place backlinks yet. I think that is time to place backlinks to each WEB 2.0 on my next posts, but because I will continue to post to all WEB 2.0, I would like to know if it is a good idea to place backlink to each post from now on, or every 2 or 3 posts ?

Thanks in advance
#backlinks #web
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Alwell
    I think I read an Alex Becker article once that said it's only worth creating 3ish backlinks per web 2.0. After that it doesn't carry much power.

    If that is true, then you are better of creating 1 post with a few backlinks and then moving on to a different web 2.0 property.

    That is assuming you are just trying to create backlink juice back to your main site.
    Signature
    Free Video Reveals My 7-Step Plan To Grow Your Audience
    & Create A Hyper-Engaged Email List For Your Affiliate Marketing Business!

    https://tipsfromtim.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9501132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnnyPlan
    Creating backlinks from A to B to C (with C being your money site) is the best way to get flagged by Google for artificial backlinks. If you're actually using linkwheels and artificial backlinking still, post Penguin, you will have to be smart about it and mix up your backlinks. Using newly created 2.0 pages and thinking they will actually get you noticed by Google is not a good strategy. There are veteran 2.0, Tumblr/Google pages where you can create high quality comments that would serve your purpose better.

    And since they are already indexed and established, the backlinks are not so suspicious or likely to get you or your site(s) flagged for spam.

    I'm not talking about scraping 1000 sites from search and feeding them into your software to do this either. All this commenting work has to be done manually. And, you have to use quality comments or you'll get flagged as spam by the site owner and anything you're trying to accomplish will be in vain.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9501631].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author anwar001
      Originally Posted by JohnnyPlan View Post

      Creating backlinks from A to B to C (with C being your money site) is the best way to get flagged by Google for artificial backlinks. If you're actually using linkwheels and artificial backlinking still, post Penguin, you will have to be smart about it and mix up your backlinks. Using newly created 2.0 pages and thinking they will actually get you noticed by Google is not a good strategy. There are veteran 2.0, Tumblr/Google pages where you can create high quality comments that would serve your purpose better.

      And since they are already indexed and established, the backlinks are not so suspicious or likely to get you or your site(s) flagged for spam.

      I'm not talking about scraping 1000 sites from search and feeding them into your software to do this either. All this commenting work has to be done manually. And, you have to use quality comments or you'll get flagged as spam by the site owner and anything you're trying to accomplish will be in vain.
      This is solid advice. Being smart and doing things manually is the best way to get good SEO results without raising suspicious flags.
      Signature
      Get Hundreds of Super Targeted Traffic in Any Niche from Facebook - 3 Step Organic FB Marketing

      25 Guidelines For Massive Affiliate Success - Whether you are a beginner or an expert, read these principles and refer back to them many times
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author himanuzo
    About web 2.0 link, googling Matthew Woodward. Pyramid model is recommended for it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9501981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author safayeet
    obviously you will get backlink from web.2.0 sites....but you will not get instant backlink from web 2.0 sites...to get backlink from such site you have to wait....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502013].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Pdomain
    Banned
    Web 2.0 sites are also a good source of getting high quality backlinks...... but it depends on the authority of your web 2.0 properties...

    The higher ranking your web 2.0 site has in Google, the more benefit you get from the backlinks...

    Means treat your web 2.0 site like your money site, create quality content, optimize from every angle to give higher ranking..... then get the benefit of quality backlinks...

    It also depends how naturally you are linking your money site to a web 2.0 site...... getting multiple links from one web 2.0 sites is permitted, but they shouldn't be too many, and they should look natural enough...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502071].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    First, let me say that I like web 2.0's

    Second, let me ask - why go through all the effort of building a quality Web 2.0 when you can build your our own mini link network?

    Just asking, don't kill me. Is it cost? Cause if your going to go through all the work, at least you own the link network...
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502247].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      First, let me say that I like web 2.0's

      Second, let me ask - why go through all the effort of building a quality Web 2.0 when you can build your our own mini link network?

      Just asking, don't kill me. Is it cost? Cause if your going to go through all the work, at least you own the link network...
      Totally agree. I'll buy a brand new domain and set it up as a network site before I will mess around with a 2.0 site.
      Signature

      For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502253].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        Totally agree. I'll buy a brand new domain and set it up as a network site before I will mess around with a 2.0 site.
        I've actually started toying with that a few months ago TBH. While strong, aged domains will always be the core... I was just curious what a set of tiny, new laser focused niche sites might do for me but simply in an "add on" capacity.

        Of course, being new domains they get some light link building done to them. Nothing worth writing home about.
        Signature
        Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
        http://www.godoveryou.com/
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502328].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

          I've actually started toying with that a few months ago TBH. While strong, aged domains will always be the core... I was just curious what a set of tiny, new laser focused niche sites might do for me but simply in an "add on" capacity.

          Of course, being new domains they get some light link building done to them. Nothing worth writing home about.
          I have been playing with the idea for about a year now. Certainly not going to rank you for something like "car insurance" on its own, but I have seen some pretty good results from it.

          I started looking into it back last summer when Cutts was suggesting Google was going to target tiered linking. I figured the easiest way for them to do that successfully was to target 2.0 sites like they did with the article directories. I was looking for an alternative, and I figured why not create a bunch of sites of my own? They are basically PR 0 sites just like new 2.0 pages, but I can make them tightly themed instead.

          It certainly is more expensive than 2.0 sites at about $20-40 per year per site, which will scare most IM'ers off, but everything is under my control.
          Signature

          For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502420].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dr los3
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        Totally agree. I'll buy a brand new domain and set it up as a network site before I will mess around with a 2.0 site.
        What do you mean 'network site' is that equivalent to a PBN?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503138].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by Dr los3 View Post

          What do you mean 'network site' is that equivalent to a PBN?
          I setup private networks (PNs), not public blog networks (PBNs).
          Signature

          For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503150].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            I setup private networks (PNs), not public blog networks (PBNs).
            Exactly. A max away from "blogs" is not a bad thing, by any stretch of the imagination.

            Surprising to hear you've been contacted by former site owners though from above. I haven't been yet and quite honestly didn't think that they would since they basically left the site to die anyways. I'm still going to do it and will handle that on a case-by-case basis unless it becomes a god damn epidemic.
            Signature
            Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
            http://www.godoveryou.com/
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503173].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            I setup private networks (PNs), not public blog networks (PBNs).
            I've always considered the B to mean Backlink. Maybe I've been doing it wrong, lol?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503214].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              I've always considered the B to mean Backlink. Maybe I've been doing it wrong, lol?
              I've always known it as Blog?
              Signature
              Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
              http://www.godoveryou.com/
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503244].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Banned
                Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

                I've always known it as Blog?
                I don't understand why anyone would limit their own links strictly to blogs. Doesn't make sense.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9504797].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author danparks
                  Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                  I don't understand why anyone would limit their own links strictly to blogs. Doesn't make sense.
                  I agree with that, and I like your Private Backlink Network name better. But I think historically the B has been for "blog" and the name just stuck. But yeah, why make every PBN domain a blog? Mix it up and have some domains look like something other than a blog (even if you use WordPress or some other CMS, a site doesn't have to be set up as just a blog of articles).
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9504810].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author yukon
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by danparks View Post

                    I agree with that, and I like your Private Backlink Network name better. But I think historically the B has been for "blog" and the name just stuck. But yeah, why make every PBN domain a blog? Mix it up and have some domains look like something other than a blog (even if you use WordPress or some other CMS, a site doesn't have to be set up as just a blog of articles).
                    Really I haven't gave the B in PBN much thought before this thread. I do have blogs for sites but I don't actually blog (articles), I only use them for a CMS (legal download sites & ecommerce). I even have a few categories with hand coded HTML pages on those same CMS sites for doing different things related to SEO. I'm not preaching one is better than the other (CMS vs HTML), I use whatever I need at the time of building the site/s.

                    I do some database programming with VB.net & MySQL. I had an idea about building a Windows app. that would build HTML pages offline, optimize the internal pages/links (fill in the blank text boxes), sort the pages into old school tree based categories, store all those pages offline into a database for easy backup/editing.

                    Maybe even add FTP for uploading webpages to a web host or even entire semi-automated HTML sites built offline uploaded with the click of a button.

                    The idea is basically a custom CMS without the typical CMS code (ex: Wordpress) showing up in the live webpage source code. The live webpage source code would be clean/simple HTML, no usual CMS fluff bloating a webpage. The HTML Win. app. site structure would be the same structure as a treeview which would make it very easy to look at & understand how the site would be structured.

                    That's a lot of work building a Windows app. like that but it's mainly just time consuming stuff. I have no idea If I'll ever get around to building/finishing the app. but it's something I've been thinking about for a while. I think the automatic site backup offline alone would be nice to have. The automatic optimized internal links would also be useful. Too many ideas, lol...
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9504930].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
                  Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                  I don't understand why anyone would limit their own links strictly to blogs. Doesn't make sense.
                  I agree with you, but historically that's not how it has been done. Blogs are easy particularly if you are selling links as you could distribute the posts to all of the blogs from one hub.

                  That having been said, if it's a truly private network little snipper HTML template sites are almost as easy. Then of course there's the army of other CMS'es out there for bookmarking, forums, etc.

                  Maybe even add FTP for uploading webpages to a web host or even entire semi-automated HTML sites built offline uploaded with the click of a button.
                  Shhh, don't give away everything. But yes... 'some of us' do that as well with scripts already built to do just that. There's things like ARGO, RedButton or SM.

                  Defintely not a 1-1 match for what you are talking about overall.... but... they get the job done.
                  Signature
                  Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
                  http://www.godoveryou.com/
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9504949].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author yukon
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

                    I agree with you, but historically that's not how it has been done. Blogs are easy particularly if you are selling links as you could distribute the posts to all of the blogs from one hub.
                    I see what your saying about the link sellers. It's the whole links rolling off the front page thing going on there.







                    Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

                    Shhh, don't give away everything. But yes... 'some of us' do that as well with scripts already built to do just that. There's things like ARGO, RedButton or SM.

                    Defintely not a 1-1 match for what you are talking about overall.... but... they get the job done.


                    So you're already doing something similar?

                    If you don't mind, PM those links (ARGO, RedButton, SM), I wouldn't mind checking out what they do, features/options, etc... for comparison & ideas.

                    With that Win app I'm not targeting grey/black/white hat, I'm talking more of creating a CMS without actually having a CMS online (convenience of a CMS) with the end result online being plain HTML pages. It's up to the end user how they used the software, just like anything else software related.

                    The downfall of HTML is it's slow & cumbersome, but If you think about a typical webpage the same template is used over & over for each individual site, so really all anyone is doing is filling in content in the same area of the page/template, over & over... on each page of the site. The whole thing is repetitive, which means it can be streamlined with software. Even internal links can be automatically optimized based on whatever category a webpage is located.

                    Going way off topic on the 2.0. Still link related.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9505078].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
                Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                I've always considered the B to mean Backlink. Maybe I've been doing it wrong, lol?
                Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

                I've always known it as Blog?
                Nah PBN stands for

                Profoundly Bad Network



                Despite being off topic, it is really nice to read a thread that I might learn something from.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9505904].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author danparks
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        Totally agree. I'll buy a brand new domain and set it up as a network site before I will mess around with a 2.0 site.
        Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

        I've actually started toying with that a few months ago TBH. While strong, aged domains will always be the core... I was just curious what a set of tiny, new laser focused niche sites might do for me but simply in an "add on" capacity.

        Of course, being new domains they get some light link building done to them. Nothing worth writing home about.
        I've been doing something similar for a while now. I used to have one big, monolithic PBN that I would use for any keywords - just slap an article related to the client's niche and put in a contextual link to his site. I'd have one PBN site that covered a variety of topics. Worked pretty good - before. Google has always said relevancy matters, but they obviously weren't real good at determining relevancy (if they had been good at it, the above approach would never have worked). I think they're getting much better at figuring out relevancy, and I assume they'll only get better and better over time. Now I've broken up my one PBN into several, with each being niche-specific.

        I never bought new domains as part of my PBN. Now I do. I'll pick out a good relevant (but not EMD) domain name. I'll make the whole site relevant to one niche (not just an article, or a page, but the whole site). I have several domains I've bought in the past cheap, that are PR2/PR3 home page, but have really funky domain names (like (made up example) PlumbersConference2011.com) that wouldn't make sense to try to force into a site about a particular niche. I use these to send a few backlinks to the fresh, new PBN domains. Not an amazing number of backlinks, just a few to give the new domain a little juice. I think that's worth more than throwing hundreds or thousands of automated, PR0 links at this tier. I know some people will say that's a waste, and I should use those domains as tier 1 and send the links directly to the money site instead of "wasting" them on sending links to tier 1 sites, but I think it's a sound plan. I don't have any tests and can't offer any proof that this is the "correct" way to do SEO 2014, but I track hundreds of keywords on dozens of domains, and it seems to be working pretty well for me, so I'm sticking with the plan until I personally see other (poor) results.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9504792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jinx1221
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      First, let me say that I like web 2.0's

      Second, let me ask - why go through all the effort of building a quality Web 2.0 when you can build your our own mini link network?

      Just asking, don't kill me. Is it cost? Cause if your going to go through all the work, at least you own the link network...
      You could use a software to help make quality Web 2.0's and PBN networks easier to build and map.

      Just sayin'
      Signature

      The Ultimate Private Network Management,
      Visualization and Automation Tool




      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9508146].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    I've never understood most link builders on this forum don't rank their backlink source pages for anything, it always looked like a complete waste to me.

    Why bother ranking 1 page for a keyword when 2 or 3 ranked pages will bring in more traffic with very little extra work.

    What I do is funnel all the traffic back to a single sales page on one of the domains targeting the keyword/s. That gets me multiple domains pumping traffic into a single sales page.

    I do remember a few guys around here flaming me for sticking to a single niche (for the most part) over the past few years. What's funny is my ranked domain network pages are always rock solid in the SERPs. Once you have a single authority site setup, the network sites will usually trail in the SERPs for same/similar keywords with a few optimized self hosted links/pages.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dbk03
    It all depends on which tier are you creating tese web 2.0's . If it's tier 1, I would suggest to post 1-2 backlinks in a web 2.0 roperty which has more than 20 articles posted on it. On tier 1, your scope is to make quality. and a web 2.0 property with less than 10-20 articles cannot be considered quality.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502519].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    It certainly is more expensive than 2.0 sites at about $20-40 per year per site, which will scare most IM'ers off, but everything is under my control.
    I hear ya. I'm not sure how you calculate cost but mine price out to be in that range normally. I typically won't manually write the content so it can be a bit pricer on some domains, but only because I vary domain size throughout the network.

    And like you said, you control it - which was the big deal for me. I began to move more towards the model of "Owning your links" and these seemed a good way to go about it. I don't just use new domains of course, I'll also snatch up some $5-$11 closeouts if it is niche relevant and the backlink profile isn't spam. That's of course, not to say the backlink profile is good/strong either... just not spam.

    I like using the closeouts because then I can just download the html from waybackmachine's last cache (or last where the site was present) and then pop a link into a relevant page here or there.

    It ends up costing about the same as a new domain in the end. I spend a little more on the auction of course (and GD's privacy cost) but I save on content creation costs and it's literally a 5 minute process to put the domain up.

    In rare cases I'll create a new page on those closeout domains, but it's really not common. Normally since I'm only looking at niche relevant domains in them I can put a link in just about anywhere and it will fit acceptably.

    But in the end, I own the link.

    *And like I said, these are completely supplemental to the primary network sites.
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9502945].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      I hear ya. I'm not sure how you calculate cost but mine price out to be in that range normally. I typically won't manually write the content so it can be a bit pricer on some domains, but only because I vary domain size throughout the network.
      I price it out based on just domain renewals, privacy, and hosting costs. Including initial setup, there is probably another $20-50 in there. I farm out my writing costs and have found a few people that write pretty well for $4/article and happen to have practical business experience in a few of my niches (which makes their writing even better). I vary the size of them and throw anywhere from 5-12 articles on most. Another $5 to Fiverr for a custom header.

      After that though it is just renewal and hosting going forward.

      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      And like you said, you control it - which was the big deal for me. I began to move more towards the model of "Owning your links" and these seemed a good way to go about it. I don't just use new domains of course, I'll also snatch up some $5-$11 closeouts if it is niche relevant and the backlink profile isn't spam. That's of course, not to say the backlink profile is good/strong either... just not spam.
      I have been digging in the bargain bin a little more myself. Same thing too, niche relevant sites.

      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      I like using the closeouts because then I can just download the html from waybackmachine's last cache (or last where the site was present) and then pop a link into a relevant page here or there.

      It ends up costing about the same as a new domain in the end. I spend a little more on the auction of course (and GD's privacy cost) but I save on content creation costs and it's literally a 5 minute process to put the domain up.
      I was doing that a bit. I got contacted by a few of the former site owners about using their material. Now I put all original content on them.

      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      But in the end, I own the link.
      Best part about them.

      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      *And like I said, these are completely supplemental to the primary network sites.
      If you believe in the whole anchor text diversity and branded URL sort of thing, these are the best links to use for that since they are not carrying a ton of weight anyhow.
      Signature

      For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nadavs
    Mike, I didn't understand it from your post - do you use completely new domains or expired domains with good history?

    I've been thinking about this method as well (new domains) for good long tail keywords I have, and I would like to know if it's possible. I can also get very good content at $4/article.

    Thanks,
    nadavs
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9503797].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author arpon01
    If your articles are unique, has the best quality and properly optimized for SEO then you must get backlinks from them in few days. As far as i know Google update the backlinks in 15 days.

    One more thing how many articles you posting is not the factor. The factor is the quality and SEO optimized article. I am saying this from my experience.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9504040].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kishoreseo
    Its nor recommend to place link with just 5 articles, better post at least 25 to 30 quality articles and then give only one or two links to your money site. (Don't try to give link for the targeted keyword...It should should look like natural) and also give links to the universal sites like Wikipedia or top rated sites which looks like natural linking.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9506476].message }}

Trending Topics