Someone does not like Angelas Backlinks

212 replies
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.
#angelas #backlinks
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature
    Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
    FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990698].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990725].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 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...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990746].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990756].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
      lol

      Originally Posted by MisterMunch View Post

      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
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990760].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
      Originally Posted by MisterMunch View Post

      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
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990857].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JJOrana
    It's not Angelas backlinks, it's the spammers backlinks. I don't think Angela is telling people to spam sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990784].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 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
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990884].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 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.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990890].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990906].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 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?
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990913].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            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?
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990927].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
          Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

          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.
          Signature
          "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
          Tom Peters

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990944].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author 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.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990960].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author 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.
              Signature

              Christ Follower...

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990990].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author 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).
              Signature


              Roger Davis

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991015].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
          Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

          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.
          Signature

          Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991490].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
            Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post

            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.. :rolleyes:
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991564].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MisterMunch
              Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

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

              Threat them a nice cheap 2000 directory listing package instead.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991574].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
                Originally Posted by MisterMunch View Post

                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 ":rolleyes:" 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.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991596].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
                  Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

                  I thought the ":rolleyes:" 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.

                  The only thing "ridiculous" is your belief that you can't lose a domain by practicing link spamming. Link spamming can not be practiced with impunity as far as the search engines are concerned. You can believe they don't have the technology, the will or whatever it is you think about their ability to catch you at it. It's your domain do what you want with it and I'll do the same with mine. In the end I think you'll find your only fooling yourself about what the search engines will or won't do.
                  Signature

                  Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991757].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Akogo
                There was one site I've seen on Angela's list were a senior member started to see spam posts as discussed on his blog. Can you blame them for trying to stop the irrelevant posts sandwiched between regular members comments?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992075].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author lewibnb
                Banned
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992636].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
                Roger, I have a request. You may decline it, but I'm going to ask anyway.

                I have no doubt that you really understand this problem and how to deal
                with it (your brief mention of utilizing web 2.0 sites with content)

                I'd like you to create a report with your ideas and sell it at the WSO forum.

                I'd do it but quite honestly, I don't want to take the time. I'm too busy
                actually enjoying my life for a change (recording studio and video games)
                and I only do what I have to do in order to keep the bank account happy.

                I think your report would be great and a great help to many people who
                are looking for a better way than just spamming sites with their crappy
                links.

                Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they'll do this for as
                long as they can get away with it.

                But maybe, just maybe, you might actually help a few people.

                Anyway, it was just a thought. Like I said, if you decide to pass on it I
                completely understand.

                But I'd be the first one to read it.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993019].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
              Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

              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.. :rolleyes:
              Yes you could attempt to do that it might even have a good chance of working at least for a while. It would be a form of Google Bombing. Make sure to have your outsourced crew use rotating proxy servers and oversea's servers. Also make sure you have some bail money and a Criminal Defense Attorney on retainer it's illegal and a violation of Federal Law. The Hobbs Act U.S.C. & 1951 Wire Fraud U.S.C. & 1347 and probably several others. Good Luck with that project.

              P.S. I'm like the irony as well.....
              Signature

              Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991678].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
                Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post

                Yes you could attempt to do that it might even have a good chance of working at least for a while. It would be a form of Google Bombing. Make sure to have your outsourced crew use rotating proxy servers and oversea's servers. Also make sure you have some bail money and a Criminal Defense Attorney on retainer it's illegal and a violation of Federal Law. The Hobbs Act U.S.C. & 1951 Wire Fraud U.S.C. & 1347 and probably several others. Good Luck with that project.

                P.S. I'm like the irony as well.....
                Again, I guess my sarcasm emoticon wasn't clear.

                Originally Posted by jasonl70 View Post

                google wont allow one webmaster's actions to damage another's site via linking. They have been aware of this potential problem for a long time, and have often said that they wouldn't let this happen. They will simply ignore questionable links.
                This was exactly the point I was trying to convey.

                The worst case scenario is Google will start to devalue these links, but using them is never going to see your site "penalized".
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991715].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                Hi SkyDiveDad,

                RE - your first post -

                I agreed with your general premise, but -

                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.
                With a few tools that have been mastered, it's not a problem.

                Hi Jasonl70,

                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)?
                When they have 10000 members and only 50 who have ever posted (for example), it's safe to assume mass intent.

                Hi Mistermunch,

                This was not at all intended to attac Angela (as I have stated earlier).
                It was me who stoked the flames - I can see that it was not your intent to cause a problem. I'm sure (most) others can too. It's not my intention either, as usual I'm just trying to encourage warriors to think a little more clearly about what they do, particularly if it's coming back and reflecting on others.

                Hi Carl,

                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.
                It's precisely what didn't amuse me. Coupled with my other observations, it demonstrates that the guy is a probably a genuinely altruistic person who simply has no time for understanding these things as he is too busy helping others while doing something that he enjoys. That's something to be respected and admired.

                Who is the better marketer - one who gets the big picture and can read any type of customer OR marketer, or one who thinks that because they know a few marketing tricks that they're better than those who don't?

                If you look at it from his point of view, most of clickbank IS a scam. How many people really get back with their ex, cure genital warts or lose weight because of a CB ebook? That guy and his friend probably solve the problems of 90% of the people who go to his forum, desperate for help - for free! Why? It appears that they love Netscape, as well as firefox and helping people.

                How do you know that he didn't put the article directory url because he knew the link-leaver wouldn't care about their site being blacklisted, but perhaps the article directory would?

                .........

                The reason I entered this discussion was nothing to do with suggesting that one person is responsible for causing problems. There are many other things that go on right here in this forum that have a negative impact on people who are more vulnerable than not, and on people that are the least deserving of it (at times). But this is the way of the world and it will never change.

                The aspect that I feel is most important though, is what the group as a whole regards as acceptable. Changes to this can have many knock-on effects and can easily snowball and affect people who have done no ill and deserve none - both warriors and not. I feel that it's important that it can at least be discussed - in particular for those people who have been doing this without even thinking it through.

                It's easy to be just another forum full of people who think they're on the up because they've learnt how to trample over someone elses prize garden to grab one apple, whilst showing a finger to the disgruntled owner.

                The reason I joined this forum in the first place was because it was full to the brim with people who could make it rain apples and oranges, plus they could come here and coax and inspire others to make their own fruit-storm without anyone ending up with sour grapes.

                That's my two plums on the matter.
                Signature


                Roger Davis

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991798].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
                  RE - your first post -

                  I agreed with your general premise, but -With a few tools that have been mastered, it's not a problem.
                  Great that's certainly a WSO I'd like to purchase. The best tool I have for this is Dragon Naturally Speaking. I can knock out some quality content pretty fast (much faster than I can type) however 30 entries in 90 minutes is still probably beyond me using DNS. I've considered data feeds and other auto content drippers but haven't implemented any.

                  I'd also like to thank you for your contribution to this thread, you've been concise, informative, educational and willing to handle the touch issues. As have several others in this thread even some who I tend to generally disagree with as far as their view point on this subject. Notably jasonl70 whose experience and insight into this issue are well stated. That's one of the great things about the Warrior forum when it's at it's best, we can disagree agreeably.

                  All The Best
                  Paul
                  PS When can we expect that WSO?
                  Signature

                  Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991883].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
                    Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post

                    I can knock out some quality content pretty fast
                    This goes back to my original statement about defining contributions and defining "quality content".

                    I don't believe we have to be Hemingways to write an article but how much thought and research should go into a "quality" article?

                    If people talk about "cranking them out" or "knocking out" then it seems to me that the purpose of the article from the writer's perspective is not quality at all but merely a more involved way to get a link.

                    So now we're back to intention.

                    Do I intend to have people view my article as a fine piece of journalism or is it ok to settle on just quickly researched information?

                    If I settle for anything less than my best then I am not intending to write the article to try and convey the best information I can but actually am attempting to get something to "pass" so I can get my link.

                    So do we define spam as something that is done purely for the sole purpose of gaining a link?

                    Or do we define spam as something done crappy purely for the purpose of getting a link?

                    Of course, the article directories are in on it too because they just want our crap to pass too.
                    Fine with them. Everyone's happy.

                    Well, maybe not the guy looking for the absolute best possible solution to his foreclosure issue, but hey.

                    Matt
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991985].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
                      Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

                      This goes back to my original statement about defining contributions and defining "quality content".

                      I don't believe we have to be Hemingways to write an article but how much thought and research should go into a "quality" article?

                      If people talk about "cranking them out" or "knocking out" then it seems to me that the purpose of the article from the writer's perspective is not quality at all but merely a more involved way to get a link.

                      So now we're back to intention.

                      Do I intend to have people view my article as a fine piece of journalism or is it ok to settle on just quickly researched information?

                      If I settle for anything less than my best then I am not intending to write the article to try and convey the best information I can but actually am attempting to get something to "pass" so I can get my link.

                      So do we define spam as something that is done purely for the sole purpose of gaining a link?

                      Or do we define spam as something done crappy purely for the purpose of getting a link?

                      Of course, the article directories are in on it too because they just want our crap to pass too.
                      Fine with them. Everyone's happy.

                      Well, maybe not the guy looking for the absolute best possible solution to his foreclosure issue, but hey.

                      Matt
                      Hi Matt

                      All great questions to ponder. I used the word "quality" to describe the content I aim at producing when I'm composing content. I didn't go into detail but when I sit down to write I usually have hours of research involved and various niche content notes at the ready. I usually have a pretty good idea what the finished piece will look like so the actual process of writing happens fairly quickly when I use DNS.

                      I realize I'm no Hemingway but having a background in the newspaper business also helps speed things up for me. Nothing works as well as a deadline and a curmudgeon editor to make one motivated. Maybe I'm able to produce the content in your ideal world however for several reason the "Content is King" mantra is in itself misleading for many Marketers.

                      What about the non English speaking amongst us as one example? Are they to be penalized because the ideas they have are fantastic but they lack the necessary English writing skills to make an impact in the "Richest Market" online. Content alone, to quote Harith a Whitehat SEO Practitioner I admire, can't;

                      "- content can't manage by itself to be crawled.
                      - content can't protect itself of being crawled.
                      - content can't manage by itself to be found under what it stands for.
                      - content can't classify itself by itself.
                      - content can't make itself visible anywhere.
                      - content can't get itself to rank on the serps.
                      - i.e content is a stupid and helpless object."


                      I've written previously about the problem of "intent" and all your points are well taken and go to the heart of the paradoxical nature of the problems webmasters face.
                      Signature

                      Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992132].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author remodeler
            Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post

            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..."
            Very good advice. Unfortunately, I learned this the hard way with one of my sites a couple of months ago.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991753].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Izesta
            Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post



            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.

            I have been a subscriber to both Angela and Paul's packets for a couple months, but for the first time yesterday, actually nestled down to do some backlinking.

            The first thing that bothered me was that I could find few sites that were even remotely related to my business.

            Then I realized I was going to set up a profile and vanish forever. I have done that before, but not with the initial intent to "use" the site for my own gain. I looked at the empty profile I created and was embarrassed. Even if I wanted to set up a profile and contribute, some of the sites were so in left field, I would spend too much time creating a comment.

            What stopped me in my tracks was when I got to the 4th site and it would not let me make the changes to enter my link. Hmmm, I wondered. Have they figured this out and blocked it?

            And as skydivedad mentioned above, it occurred to me that not only was I spamming (for all intents and purposes), but I was leaving behind my mark - all my business information if anyone cared to just click the link. It would take them to my blog, with all my contact info and my company info. I decided I could not take this chance and did not want to brand my image that way.

            I went back and deleted the few profiles I set up.

            Gotta stick with Plan C. This kind of backlinking won't work for me.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[997561].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author PatriciaJ
          Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

          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 got the package last month and thought it was about spamming and not adding value to any site except my own. The only way that I would use it would be to hide behind a new email account and member name for those sites, but that told me I couldn't do it.

          I would also argue the adding value point in that with 30 new sites a month who would have time to add value to all of them and run a business? Not me or my business partner who got the package separately and came up with the same conclusions as I - that it is spam and unwelcome on most sites.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992520].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ExRat
            Hi OnlineMasterMind,

            I thought this was a forum about making money lol
            Another fire-starter. Yes, it takes one to know one, but at least I offer reasons and explanations for my discarded incendiary devices. Your point above is deliberately taking things to the most absolute basic level - which is utterly pointless and totally twists reality.

            The insinuation you make is that this (and any other topic that is based upon not carrying out a particular action because it impacts negatively on others) should not be discussed at all, because the only requirement for things to be acceptable is that it makes money.

            A further insinuation is that anyone who feels that this should be discussed is somehow not in tune with the general forum theme of (just) making money.

            You are so far off the mark with that statement that I'm not even going to bother to list the countless examples that prove your contribution to be pointless, useless, childish and above all - an attempted conversation killer.

            The crux of your statement is that there is absolutely no need for any sort of ethical/social consideration of consequences when it comes to making money. That's just ridiculous.

            Hi Adrian,

            When you say -

            Above all Angela - do not take this situation personally or blame yourself - it is not the way the links are provided, it is the way they are used.

            I encourage you to carry on accordingly.
            ...it makes me want to refer you to the two quotes that I obtained from the WSO sales page -

            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.[snip]

            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.
            I think she definitely needs to change those. How can anyone be adding value if they are encouraged to leave a different link each day on the same site? Start 30 profiles and integrate with the community while adding value?

            And a few people mentioned about picking topics that you are knowledgeable about. That's not what is being recommended above.

            I also find it interesting reading all of your comments here -

            When my business partner, Jeff Alderson, created Traffic Equalizer - I wrote the manual - everyone used it with great success. How successful is it now?
            Did you make it absolutely clear to buyers at the time that as soon as you released it to the public, it then had the Google sword of Damocles hanging over it, and that the domains would have to be throwaway and that once the sword dropped, it would alert Google to WHO was trying to game them?

            You keep emphasizing how smart Google's engineers are, but back then did you mention the same to your buyers IE - due to Google's immense ability to gather data, using the tool for a short-term profit was also providing them with a red flag to pinpoint exactly who was willing to indulge in spam page generation on a huge scale?

            But now, you are throwing out absolutes and you want us to accept them as 'rules' - (bolded for emphasis) -

            This is why there is a 6 week opportunity to use tactics to get sites ranked quickly using link spamming, before the site is sandboxed or banned.

            They always find the links.
            It also discounts - at least for many months - the PR of pages that have suddenly received a surge of links - especially high PR ones, because in the real world it simply does not happen.
            It does happen and examples of this have been given. I presume (based on your theory) that the high PR sites which were first to announce Michael Jackson's demise have all had their links discounted for many months?

            Brad Fallon discovered that years ago after his "myweddingfavors.com" site crashed down in the SERPS. If you check his sites now he just has a few hundred quality links added over time, and he is back at #1.
            Brad Fallon sells high ticket SEO products. Who knows what he is doing to his own example sites in order to add credence to whatever SEO theory he is currently trying to position himself as thought-leader on? Who knows what games Google has played with his rankings to try and emphasize to anyone paying attention that no-one is big enough to 'stomp' them? I think it's a particularly bad and fatally flawed example.

            The rules should be:

            1. One high PR link per month
            2. Must link to a different inner page each time
            3. Must have relevant anchor text
            I see NO given reason to suggest that your 'rules' should be adopted as such.

            It is impossible to game Google in even the medium term.
            So why even bother aquiring 'one high PR link per month'?

            Concentrate efforts on writing quality content for your site, article directories etc and let things take their course. Google always rewards this approach.
            I respect your experience in this area, but as you were one of the partners behind TE I find it uncomfortable to see you throwing out suggested white-hat absolutes, on a subject as contentious as SEO and I think that the amount of conflicting and contradictory information given (stated as rules) is simply going to confuse more people than it helps. You may have studied this a lot, but unless you have inside information, then you are simply speculating like the rest of us and perhaps you should be a little more clear about that.

            I agree (in general) that for long term gains, it's better to err on the side of caution (IE focus more on remarkable content that encourages natural unsolicited linking than on artificial self-created backlinks) but can you see the difference in the way that I have presented it (no absolutes) and the way that you have - lots of absolutes, based on assumptions and spurious examples.

            Another example -

            You say -
            The whole Google ethos from the beginning is that a link is a "vote" by one webmaster for the site of another webmaster based on quality, relevance, additional value etc.

            Blogs, forums, article directories make this almost irrelevant.

            Sooner or later Google will discount all SEO benefits of such sites
            But then you say -

            Efforts these days are much better focused on writing content for your own site, article directories
            Concentrate efforts on writing quality content for your site, article directories etc and let things take their course. Google always rewards this approach.
            I just find it curious that after admitting that you were involved in profiting from sending your buyers down a dead-end that had huge knock-on consequences for everyone else (due to the mass-generation abilities of the product and the effects that this had on programs like adsense) that you are now saying the things that I have quoted above. Perhaps you should go a little easier on the absolutes?

            I don't blame Angela
            Why would you say that, when you also say this -

            I saw these blogs - it would have been funny if it were not so serious, because ultimately such irresponsible behaviour causes Google to tweak their algorithm, which wrecks another strategy for the rest of us.

            WikiPedia was awesome for a few of us until the word got out.

            I am just as guilty. I developed link gaming products with Jeff Alderson.
            Signature


            Roger Davis

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992627].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author OnlineMasterMind
              Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

              Hi OnlineMasterMind,

              Another fire-starter. Yes, it takes one to know one, but at least I offer reasons and explanations for my discarded incendiary devices. Your point above is deliberately taking things to the most absolute basic level - which is utterly pointless and totally twists reality.

              The insinuation you make is that this (and any other topic that is based upon not carrying out a particular action because it impacts negatively on others) should not be discussed at all, because the only requirement for things to be acceptable is that it makes money.

              A further insinuation is that anyone who feels that this should be discussed is somehow not in tune with the general forum theme of (just) making money.

              You are so far off the mark with that statement that I'm not even going to bother to list the countless examples that prove your contribution to be pointless, useless, childish and above all - an attempted conversation killer.

              The crux of your statement is that there is absolutely no need for any sort of ethical/social consideration of consequences when it comes to making money. That's just ridiculous.
              Well, by all means... you are absolutely RIGHT - you're free to discuss whatever you want! And surely there's PLENTY of things to discuss that negatively impact others in the world of internet marketing. You must be thrilled!

              I suppose I have to remind myself that some people would rather focus their time here on "well articulated critiques" that generates a lot of "thanks's" vs. making money.

              By looking at the vast majority of your posts it's quite obvious what category you fall into.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993106].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lisa Gergets
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post


        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?
        Signature
        Sign up to be notified when Success on Demand goes live, and receive a FREE mindmap that you can follow to create and launch your OWN IM PRODUCTS!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991348].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990901].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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!
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990959].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      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.
      The basic problem is that many Internet marketers are spammers. They will use a website literally to death to their own benefit. Makes no difference to them that they are devaluing someone's website and decreasing member satisfaction to the people who actually enjoy the website or community. You see what they've done to Craigslist ... can't hardly post a legitimate ad there anymore ... Twitter is getting insane with all the spammers (marketers). Few of their spammy little links provide any real value to anyone because they're just promoting their spammy little products. Rarely do they ever put any thought into their "Internet business" and work towards making a valuable, long term online business. Just promote the hell out of pure crap everywhere they can find to take a dump. It's small wonder Internet marketing has such a bad name. It is largely well deserved.

      Just saw this on Techcrunch ... Netscape isn't the only one with a blacklist
      http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/07...ting-spammers/
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993207].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        The basic problem is that many Internet marketers are spammers. They will use a website literally to death to their own benefit. Makes no difference to them that they are devaluing someone's website and decreasing member satisfaction to the people who actually enjoy the website or community. You see what they've done to Craigslist ... can't hardly post a legitimate ad there anymore ... Twitter is getting insane with all the spammers (marketers). Few of their spammy little links provide any real value to anyone because they're just promoting their spammy little products. Rarely do they ever put any thought into their "Internet business" and work towards making a valuable, long term online business. Just promote the hell out of pure crap everywhere they can find to take a dump. It's small wonder Internet marketing has such a bad name. It is largely well deserved.

        Just saw this on Techcrunch ... Netscape isn't the only one with a blacklist
        Twitter Starts Blacklisting Spammers
        And that, right there is the issue.

        Over the years I have watched service after service brought to its knees and devalued by IM'ers who are only interested in themselves, forcing the service to take radical action.

        Twitter is the latest in a very long line of such services.

        If you look back at the IM products of the last few years you can clearly follow the trail of products jumping on the next new service to game that comes along. It gets beaten to death, wrecked, and move on to the next.

        The Internet is an ecosystem. If you want to succeed within that ecosystem you must live in harmony with it.

        Ultimately the only strategy that will succeed is to aim put in to the system as much as you get out through quality content and public contributions.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990977].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature
    Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
    FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[990983].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature

    -Jason

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991083].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 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
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991155].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 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.
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991212].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author psresearch
          Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

          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 know. Bizarrely I never really considered these links this way, but the more I think about the more I'm tending to agree with you.

          My rule for blog commenting is I won't comment in a conversation if I'm not prepared to subscribe to the conversation and engage.

          On the other hand I already have a good article writer, someone to post to web 2.0 properties and linkbuilding to the web 2.0 properties - i.e. something that's actually adding value.

          Thanks for the wake-up call.

          I think I got mesmerized because of the ease and because seomoz.org had similar types of links in their "secret link list".
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991621].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author psresearch
            Originally Posted by markquinn View Post

            You know. Bizarrely I never really considered these links this way, but the more I think about the more I'm tending to agree with you.

            My rule for blog commenting is I won't comment in a conversation if I'm not prepared to subscribe to the conversation and engage.
            I just noticed I left out the whole point of this post - which is...why am I applying a different standard to these forum links than I am to blog commenting?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992010].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
      Originally Posted by jasonl70 View Post

      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.
      Signature
      "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
      Tom Peters

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991613].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      The problem with people setting up profiles just to squeeze in a link is that, as a site owner, you end up with a bunch of profiles from people that aren't actively contributing or using your forum. That uses up resources and, while each profile may be small, add them all up and it can be a drain.

      Of course, the way for site owners to resolve that is to not allow new users to add links to their profiles. Set a minimum in terms of both days and number of posts. Limit the number of posts per day that new users can make. You could cut out a lot of spam links, and regular marketing links, by requiring something like a 30-day wait, plus a 50 post count, plus a limit of 5 posts per day before you could place a link in your profile or signature.

      That way, you, as a user, would have to have a track record of providing something of value to the site before you are allowed to receive something of value back (the link). And, that gives the site owner or manager time to react if you spam or post a bunch of one-liners to boost your post count. Since you can only post 5 messages per day, it will take you a minimum of 10 days to get your post count. If you post junk, it will get deleted and those deleted posts won't be counted in your post count.

      However, legitimate marketers will play by the rules. It's the spammers that won't and it's the spammers that cause the problems for everyone else.

      On the flip side, site owners also need to realize that some rules are, perhaps, unreasonable. No commercial links is one. Okay, if I have an eCommerce site selling widgets, I can't put that link there. That's fine. That's understandable. But, what about my blog? Is that commercial? If I do paid reviews, is that commercial? If I have AdSense on the blog, does that make it commercial? If I link to my eCommerce site, does that make it commercial? If I talk about my work, does that make my blog commercial, as I may be promoting my work? Where do you draw the line?

      It may be a fine line, but if you go too far in one direction, your site becomes filled with spammers and spammy links. But, if you go too far in the other direction, you're living in a fantasy world.

      Imagine if Bill Gates signs up on your site and you don't allow "commercial" links. Okay, fine, but everyone knows he represents Microsoft. He may play by the rules and not place any commercial links. Heck, maybe he doesn't post any links at all. So, maybe people get to know him and think, hey, Bill's a cool guy. Maybe I should check out Microsoft Office! So, even though he plays by the rules, his participation may still be promotional due to the fact that everyone knows who he is.

      But, now imagine I've been a contributor to the site. I've given people plenty of useful information, however, due to the rules that I've followed as well, no one knows that I created and sell Warrior Office, which is cheaper than Microsoft Office and has more features.

      So, Bill Gates has an unfair advantage over me, even though we've both played by the rules. And, oddly enough, even though my product may be more beneficial and save people money, I'm not allowed to mention it.

      Of course, you can argue that no one is forcing me to use that forum, and you're absolutely right! So, if given the choice between a forum where I can post my link and one where I cannot, which is the one more beneficial to me?

      Site owners need to realize that they don't live in a vacuum. They can imagine and fantasize all they want about people coming and using their sites for nothing but altruistic reasons, but we don't live in an altruistic world! The wealthy and the retired can afford to be altruistic; everyone else has to work for a living!

      Let's say I'm a computer repair guy. I fix computers. I make good money doing it because I'm really really good. I come to your site, and I am willing to provide your users with free information and tips. All I ask is a link in return. Just a link. Just let me link to my website in my signature or my profile. If people want help, and are willing to pay for it, they can click my link, check out my site and maybe give me a call. If not the best in the business, I'm one of the best.

      If you tell me, no, I can't have a link, but you'd sure like me to participate, why should I? Why should I spend my time on your site, helping your users, for your benefit, and not reap any benefit myself? All I want is a link. I'm not asking for an endorsement or a banner ad at the top of the page. Just a link.

      But, you don't allow commercial links. You're just there to help people. You don't want to sell them stuff. But, I can buy an ad.

      Okay. I can buy an ad with money, but not with time and information I provide to your users?

      Guess what? Another site--one of your competitors--will let me help their users and they'll let me have a link.

      Where do you think I would be spending my time?

      Marketers and site owners have to realize that a value-for-value exchange is the most beneficial. Marketers provide value information in exchange for a link. Site owners receive valuable information for their users in exchange for that link.

      Spammers are like cockroaches. If you have cracks or open doors or windows, they'll find their way in. If you have crumbs on the floor or the kitchen counter, they'll find them. The best you can do is keep everything clean and seal any cracks or openings you can find. You'll probably never be able to keep them out entirely, but it's a battle you'll never win if you don't make an effort.

      The lesson here for marketers is to not be a spammer. I think most people here understand that. Follow the rules. And, when a site owner is rabidly anti-commercial, just stay away. Odds are, your sites will be around longer than theirs.
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992171].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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'.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991094].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MisterMunch
      Originally Posted by ptone View Post

      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991109].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991105].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cash37
    Yeah that link list pretty much killed itself
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991125].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991188].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post


      I know Angela's intentions are honorable,
      Laughing my arse off. "Honorable". She's providing a way of SPAMMING sites. To get backlinks. Why are you guys beating around the bush? It's spamming, pure and simple. And yes...I've used her "packages" myself. And they didn't do what she claimed they would do. Wonder why eh? Because every man and his dog is out there spamming the crap out of the sites she sells links to. But fair play to her. I could care less. There are a MILLION sites you can get "honorable" backlinks from without too much effort. And the clue is "relevant" backlinks. Still laughing.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993511].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991238].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by SaSeoPete View Post

      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991269].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
        Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

        And probably less than that to run the risk of killing the site or getting it sandboxed..
        Wow! What a great idea! I'm going to go build a lot of links to my competitors sites and get the 'sandboxed' or deindexed. Thanks for the amazing tip! :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991938].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author xiaophil
          While many consider posting inept one-liners in forums for backlinks disruptive and unsavory, it's perhaps not so clear how a couple of seemingly innocuous links in a profile could cause any grief.

          My thanks to Roger for carefully explaining how en masse, such things can cause a lot of trouble for the site maintainer. I honestly never thought profile links could be such a problem.

          Backlinks for some are like "cracklinks" : so effective that it's easy to get hooked, and then they will do almost anything to get their fix.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991998].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
          Originally Posted by bgmacaw View Post

          Wow! What a great idea! I'm going to go build a lot of links to my competitors sites and get the 'sandboxed' or deindexed. Thanks for the amazing tip! :rolleyes:
          I meant killing the value of the site.

          I have seen and heard of countless sites getting sandboxed over linking, however we choose to rationalise it.

          At best Google simply ignores the links and then allows them months later - this is to make paid links not cost effective.

          Brad Fallen's site was screwed over by someone, and it took a lot of unravelling.

          At the final analysis:

          Mass backlinking has zero benefits after 6 weeks at most, and can be detrimental.

          Do not underestimate Google's engineers.

          They do not pay thousands of PhD's hundreds of thousands of dollars per year plus millions in stock options, just to sit around drinking latte all day.

          They have a whole department that does nothing but counteracting the latest strategies that game the system - and they always do.

          When my business partner, Jeff Alderson, created Traffic Equalizer - I wrote the manual - everyone used it with great success. How successful is it now?

          Google have a core ethos: A link is a "vote" from one webmaster to another.

          This is how they achieved their standing as #1 SE and which they will protect at all costs.

          It is impossible to game Google in even the medium term.

          Go out and find your own high PR links from other webmasters, add one per month to different inner pages, and keep it to yourself.

          On the positive side - traffic in future will be direct traffic as is the case now from EZA, Yahoo answers, Twitter etc, so all this SEO and backlinking is really not worth too much in the scheme of things.

          Concentrate efforts on writing quality content for your site, article directories etc and let things take their course. Google always rewards this approach.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992314].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
            Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

            I meant killing the value of the site.

            I have seen and heard of countless sites getting sandboxed over linking, however we choose to rationalise it.

            At best Google simply ignores the links and then allows them months later - this is to make paid links not cost effective.

            Brad Fallen's site was screwed over by someone, and it took a lot of unravelling.

            At the final analysis:

            Mass backlinking has zero benefits after 6 weeks at most, and can be detrimental.

            Do not underestimate Google's engineers.

            They do not pay thousands of PhD's hundreds of thousands of dollars per year plus millions in stock options, just to sit around drinking latte all day.

            They have a whole department that does nothing but counteracting the latest strategies that game the system - and they always do.

            When my business partner, Jeff Alderson, created Traffic Equalizer - I wrote the manual - everyone used it with great success. How successful is it now?

            Google have a core ethos: A link is a "vote" from one webmaster to another.

            This is how they achieved their standing as #1 SE and which they will protect at all costs.

            It is impossible to game Google in even the medium term.

            Go out and find your own high PR links from other webmasters, add one per month to different inner pages, and keep it to yourself.

            On the positive side - traffic in future will be direct traffic as is the case now from EZA, Yahoo answers, Twitter etc, so all this SEO and backlinking is really not worth too much in the scheme of things.

            Concentrate efforts on writing quality content for your site, article directories etc and let things take their course. Google always rewards this approach.

            Yes it's very possible to hurt your competitors PR and SERP ranking. As a matter of fact here's a link to a site where you can outsource the process. It's called Google Bowling. One of the methods is what I outlined in 2 previous replies in this thread.
            Signature

            Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992329].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post


            When my business partner, Jeff Alderson, created Traffic Equalizer - I wrote the manual - everyone used it with great success. How successful is it now?
            .
            Ummmm..."Created"? Actually "borrowed" would be a better word. Alderson took that idea from Joe's Traffic Dynamo. You even used the exact same tokens.

            Can't remember the last name (sorry Joe, been too long), but Joe had the program first. His problem, as well as my own with my original Domboms, was that we limited the users so the buyers of our programs would have a shelf life. Both of us sold under 200 of our programs. I think Joe sold about 150 before he took it off the market.

            Here's comes Alderson, a customer of Joe's and decides to make money from selling the program instead of using it. Joe was so disillusioned that he quit SEO and IM, at least publicly, knowing the over-saturation would kill it.

            We should have sold out like Alderson but before, and gotten affiliates and mass marketed the stuff, knowing we'd kill the product...But we would have made more money.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993694].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Ummmm..."Created"? Actually "borrowed" would be a better word. Alderson took that idea from Joe's Traffic Dynamo. You even used the exact same tokens.

              Can't remember the last name (sorry Joe, been too long), but Joe had the program first. His problem, as well as my own with my original Domboms, was that we limited the users so the buyers of our programs would have a shelf life. Both of us sold under 200 of our programs. I think Joe sold about 150 before he took it off the market.

              Here's comes Alderson, a customer of Joe's and decides to make money from selling the program instead of using it. Joe was so disillusioned that he quit SEO and IM, at least publicly, knowing the over-saturation would kill it.

              We should have sold out like Alderson but before, and gotten affiliates and mass marketed the stuff, knowing we'd kill the product...But we would have made more money.
              As I mentioned before - I came along after Jeff created TE and later wrote the manual. We then developed other products. I can't comment on where Jeff got the idea from. here was a very similar product around at the time - can't remember what it was.

              TE was a killer product though, and I agree Jeff would probably have made more keeping it to himself or whoever. Google would have caught up when they stated looking for sites with explosive page growth generally.

              They were crazy days that were to get much crazier when the blog creator wares came along creating gazillions of blogs on subdomains etc.

              All futile - fun at the time though. I remember one site getting clobbered for creating 30 million pages in two days

              These days I give Google what it wants and Google returns the compliment.

              It's a symbiotic relationship where Google, Web user and IM'er all benefit.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993763].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991251].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991282].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 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.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991283].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991319].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 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 *******s 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.
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991349].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            - 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.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991424].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author 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.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991453].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author jasonl70
              Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

              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 View Post

              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 View Post

              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.
              Signature

              -Jason

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991480].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yves
              Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post


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


              I have Angela's backlinks and tend to use them in conjuntion with relevancy to my sites. Her links are very varied and I can usually find a place to leave my link that is connected to one of my niches, if somewhat tenuous, and can contribute in some way whether it is creating a blog on the site (many of them allow that) or a forum post (without a link or sig).

              The links that just have no connection to my niches whatsoever, I do not use and it's as simple as that.

              Out of the 30 backlink packet, I can usually get about 7- 10 links that are worthy of me joining the site, that's not bad for a fiver a month.

              This type of link-building is small compared to my other IM activities which are creating good content for the viewing public so I feel fine about it all.

              I do feel sorry for Angela because of the blachats and spammers who stole or abused her stuff and created the bulk of the problem here. She advises in the instructions to only ever leave a useful forum post, taking a bit of time to research what you are going to say.

              I think both sides to this story have a fair point. For me, it is a matter of using the links the way I use other methods for my content and that is to keep it relevant, just in the same way you would look for a blog to comment on leaving relevant and quality comments in exchange for your link.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994926].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    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 *******s destroying the peaceful serenity of the Internet.

    Especially when half of it was built off of our backs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991322].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Carl Pruitt
    Originally Posted by MisterMunch View Post

    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.
    Signature

    Thanks!
    Carl Pruitt
    http://LongRunPublishing.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991533].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
    I am waiting for Angela to show up ...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991569].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author adamv
      Originally Posted by Marhelper View Post

      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.
      Signature

      Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991583].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author OnlineMasterMind
        When you purchase a product you're the one who needs to take 100% full responsibility.

        I've never bought the product but it sounds like it works and Angela has tons of testimonials (helped a lot of people here).

        YOU have to always common sense and make your own decisions. If you didn't like it I'm sure Angela would be more than happy to offer anyone a refund.

        There are plenty of products here that are just as, if not worse - assuming this even really a big deal.

        I thought this was a forum about making money lol
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992111].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonl70
    google wont allow one webmaster's actions to damage another's site via linking. They have been aware of this potential problem for a long time, and have often said that they wouldn't let this happen. They will simply ignore questionable links.
    Signature

    -Jason

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991709].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by jasonl70 View Post

      google wont allow one webmaster's actions to damage another's site via linking. They have been aware of this potential problem for a long time, and have often said that they wouldn't let this happen. They will simply ignore questionable links.
      But Squidoo probably is...I've heard from multiple people that the reasons they were given for the lenses being locked was due to "bad links".
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991777].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author skydivedad
      Originally Posted by jasonl70 View Post

      google wont allow one webmaster's actions to damage another's site via linking. They have been aware of this potential problem for a long time, and have often said that they wouldn't let this happen. They will simply ignore questionable links.

      Originally Posted by Pat Johnson

      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..
      Jason is correct seems to be the consensus amoung Seo's Google discounts or ignores backlinks (I prefer to call them One Way Incoming Links) from low quality sites. Attempting to hurt your competitors SERP ranking by backlinking their site to low quality, irrelevant and bad neighborhood sites (Porn Sites as an example) isn't going to work.

      Using the video from a very recent email from Angela produced by the guys at freetrafficsystems. I agree Google probably does ignore them. However, Angela promotes her package to be backlinks from High Quality, High Page Rank sites. If Google ignored those than what's the point in pursuing those backlinks and purchasing her product? It's because Google does flow "Link Love" from higher quality sites and spammers and webmasters know it. Thats the whole reason Google came up with the "nofollow" tag. (Originally it was made for Bloggers attempting to prevent link spam but unfornuately it's gone way beyond its original purpose)

      Theoritically one could do huge damage to competitors by link spamming and/or link dropping links from higher quality sites pointing to one's competitors sites. It's not advisable because it would be illegal as I stated in a previous reply. Deliberately confusing how Google "ignores" one way incoming links from irrelevant low quality sites as a justification to practice link spamming just doesn't cut it. There's a distintion between low quality and higher quality backlinks. If there wasn't than once again whats the point?

      Clearly link dropping violates Googles quality guidelines, especially the part that says "Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank"

      Paul
      Signature

      Making Lemonaide... Skydivedad's Blog

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992236].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
        Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post

        If Google ignored those than what's the point in pursuing those backlinks and purchasing her product? It's because Google does flow "Link Love" from higher quality sites and spammers and webmasters know it. Thats the whole reason Google came up with the "nofollow" tag.
        Google seems now to place low value on links of PR4 or less.

        It also discounts - at least for many months - the PR of pages that have suddenly received a surge of links - especially high PR ones, because in the real world it simply does not happen.

        Brad Fallon discovered that years ago after his "myweddingfavors.com" site crashed down in the SERPS. If you check his sites now he just has a few hundred quality links added over time, and he is back at #1.

        The moral: you can damage your site over night, but is takes months or years to fix the damage.

        Yes the "nofollow" tag is being used extensively now by blogs, but not by forums or article directories.

        I think Google introduced it to help public sites police themselves. If they don't, Google will do it for them sooner or later, because it is messing up their entire ethos.

        Angela should continue her great service, but completely rethink link management.

        SEO is a long-term process and so should adding backlinks.

        The rules should be:

        1. One high PR link per month
        2. Must link to a different inner page each time
        3. Must have relevant anchor text

        This is in everyone's interests, not the least Angela's.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992266].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JoeCool
          Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

          The rules should be:

          1. One high PR link per month
          2. Must link to a different inner page each time
          3. Must have relevant anchor text

          This is in everyone's interests, not the least Angela's.
          I agree with most of what you are sharing here Adrian, and thank you, but if one is trying to appear "natural" to the search engines, wouldn't one's website also receive a few low, or no, PR backlinks every month?

          Also, wouldn't one's website also "naturally" receive a few backlinks that would have irrelevant anchor text such as "click here" or www. thisotherdudessite .com?

          One must be careful when posting "rules" in an open forum to make sure such a list is not incomplete or misinterpreted.

          Some here may take such a list as gospel and complete, not thinking it through to a more logical conclusion.


          Best Regards,
          ~ JoeCool
          Signature

          My Favorite Charity .:: www.Unitus.com ::. Helping Third World Entrepreneurial Families Help Themselves.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995004].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
            Originally Posted by JoeCool View Post

            I agree with most of what you are sharing here Adrian, and thank you, but if one is trying to appear "natural" to the search engines, wouldn't one's website also receive a few low, or no, PR backlinks every month?

            Also, wouldn't one's website also "naturally" receive a few backlinks that would have irrelevant anchor text such as "click here" or www. thisotherdudessite .com?

            One must be careful when posting "rules" in an open forum to make sure such a list is not incomplete or misinterpreted.

            Some here may take such a list as gospel and complete, not thinking it through to a more logical conclusion.


            Best Regards,
            ~ JoeCool
            Yes absolutely.

            Google look at the whole linking pattern based upon years of analysis.

            In other words Google have analysed typical linking patterns with a sampling of now over 1 trillion pages - which is a massive sampling.

            They constantly update their algorithm based upon real world behaviour, adjusted for skewing factors such as IM link spammers

            To be brutally honest, it absolutely amazes me that anyone believes they can single handedly beat Google in the long-term, considering the vast amount of real-time data they have and their thousands of PhD software engineers who are probably the best in the world at what they do.

            Treat Google as a friend, respect their guidelines - which are published - and everyone will be happy.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995957].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonl70
    Originally Posted by skydivedad View Post

    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.
    Angela's packets are for the most part a list of sites that allow links in their user profiles (that are not no-follow). This is of course a generalization..

    The point is that google can not infer intent - your warrior profile link to non-IM-related site is not much different then what google see's when it comes across links from angela's packet.

    Reagrding the 'sandbox': many seo's, myself included, do not even believe it exists (at least in the manner in which it is common explained).
    Signature

    -Jason

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[991749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mitch Miller
    I saw this coming from the start. I sub'd for two months and gave it up. Angela was asked how many of these packets she was selling and she would never answer the question. It didn't take an ExRat (I think that guy is probably the smartest cat on this forum) to see what was coming. Spam City baby.

    I don't know how you can look at these packets as anything other than peddling spam tactics. She has oversold the product and massive amounts of spam is the result.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992133].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
    Jason:

    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..
    My sites are spidered every day. Even new sites can get spidered within days.

    When the sites are spidered Google puts them in a preliminary index before running the full algo over them within 6 weeks which is when they compare linking.

    This is why there is a 6 week opportunity to use tactics to get sites ranked quickly using link spamming, before the site is sandboxed or banned.

    They always find the links.

    Offpage factors by their very nature are more difficult to manipulate compared to onpage factors, so I can't see them ever going away.
    Forums, blogs, article directories - in fact any site where anyone can place links not under the control of the webmaster are open to abuse.

    The whole Google ethos from the beginning is that a link is a "vote" by one webmaster for the site of another webmaster based on quality, relevance, additional value etc.

    Blogs, forums, article directories make this almost irrelevant.

    Sooner or later Google will discount all SEO benefits of such sites which they see as relevant for the content, and for backlinks visitors can click if they wish - which after all is what the link exists for.

    I never rely on "public linking" for the long-term, because history has told us that there is no long-term.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992252].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author semeilee
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992303].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by semeilee View Post

      Discussions aside, I'll keep backlinking until they outlaw it.
      Responsible backlinking is always worthwhile, especially from non-public sites.

      Efforts these days are much better focused on writing content for your own site, article directories etc.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992323].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheNightOwl
        Roger, as usual you've made an extremely valid contribution here.

        There was a thread a couple of months ago in which I asked if anyone could provide a cogent reason for how creating profiles on forums where you have no intention of being a contributer wasn't a form of spamming.

        Naturally, a number of people took umbrage to that suggestion because -- as someone pointed out in one of the earlier posts in this thread -- people (generally) are simply not willing to accept the reality, responsibility, and consequences of their actions.

        Instead, what we tend to do is fabricate some fantasy-land justification as to why it's okay for us to do it, but not anyone else. For example...

        I posed the following hypothetical (in the previous thread I'm referring to): How would you feel if suddenly you had a whole heap of folks turning up at one of your sites doing a bit of the old backlink-a-go-go? Would you tolerate it?

        Another point I put forward was the way in which spammers are (rightly) treated on this forum. Someone comes in here and posts one-liners, deliberately bland generic cookie-cutter comments, or barely comprehensible gibberish... for the sig exposure... what happens?

        Their threads are flagged and their accounts are banned.

        The argument seems to go that they get what they get in this case because they are stoopid. That they were doing it for the traffic when the point of creating an essentially dormant profile on a forum is to do it for the backlinks.

        Now, if you found yourself saying just now "That's right! You create that puppy and let it be!" then you have missed my point.

        The thing is, forums and blogs and social sites, and all the stuff dubbed "Web2.0" despite much of it being around for years is about INTERACTION and COMMUNITY. On the one hand that's very simple.

        But on the other, the pirates see it as virgin seas to be sailed into and plundered.

        Do YOU enjoy removing all those non-comments from your blogs? Why did you hire a moderator for your forums in the first place?

        Wouldn't that extra money be better in your account if you didn't have to worry about this sort of thing? And I'm not even talking about the blatant spam. Nor am I necessarily talking about the "trojan" member who signs up, you approve their account, everything goes nicely for a few weeks and then it's on! Links here, spam posts promoting something there, and so on.

        Thing is, why DO you bother?

        Why don't you just allow people to post empty comments to your blogs and forums and MySpace pages and so on?

        Or maybe you do.

        I don't because it tarnishes the neighbourhood. MY neighbourhood.

        Ever been to a forum that's not riddled with spam, but has its fair share? You probably wouldn't stay very long if there weren't someone cleaning all that crap outta there, would you? Reason being, you'd find it hard to get at whatever information or sense of community and interaction you were seeking when you went there in the first place.

        IMers like to talk about "creating a community" and "tapping into Web2.0" and "creating your own membership site or paid forum" or even creating a free membership site or blog as a way of funnelling prospects into our private sites etc. We like the idea of leveraging community, but it's apparently okay to go and piss in someone else's pool.

        In the previous thread where I asked for someone to tell me how doing that wasn't spamming, I called attention to the various turns of phrase that people had used which I felt belied their assertions that they weren't basically spamming these forums by creating a profile, adding a more-than-one-liner-come-on-i'm-not-that-dumb!-style comment to massage their conscience and lend a slightly higher "stick-probability" to the link they'd dropped, and then moving on to the next place to do the same.

        The tired old "taking my words out of context" argument was rolled out in defence and this somewhat derailed the discussion of the point I was trying to make. That thread ended up getting nuked. I have no idea why because I wasn't overly interested in sticking around and trying to have a discussion with people who aren't interested in listening. I wasn't venomously pointing the finger and saying "You evil, evil *******s! You'll be stealing kids's tricycles next and kicking their mothers in the shins for good measure!" All I was asking was that people be honest.

        Whodathunk the defensive, knee-jerk, "but I'm different" reactions would come out of the woodwork! Ha ha!

        Go back and read the post by cashcow: Spammers


        On the note of "taking my words out of context" that I mentioned, above, one bloke whom I'd quoted PMed me to say he'd taken offence to my suggestion that he was a spammer.

        By the time I got around to investigating whether I had, in fact, done him wrong, the thread was gone.

        I still have his PM, though, and his argument goes like this:

        Many of these sites encourage you create blogs on them and I do exactly that. My blogs have links and they aren't spam. It's like creating a Wordpress or Blogger blog, but without the ability to customize style or widgets.

        <<snip>>

        When you create real content with links on a site that allows you to register and create content with links its not spamming the site. If you take a look at the sites it's easy to find one in your niche or a general one to build content within.I AGREE THAT NOT EVERY ONE DOES THIS.
        I have a couple of points I'd like to make about this.

        (And before the author saddles up again for another condescending PM: Dude, I'm commenting generally about this approach because I have absolutely no idea what you do, personally. If you make awesome, valuable "real content" contributions to sites that are related to your niches, then I'm very happy for you. Sure it's link-dropping, but it's not spamming. As you pointed out, however, most people patently do NOT do this. Okay, on with the show; I wouldn't want to get anyone's knickers in a twist...)

        1. The first point about "many of these sites" encouraging people to create blogs and so on is, in fact, the point Roger is making about Web2.0 sites. Now, I don't know how many of the sites in these backlink packets fit that description. Can someone tell me? A few? A reasonable number? A lot? ALL of them?

        It's clearly not ALL of them or this thread wouldn't have been started in the first place. And the folks over at The Unofficial Netscape Forum wouldn't have to deal with people who sign up with usernames like "NoseAllergy". Here's another point from Roger:

        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post


        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
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        - 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.
        If you go out and find forums, blogs, community sites, etc. that are in the niche you're working in... and then you make "real content" contributions and take part in the community, then where's the problem?

        So why would you need to purchase a list of 30 or 50 or 100 sites each month? Don't you know your niche well enough to know the sites that are likely to have high PR pages?

        Of course there are always new sites and blogs and ones that've been around for years that you don't know about, etc. So as GuerillaIM pointed out:

        Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

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

        Google Search Operators - Google Guide
        I'd hazzard a guess that the sites in these backlinking packs are NOT all Web2.0 style sites. But I could, of course, be completely wrong.

        Even if I am wrong, though, I still can't fathom how you could get backlinks from all these sites. Some people have already stated in this thread that they use the packs to pick and choose relevant sites to join and comment on.

        If you DON'T do that, though, and even if a site "encourage[s] you create blogs on them", then how do you reconcile creating a blog on a site on a topic you know nothing about? Use PLR articles, I guess. Okay, fine. But then linking it to a completely unrelated niche? I dunno. Lots of people on this forum have links to unrelated niche sites just for the link-juice, I expect.

        Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

        This goes back to my original statement about defining contributions and defining "quality content".

        <<snip>>

        So do we define spam as something that is done purely for the sole purpose of gaining a link?

        Or do we define spam as something done crappy purely for the purpose of getting a link?

        Matt
        Interesting question. Problem is, no one really gives a shit.

        Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

        Of course, the article directories are in on it too because they just want our crap to pass too.
        Fine with them. Everyone's happy.

        Well, maybe not the guy looking for the absolute best possible solution to his foreclosure issue, but hey.

        Matt
        Yes indeedy. Similarly, Roger commented about whether or not ClickBank is a scam. I reckon a lot of people on this very forum need to consider this point very carefully:

        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        If you look at it from his [i.e. the support forum guy's] point of view, most of clickbank IS a scam. How many people really get back with their ex, cure genital warts or lose weight because of a CB ebook? That guy and his friend probably solve the problems of 90% of the people who go to his forum, desperate for help - for free!

        Problem is -- again, and as per general human nature, unfortunately -- no one gives a shit. "Im alright, Jack!" reigns supreme. Makes me angry to see IMers selling advice about, say panic attacks and anxiety. Or depression. Or some of the more "out there" weight loss diets. Or credit relief. And so on. People who have never experienced any of these things offering advice that really needs to come from a professional lest it seriously mess with some poor person's life in a very real way.

        Okay, I've gone on such a rant that I've forgotten what Point #2 was... hang on...


        2. I don't think there is a Point #2; I've covered it already.

        Alright, another thing:

        To those people putting forward the "it doesn't hurt" argument, I suggest re-reading this post. Actually, no, I'll just quote it because most people will be too lazy to read a very sound argument and instead continue to maintain that there's no possible way they could be causing harm (it's everyone else, of course!):

        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        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.

        Oh... on Matthew Maiden's point about Article Directories being in on it, I totally agree. I was just thinking, though, that the Link Love from article directories must be pretty minimal. I mean, really, it must take Google and the other SEs about 5 minutes to find all the article directories, slap 'em on a list, add them to the PR calculation algorithm and discount them.

        That stuff is for traffic.

        And the directories know that. They get the initial traffic and the Adsense revenue and we get "second-generation/wave/hand" traffic.

        They may well get the main traffic on account of their high PR and lots of inlinking and so on, which ranks them higher in the SERPs, but who says that the link-juice is passed on? Again, I dunno, I'm not an SEO expert.

        Thing is, marketers can virtually spam the article directories because they want that initial wave of traffic (which will click on their ads) and WE are doing all the long-tail keyword research FOR THEM. Then, as long as it's not total dross (and sometimes even if it is!) the reader will click through = Win-Win (for marketer and directory; dunno about the punter).

        But these backlinking packs are about getting a "vote" from another site. That's different.

        It's my opinion that if you go to a site about, say, antique cars and create a profile with a link in it to your **** berry site, noodle around for 20 minutes doing some research on the Net so that you can make what looks like a valid contribution (how much can you teach someone who's already a member of an enthusiast site about antique cars?) and then never go back to that site to actually engage with the other users there in any way -- or only return once a month to add another scraped piece of content -- then you are spamming that site. Plain and simple.

        "Oh, but I'm adding valuable content!"

        Maybe you are (although I'd challenge that). It's certainly better than just creating a profile, adding a link, and moving to the next one.

        You're certainly not going to be too concerned if that 3 minutes of work gets deleted.

        But face the reality: Either way, you are spamming that site. In the latter scenario you're doing it wantonly and in the former you're assuaging the feeling you'd have to face if you were being honest.

        Anyway... enough rant for one day. I've spent far too long writing this response as it is. This thread will probably be yanked again, meaning I've wasted quite a bit of time. And, actually, all this high-minded talk from me or anyone else is not going to change what people do.

        Time to go and do something useful like drive some traffic to one of my sites!

        Later,
        TheNightOwl
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992371].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
          Originally Posted by TheNightOwl View Post

          Interesting question. Problem is, no one really gives a shit.
          Right. So why the big fuss when someone decides that they want a back link but they don't want to contribute to the "social group" forum, blog, twit shit...?

          My point is what is the difference between "writing articles" to get a link, writing "comments" to get a link, and joining, or "subscribing" to the chat group of the month to get a link.

          You can call something "Web 2.0" or "Paradise 3.7" for all I care but it's still the same damn thing. It is designed as a way to get your email, establish a relationship with the lead, and to eventually sell you something.

          Squidoo was not created so that we can all sit around and hold hands and find a way to save the world. We are suppose to "contribute" to their earnings. In return, they allow us ( non poets filled with angst ) to get something out of the deal.

          So I see the definition of spam, in this case, backlinking as:
          the site owner does not like that you seem to be getting more out of the relationship than he/she is.

          In the case of "article" writing, Chris Knight gets a billion hits a day as long as my crap...er, article passes the Google mustard.

          Does he really think that it takes 14,000 articles to answer the question of "How to Get Rid of Man Boobs" ?

          Do you?

          Or how about we can look at it this way...if someone is stupid enough to come online and search through Google for their legal advice then they deserve what they get...my article on "Why It's Unconstitutional To Pay Taxes - So Don't"

          Of course, as long as I put a disclaimer stating that I know nothing about the law and you should not take my legal advice then please read my article on legal advice.

          Back to the Web 2.0, forum, blog, owners who want my email to subscribe, join, participate in the hand holding party, you need to be clear and upfront about exactly what you expect.

          I will say it again, if all you want in your group is poets and teenagers you need to tell me right now so I don't hand over my information to you if I know that I get nothing in exchange.

          If you do accept people like me, (entrepreneurs) but have some rules regarding conduct, contributions, postings...you need to make those clear.

          If you have some unwritten expectations about how you want people to act in your little Utopian Society then don't start complaining when some of the folks who find you don't know how to be as Utopian as you.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993170].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tron2k
    I told her long long ago this would happen,but I guess as long as the money was flowing who cares huh?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992337].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Tron2k View Post

      I told her long long ago this would happen,but I guess as long as the money was flowing who cares huh?
      I don't blame Angela.

      As the saying goes - "it isn't guns that kill people, it is people that kill people".

      Angela's backlinks are great, but they have been massively abused.

      The sad thing is I have seen this sort of thing happen countless times over he years.

      Blog networks were all the rage a couple of years ago. These people were buying expiring high PR sites, putting a blog on them, and then giving their members the login to post whatever they want, complete with backlinks.

      I saw these blogs - it would have been funny if it were not so serious, because ultimately such irresponsible behaviour causes Google to tweak their algorithm, which wrecks another strategy for the rest of us.

      WikiPedia was awesome for a few of us until the word got out.

      I am just as guilty. I developed link gaming products with Jeff Alderson.

      The difference is though that I actually learn through experience.

      I also study Google - a lot - read their patents and have other sources.

      Google is our friend and should be treated as such - you don't kick your friend in the teeth by abusing them do you?

      Above all - few here seem to appreciate the complexity and sophistication of the ever evolving Google algorithm. They know far more than you can imagine.

      I can say, from experience, that no "mass link building strategy" has ever worked in the medium term and ever will work.

      While there are thousands of IM'ers looking to beat the system, Google's team of PhD's will beat them - and they hold all the aces.

      Play the game or do not play it at all.

      My advice is forget anything below PR 6 - not worth the effort.

      Instead put your effort in to finding just one PR 7+ link per month - preferably from a non-public authority site, and never link to the same page twice.

      That said, the future is in direct click-through traffic, and the sooner IM'ers realise that the more pain they will save themselves and the more money they will make.

      The secret is not linking - it is writing.

      The Web is a massive information source used by web browsers for one thing - information.

      Give them what they they want, without looking too much like a marketer,and the money will follow.

      Always put people first, and treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself.

      If Angela is reading this - please do carry on - I respect you as a person and your service. But you need to go back to the drawing board and re-think how you offer and manage the links before you become part of the next Google slap where links from forums and blogs are discounted for SEO.

      Above all Angela - do not take this situation personally or blame yourself - it is not the way the links are provided, it is the way they are used.

      I encourage you to carry on accordingly.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992493].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    What I can't figure out about this discussion... which now seems to
    pop up here every few weeks... is this...

    Why is it apparently so difficult for people to understand that Angela's
    package... or any other linking strategy... is a tool to be used properly in
    order to get desired results?

    Those who run around spamming sites with their goofy links have no reason
    to complain about anything... period. They should all be blacklisted from every
    site on the internet.

    I use Angela's service. I'm happy with the results. Here's what I do...

    1. If I go to a forum and see that the general subject of the forum is
    something I have no interest in... or the ability/knowledge to offer something
    useful to the members... I PASS.

    2. When I do choose to participate on one of these sites I don't drop 'me too'
    one liners all over the place... I PARTICIPATE.

    3. My links don't go to a page that sells anything... they link to a bio page
    that tells those who choose to click something about me. That page does
    include a link to my main site but it's woven into the bio in a way that is perfectly
    natural and normal.

    I have yet to have a post or membership deleted at any site I've linked from.
    I have, in fact, developed some interesting... and profitable... relationships
    with people who followed my bio link and contacted me.

    It all seems pretty damn simple to me...

    Tsnyder
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992347].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
    Can you show us an example of what you do?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
      Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

      Can you show us an example of what you do?
      Sure... here's an example from one of the blogs I post to... the subject
      of the blog post was dealing with stress...

      Not that where it says "Comment by Terry S" my name (Terry S) is a
      text link to my bio page. This particular blog owner also allows a link
      directly to my site... that's at the bottom under my name.

      *** snip ***

      Comment by Terry S

      2008-10-15 17:55:55

      Excellent article, Lillie!

      And, very timely for me. I was having this conversation with a colleague two days ago... on how to separate and deal with good/bad forms of stress.

      I believe good stress is anything we bring on ourselves in the pursuit of providing excellent service to others. Striving to be better than we are can be stressful! That kind of stress will eventually shape and hone us into better human beings.

      Bad stress is a fact of life. How we choose to respond or react will determine its effect on us long term. It's difficult to maintain a positive attitude during times of bad stress but we must make the effort or risk falling into an abyss that can have severe consequences on every facet of our lives.

      Again, excellent article. Thanks for writing about this subject.

      Terry Snyder
      Darn Good Marketing
      Signature
      If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992387].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JayXtreme
    LOL...

    Surely..

    Somebody else saw this coming?...

    Anyways, to anyone who is "struggling" with backlinks, or have had their efforts with Angela's backlink packets wasted.. I suggest you read post #23 in this thread, right at the end of that post, Roger delicately slipped in a goldmine of backlink glory for you to use.

    Read what he said and then research the plan until you find what he means.

    He may have only hinted at what you need to do, but it's a killer in the making.

    I've never used Angela's (or anyone for that matter) backlinks packet/service..

    It's much too easy to find/create my own on properties that actually want you to do it.

    Forget hassling the techy forums and other forums and sites out there, go find the places/portals that are BEGGING for your content in exchange for a backlink.

    Alternatively, create your own high authority sites and bleed the damn pagerank to your other sites without any fuss from anyone but the webmaster (YOU!)

    Peace

    Jay
    Signature

    Bare Murkage.........

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992443].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheNightOwl
      Follow-Up

      Before I go out for the evening to enjoy myself after a hard day's rant (LOL!), here's an update off the back of something that turned up in my inbox today and which I just read while having a coffee...

      -------------------------------------------------------

      On the matter of these Web2.0 sites that encourage you to sign up and add stuff...

      I just got an email from one of the big SocialMedia goobers. In it, he gives an example of what I consider to be just downright unconscionable and unjustifiable spamming of a vibrant and cool community.

      And then he encourages all his readers to do it too (as part of a Step 1: do this, Step 2: do this... report!).

      There's a site out there that's aimed at teens. Well, that's the way I see it. I may be wrong about that.

      Let's take a quick gander at that assertion for a moment: It's part of the Nicklodian Network and has a page of "Online Safety Tips".

      But you make up your own mind. A quick look at the topics posted is a fairly clear indication to me at least of the main audience/target demographic.

      It's a site where people create content to share it with others. They can also message each other and leave comments on people's profiles, etc.

      Anyway, there's a section of the site where you basically post articles.

      So here comes Mr Big Shot Marketer into the community, testicles swinging in the wind, registering his username as his primary keyword(!) and... wait for it... posting an article promoting a ClickBank product about DIY Solar Heating!

      Gimme a break.

      Yes, this site encourages people to sign up and take part in the "user-generated content Web2.0 goodness". What it doesn't invite you to do is come in where you have no business being and then try to promote stuff.

      To kids.

      Makes me sick!

      TheNightOwl
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992473].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
    ExRat: I absolutely respect what you are saying, but the reason I feel qualified to make comments on these matters is because I have already learned through experience the hard way.

    I have paid for my learning experience, but am only too happy to pass the benefit on to forum members.

    It makes no difference to me whether people take notice or not. I have no agenda.

    One link per day from a high PR site is way too much. One link per month might even be too much.

    As for TE - I arrived after Jeff developed it initially, although we developed other software together, but the point is hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    At the time it worked brilliantly at a time when Stephen Pierces "Smart Pages" were failing - it was evolutionary.

    TE was valid at the time because Google saw no reason to penalise it. It was only when TE was abused that Google reacted. This again was due to the user, not to TE itself which conformed to Google policies at the time.

    Brads MyWeddingFavors is an excellent study in SEO. That is a hugely competitive market, but Brad, despite many setbacks, including a major setback, has been able to adapt and maintain his position.

    There are lessons to be learned right there.

    There was a time when Brad used the tactics discussed here and had thousands of backlinks to his site, now he has 329 listed, many from inner pages of the site. The external links are high quality, mostly relevant, and added over time.

    As for adding links - it is not a rule - it is a suggestion based on my own research, experience and approach.

    As the Internet saying goes YMMV.

    As for TE again - it was not black hat at the time - it just became so. The secret is in recognising these facts and taking actions accordingly.

    Mass backlinking has been discounted by experienced IM'ers for years.

    Quality content - whether for your own site or others - is absolute. It is the basis of the Web.

    As for your last comment - TE is the equivalent of Angela in the context of this discussion.

    We simply provide the tools - we have no control over how the tools are used - even though human nature is to exploit or abuse them.

    No strategy or tool is inherently "bad" because they were "good" at the time they were offered in good faith. It is the users that make them bad by abusing them without regard for either other Internet users or Google.

    I have not purchased Angela's backlinks, so I do not know what guidelines she gives, but I would bet that whatever the guidelines are, users have ignored or abused them.

    What I have learned is that I would never, ever rely on links from sites that allow public posting of links in the long term, because it goes against everything Google stands for, even though they may have tolerated it so far.

    I think that "nofollow" was offered to webmasters as a means of controlling abuse on their own sites, but if the webmasters ignore it then Google will not.

    If it was not for IM'ers, there would be vastly more ways of getting any number of backlink's, but IM'ers, often newcomers, always "kill the goose that lays the golden egg".

    You can't blame Google - they exist to make quality content available to the vast majority of regular Web users - not to line IM'ers pockets.

    There remains a few SEO methods if pursued correctly, but for most the focus should be on what Google have always, without waivering stated - providing quality content, whether it is posted on your own site, as an article or on a forum.

    Quality content on your own site will attract natural backlinking.

    Quality content on EZA will attract plenty of targeted, ready to buy visitors to your linked page - which after all is what it is all about.

    I know I state my views robustly - but believe me it is based on many years of hard experience, the benefit of which I share here, that people do not waste months or years following dead-ends leading to shattered dreams and aspirations.

    Whether people take note or not is for the individual - it is called "Freewill".
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992688].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Adrian,

      Thanks for elaborating. I appreciate and agree with much of what you say, but would pick up on a couple of things -

      We simply provide the tools - we have no control over how the tools are used - even though human nature is to exploit or abuse them.

      No strategy or tool is inherently "bad" because they were "good" at the time they were offered in good faith. It is the users that make them bad by abusing them without regard for either other Internet users or Google.

      I have not purchased Angela's backlinks, so I do not know what guidelines she gives, but I would bet that whatever the guidelines are, users have ignored or abused them.
      If you see the two quotes that I provided (again) in my previous post, from the salespage, they appear to totally answer any questions on this subject -

      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.[snip]

      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.
      And the other point -

      You can't blame Google - they exist to make quality content available to the vast majority of regular Web users - not to line IM'ers pockets.
      I think you can blame Google, if you happen to be looking for somebody to blame.

      They exist to make money - nothing else. They do this by scraping peoples' web content and organising it in a manner that is allegedly based upon a secret algorithm, and then presenting it back to people via a useful search mechanism.

      Alongside and interspersed within the content displayed by this useful tool, they also provide paid advertising which is organised by a system which uses another alleged secret algorithm and an auction based system designed to extract the highest fee possible from the advertisers - coupled with a contextual advertising system that webmasters place on their sites, which provides them with a cut of the advertising profits derived from yet another secret algorithm.

      The insinuation that the vast majority of web users would not be able to locate quality content/solutions without companies of this nature is misleading. You want red lipstick? Try redlipstick.com or red-lipstick.com or redlipstick.net.

      They may not exist to line OUR pockets, but they most definitely only exist to line their own and it's OUR pockets that they take it from, and OUR websites that they scrape it from.

      I'm not too comfortable to accept too much 'you must follow Google's advice for the best long term approach' advice from someone who sees Google's existence in the way quoted above, rather than the way I see it. It sounds too much like falling for the 'do no evil' tagline which is blatantly hypocritical and obviously PR spin on their part.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992756].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Colin Evans
    Hi Roger,

    They exist to make money - nothing else. They do this by scraping peoples' web content and organising it in a manner that is allegedly based upon a secret algorithm, and then presenting it back to people via a useful search mechanism.
    I'm glad you raised this point, we often lose sight of the fact that search engines are the biggest scrapers of the lot. The are just websites which make a fortune on auto-generated content.

    I believe everything they do is geared towards protecting their income and flattening serious competition. I don't believe for one minute the search engines exist to give users what they want - at best it's a compromise geared towards lining their pockets, rewarding websites which help them generate money, and making search engine users believe they are finding good information.

    If a search engine wanted to provide links to useful information they wouldn't use software to find it - they would use manual submissions and employ qualified personnel to vet each page submitted (for a fee).
    Signature

    Sig not working today - too hung over...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992855].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Colin,

      If a search engine wanted to provide links to useful information they wouldn't use software to find it - they would use manual submissions and employ qualified personnel to vet each page submitted (for a fee).
      Or they would just call themselves (and act like) Wikipedia.

      But don't get me wrong - I know which one I'd prefer to own.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992871].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
    ExRat: I am sure we fundamentally agree on almost all points - just approaching from different directions.

    There is certainly nothing in what you say I would take issue with.

    As for Google being the biggest "scrapers" and users of bandwidth - I agree - they are.

    But where would the 'net be without Google?

    Where would IM'ers be without Google?

    And webmasters have total control over Google and other spiders through robots.txt and meta tags anyway.

    As for paid advertising - it is as old as the hills. How much would TV, newspapers and other media cost without advertising support - if they even existed at all?

    For IM'ers, AdWords is the most instant and reliable way of achieving traffic.

    The profits Google make, while they may seem excessive, still fund further innovations, without which the 'net would not be what it is today.

    At the final analysis it is all about harmony.

    Google is what it is, the Web is what it is, and Im'ers are what we are are.

    Everyone just needs to learn the unwritten rules and abide by them.

    I know longer look at Google for rankings in the same way as I did a couple of years ago, but rather for sending me traffic as a result of rankings of other sites who do play by the rules - like EZA.

    When an IM'er reconciles the obsession with SEO including backlinks, their world immediately becomes much more harmonious and focused.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
    Hi traffic- bug,

    I think they mean the spammers backlinks, not Angela's.
    If you read the thread and follow the links you'll see that they put her name on the blacklist along with other warriors. If you saw the thread where they (the 'spammed') posted here (mentioned in this thread) it would be clear to you that you are totally incorrect.

    Hi Adrian,

    I agree with some of what you say, but you continue to make statements that disagree with my fundamental philosophy on this, as spelled out above.

    But where would the 'net be without Google?
    Wherever MSN, Yahoo or 'insert name here' had led it via their search engine, coupled with ALL of the other companies & contributors who have influenced it's direction.

    Where would IM'ers be without Google?
    Still sending out emails and offline promotions to subscribers (directing them to offers on pages) gleaned offline, in forums, via Yahoo/MSN amongst many other things - as they were before Google.

    And webmasters have total control over Google and other spiders through robots.txt and meta tags anyway.
    Surely you can't be serious? (Adopts Frank Drebben voice and says, "Yes I am. And don't call me Shirley." Sorry, couldn't resist).

    For IM'ers, AdWords is the most instant and reliable way of achieving traffic.
    And for most IMers - non-experts - the most unpredictable, but predictably expensive - which is why a majority of them avoid it, which forces them into the very situation we are discussing here, where many end up throwing their rubbish over their neighbour's fence.

    The profits Google make, while they may seem excessive, still fund further innovations, without which the 'net would not be what it is today.
    Again, you're adopting the company line. You don't work in their PR department do you Adrian? The exact same innovations all mysteriously seem to ALSO be in line with their apparent policy of data-mining across a broad spectrum of online activities, which many feel crosses into monopolistic and anti-privacy areas, and is also widely viewed as the single most long-term profitable activity one can do online - especially when one is also running the most widespread contextual advertising program.

    Whether someone views this as helpful innovation, or more cynically motivated - is up to the person. Many of these 'innovations' were not original - was gmail the first free email provider? Was chrome the first free browser? Was Google the first search engine?

    At the final analysis it is all about harmony.
    Again we see different sides of the same coin. I see it as all being about money. I see plenty of dis-harmony around.

    Everyone just needs to learn the unwritten rules and abide by them.
    That oxymoron is the exact same one that Google uses when it is wielding it's axe - along with all of the other huge companies which follow it's lead and use secret algorithms, vague guidelines (deliberately left open to interpretation) and harsh, public, punitive measures - in order to use fear of instant loss to control the masses - akin to a dictatorship - which is why so many people talk as if Google invented and owns the internet. No matter how innovative they become, I doubt that the latter will ever be the case.

    If we are to blindly accept your quote above, we lose sight of our own ability to innovate - which (as demonstrated perfectly in this thread) is not good for the internet as a whole - especially for those with the least power. Even perceived absolute power can corrupt, especially if it's perceived and accepted in the minds of those who are being dictated to.

    Reminder - WE are the most important innovators on the internet - the independent masses - not some company that currently has a borderline monopoly - THEY follow OUR lead, not vice-versa. Just watch them for a while and it becomes quite obvious (hint - YouTube).

    I'd love to just agree with you Adrian, but I'm afraid that's not possible in the circumstances.
    Signature


    Roger Davis

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      OMG...There is SOOOOO much solid gold in this thread.

      Roger (ExRat) and so many others...thank you for some real gems.

      Let me add my, as usual, no nonsense 2 cents to this messy subject.

      There is absolutely no promotional strategy PERIOD that once it gets out to
      the masses, can't be abused.

      Anything done in mass quantity is going to attract attention. Even something
      as "ethical" as using PPC advertising has been so abused that Google has
      had to make massive changes to their program since it first started.

      Remember some of the crap you could get away with 5 years ago?

      No more!

      This is the nature of marketing. So please, don't go blaming Angela
      because we marketers just love to shoot our gift horse in the mouth
      and then bury beneath a pile of Donny Osmond records.

      We are the ones to blame...not Angela and not her methods.

      I have never had a problem with any marketing strategy...ever.

      Why? Because I follow the rules. I don't look for shortcuts.

      If I go to a blog and post a comment, I make damn sure it's one hell of
      a comment in my usual "doesn't know when to shut his mouth" style so
      that I am actually adding value to that blog. And then, my link doesn't
      go to a sales or opt in page but to my own blog so that these people can
      read even MORE articles...free.

      Forums?

      This isn't the only one where I have a gazillion posts. I have several
      where I contribute quality content. At the very least, I don't post one
      liners.

      In other words, even if my intentions were solely to get backlinks, my
      actions would never give that away because I contribute.

      Hey, there's a novel concept.

      How about just contributing instead of spamming your crappy links all
      over the place?

      But neh, that would be way too much work.

      And heaven knows we can't have any of that can we?

      Again, my thanks to those who actually had something constructive
      to add to this thread.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[992995].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Morgan
        I haven't tried Angela's product, but it seems like a good deal, and it seems to be working for some people.

        As others have said, it's not her project that is the problem, it's spammers. This is one of the biggest obstacles out there for the rest of us.

        What needs to be done in the industry is a bigger push towards weeding those links out at the software level. As captcha and other verification systems flourish, the need for human interaction increases, and this makes it more expensive for spammers. Right now most of them are paying $500 for a piece of software (I wont name it, but you probably know which one) that goes through and blankets the net with crap, and the rest of us have to fight that much harder to be seen.

        And part of it, is promoting programs that attract spammers. Viagra, casinos, weight loss, you name it. Even if you are a legitimate business person you are supporting them, and other less ethical people are promoting that same stuff in shady ways.

        We need to organize as a group and not patronize these sponsors, and push them to create new rules about promotion. This might make some changes that will help us.
        Signature
        Jeremy Morgan, Software Developer / SEO
        Check out my Programming Blog for news, tips, and tutorials
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994095].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

      Hi traffic- bug,

      I'd love to just agree with you Adrian, but I'm afraid that's not possible in the circumstances.
      As is your prerogative which I respect.

      But we need to approach this from both ends of the spectrum.

      Google want to provide the best possible search experience.

      IM'ers want to game Google for the maximum possible advantage.

      And it has to be said that IM'ers are driving Google to ever greater heights of accuracy - so it cannot be a bad thing.

      But there will come a point, maybe soon, where Google take back control of their search results by discounting all publicly placeable links.

      I am not supporting Google, but I do see their perspective.

      My perspective is that providing they continue to rank EZA pages etc really high in the SERPS then I will be happy.

      I would prefer to focus on making managing my businesses and making money, than chasing backlinks of little or no long-term value.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993483].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    I don't see this as an issue with Angela's service per se.

    But who isn't absolutely sick and tired of spammers and idiots?

    Angela has list of good websites you can use to create valuable backlinks. But not every website will be relevant to your website - no matter how creative you are.

    So move on.

    If you can't find something valuable to add to a forum, blog or other site, don't be a turd leaving your viagra and cialis droppings.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993354].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pheonix44
      Squidoo was not created so that we can all sit around and hold hands and find a way to save the world. We are suppose to "contribute" to their earnings. In return, they allow us ( non poets filled with angst ) to get something out of the deal.


      So I see the definition of spam, in this case, backlinking as:
      the site owner does not like that you seem to be getting more out of the relationship than he/she is.

      [/quote]


      The thing is this, With the backlinks that include forums it is very important that people make an honest attempt at making a decent post in the forum and answering a few questions. I had the same approach as most when I first started doing this. I would say wow! 100 forums, let me just post away. Now I see the error of my ways.

      I direct my links towards targeted forums for my niche. I do my best to answer questions and leave a few long replies before I even dream of leaving a link, and when I do I make sure my link is nothing offensive. If I am able to get just one high pr link then I am happy and it's mission accomplished. The forums have to be respected and as long as this is done you should have no problems.

      Angelas links are cool and so are pauls, but they have to be used the right way to make them stick. Remember, us internet marketers have to stick together. If we abuse these wonderful services we only hurt ourselves.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993377].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi OnlineMasterMind,

        I suppose I have to remind myself that some people would rather focus their time here on "well articulated critiques" that generates a lot of "thanks's" vs. making money.

        By looking at the vast majority of your posts it's quite obvious what category you fall into.
        Yep, it's totally black and white. If you post a lot of articulate posts and people independently thank you for it, that MUST mean that you have no interest in making money.

        Looks a bit like 'thanks envy' rearing it's ugly head to me. It's funny how people praise the manufactured BS, yet criticise anyone who receives genuine, unsolicited appreciation.

        I absolutely love the way it twists peoples' minds here that someone would take the time to post, without a sig file and without the ulterior motive of trying to sell IM products with every word that they write.

        You realise that you're only exacerbating the problem by getting tangled knickers over it, don't you? :p

        Forgive me marketing Gods, I have sinned - I spoke without trying to sell.

        What a strange, twisted world we live in where someone would expend energy for self-educational, therapeutic and other non-selfish reasons.
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993459].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author OnlineMasterMind
          Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

          Hi OnlineMasterMind,



          Yep, it's totally black and white. If you post a lot of articulate posts and people independently thank you for it, that MUST mean that you have no interest in making money.

          Looks a bit like 'thanks envy' rearing it's ugly head to me. It's funny how people praise the manufactured BS, yet criticise anyone who receives genuine, unsolicited appreciation.

          I absolutely love the way it twists peoples' minds here that someone would take the time to post, without a sig file and without the ulterior motive of trying to sell IM products with every word that they write.

          You realise that you're only exacerbating the problem by getting tangled knickers over it, don't you? :p

          Forgive me marketing Gods, I have sinned - I spoke without trying to sell.

          What a strange, twisted world we live in where someone would expend energy for self-educational, therapeutic and other non-selfish reasons.
          I'm just commenting on the fact that your posts reflect that you are much better at criticizing than you are at creating.

          As we know, there are plenty of people out there who resonate with that...

          If people here find your selfless posts 'therapeutic', so be it.

          More power to you ROGER

          In regards to "thanks envy" - well, I won't even comment on that lol

          As far as you thinking I'm getting "tangled" or whatever you called it - this is purely entertainment for me mate. And I absolutely do find it amusing watching some of these BIG TIME WF blokes spout their business wisdom...

          (Perhaps we should change the subtitle of the Main Internet Marketing Discussion Forum, Ay?)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993568].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ExRat
            Hi OnlineMasterMind,



            I'm just commenting on the fact that your posts reflect that you are much better at criticizing than you are at creating.
            Interesting observation. How on earth would my posts reflect anything about my creative ability?

            If people here find your selfless posts 'therapeutic', so be it.
            Perhaps my point would have been clearer if I had said 'self-therapeutic'.

            this is purely entertainment for me mate
            Are you sure you've got time for entertainment? There's money to be made and this is a forum about making money!!!

            And I absolutely do find it amusing watching some of these BIG TIME WF blokes spout their business wisdom...
            Now you're the critic? I see. An anonymous one too.



            Hi Matthew,

            You have to find ways to advertise when you are in business and you should take advantage of all of your opportunities to do so as long as they are legal and ethical.
            The last word of your quote is the key point. The reason I entered the thread at all is to raise the point that after the guy comes here saying that he wants people to stop, and he is derided and his thread is deleted, and everyone gets to see what type of site he has, plus more and more people start surfacing with gripes about the linking, plus with someone selling these lists here knowing that they are causing such trouble, is it the kind of thing that the forum (in general) wants to be associated with and is everybody happy to just turn a blind eye to it?

            I felt compelled to say something and raise some discussion about it, because I see no need for anyone to cross that ethical line, when there are so many other less troublesome solutions available and the only legitimate reason for choosing not to use them is pure laziness.
            Signature


            Roger Davis

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993594].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
              Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

              Interesting observation. How on earth would my posts reflect anything about my creative ability?
              I would think that the fact that someone (you) could write thousands of posts criticizing people would indicate that you are in fact quite creative

              Roger you know how I feel about this subject and ethics. I agree with you.

              I believe that we should all stop and think about what we are about to do before we do it.

              But on the other hand, Not all of these sites that cry foul are innocent victims.

              Some of them benefit from being able to say " I get thousands of posts a day".
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993645].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JoeCool
      Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post


      If you can't find something valuable to add to a forum, blog or other site, don't be a turd leaving your viagra and cialis droppings.
      Or, as I like to say...

      "Don't sh*t where you eat!"



      Best Regards,
      ~ JoeCool
      Signature

      My Favorite Charity .:: www.Unitus.com ::. Helping Third World Entrepreneurial Families Help Themselves.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995020].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Joe,

        One must be careful when posting "rules" in an open forum to make sure such a list is not incomplete or misinterpreted.
        I've already said similar, but Adrian continues to post inconsistent advice.

        Throughout he's saying to follow Google's guidelines to the letter and stay completely whitehat, but also things like -

        Find a high PR .org site who are offering a really great service for kids, animals, the environment or whatever - these are authority sites - and offer to sponsor them for $50 towards their costs in return for a link. Such a link would be worth a thousand forums posts, and again it is making a positive difference to others without net vandalism.
        Paid links - against Google's guidelines.

        He even mentions this here -

        It only takes a good PR 7 link or two to make a huge difference in the rankings of your site. Throwing 30 at your site will kill it because it never happens in real life. Actually, that tactic hasn't worked for at least 3, maybe more years after Google dealt with the paid link industry.
        I already put forward the suggestion that many sites get massive amounts of links overnight and don't get penalised - as in the case when a news site releases information about a famous person's demise. But to no avail.

        More nonsense -

        I would personally like to see Google remove the linking benefits of links from all public sites including forums, blogs etc, so IM'ers can re-focus on making a positive contribution to the Web ecosystem with quality content, to make the web a better place for everyone, instead of parasitically feeding off it.

        EZA would be exempt as now, because they pro-actively manage the service and approve articles.
        Ummm...most forums and blogs 'pro-actively manage the service and approve articles' - or comment/posts. This very forum, for example. What makes EZA any different?

        It's not difficult to find a ton of articles on EZA that are complete and utter nonsense.

        Become an authority in your field - preferably one you are passionate about and expert in
        Sure, but that's not achieved by continually posting stuff like this -

        As mentioned before, I came from the bricks and mortar offline business world - starting 33 years ago when we had little technology to help us. I created my first national company on $500 after selling my car, and then created 2 more. Compared to IM that was hard, very, very hard.

        Bricks and mortar enforces disciplines and personal qualities that simply do not apply to online business which many seem to treat more like a Casino.
        (How do you know what others did before coming online? You don't, because we're not constantly mentioning it in every other post we make.)

        ...or this -

        After 12 years in IM I have made the mistakes many here are making now, and many more will make in the future under the current circumstances.
        or even this -

        Everyone just needs to learn the unwritten rules and abide by them
        Much better (in my opinion) to make sure that whatever you say -

        * makes sense
        * is consistent
        * doesn't contradict itself
        * is accurate
        * has substance and provides proof where needed
        * isn't self-serving

        ...for starters.

        After this post I am preparing to send my own weekly newsletter -11 Letter sized pages of solid information - and not promoting any products
        What on earth is that supposed to prove?
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995106].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Originally Posted by pheonix44 View Post

    ...it is very important that people make an honest attempt at making a decent post in the forum and answering a few questions.
    My question is Why? Why is it important to do those things?

    Have we all agreed that it is better to be someone that gives in order to get?

    I subscribe to that way of thinking but not everyone does.

    So should we make it a law?

    Look, I'm against all of the Cialis Viagra bullsh*t too.

    But who gets to decide what is spam and what isn't on their forum?

    Should it be the forum owner or the Moral Majority?

    If you want to hand over the reigns of your site to someone else then do it.

    Just don't ask me to do it if I don't mind getting a hundred Viagra ads an hour.

    If too many people are breaking your rules and it's hard on you to stay on top of it then you need to decide if what you are getting out of the deal is worth what you have to put into it.

    p.s. thanks for adding the little shit eating grin faces to my post you quoted.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993418].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pheonix44
      My question is Why? Why is it important to do those things?
      In my case I do it because I do not want to be seen as someone who leaves quick one liners. I am fully aware how to search for the forums and blogs in my niche and I make it a point to come around as frequently as I can so that I don't appear as something automated.

      Example: Say I'm responding on a forum about televisions.

      This is a really good post www.televisions.com


      Example 2: The way I would do it.

      I read this post and I found it rather entertaining. You seem to know alot about televisions. I am not up to date on such things so I would appreciate it if you would tell me a little more about the subject. I will get back to you with whatever questions I may have so that I am able to get the best understanding I can. How long have you been a member of this forum? You seem to know a lot. In the future I will be working on something and would appreciate it if you could offer your feedback on it. Thank you.

      Reply, Reply, Reply

      This makes me seem like I am not full of shit. I will usually try to gain the respect of the most credible members of the forum. If this doesn't work then I move on. Like I said before, if I just get one or two good pr 5,6,7 links then it is mission accomplished. If I feel the forum is really valuable to me then I will work out a deal with the forum owner to see if I can advertise directly. The cost is usually pretty reasonable. I can use a little bit of my profits from other ventures to do this which is what I want to do in the first place.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993465].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
        I think a lot of people are missing the point or at least the logic...

        99% of the time when you set out on a link building campaign, you are to some extent spamming, UNLESS you are posting links and comments on sites that actually welcome you to do so. Unfortunately, the types of links that we are talking about here, are not those sites.

        I'll be the first to admit, I have some link building methods that are dark enough to make some people here lean over their desk and fill their trash cans up with vomit. I have no problem admitting this...

        What drives me nuts though is when people try to defend spam by saying that they are adding value. If 10 people tell me that they are adding value to these sites, I would call 9 of them liars. I think it was apparent from early on that these links were there for "hit and run" link building and the automation of these links goes to prove that point. I used them frequently when the packets were first put up for sale. They were a small part of my overall link building strategy and they worked mostly because I was able to identify how to use these links and that was not to use them directly on any site that I really cared about

        These links were used to boost the rankings of my links slaves - Web 2.0 properties that were pre-sells for my main landing pages. Due to the longevity of sites like Squidoo, Blogger and the rest of them, it is unlikely that even if all of these links are removed that it would cause any harm.

        Again, when you use strategies like the ones we are talking about here, at least have the balls to fess up and call it like it is. The site owners have every right to be pissed off at the fact that 1000 people are crashing the gates with the sole intent of bleeding their PR. I mean come on, we all have blogs and get irritated with the amount of people trying to post meaningless posts just to get a link, right? What makes anyone feel that these site owners are any different? I'm sure they are not thrilled about having to spend their time making changes to their sites or going through and manually deleting hundreds of profiles to make their sites a less attractive target for link spammers...which is what you are if you use these links in the way that 99% of the people do.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993494].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
    I think that some people are missing the point of this thread and would rather spend their time justifying why the links they are getting on these forums are good and sound. There is a difference between using clipmarks and squidoo for backlinks and using a forum profile for backlinks. Clipmarks, Squidoo, Hubpages, Weebly, EZA...they don't have a problem with backlinking. The problem is that most IMers want to take the easy road out...they don't want to spend the 5,10 minutes that it would take to build content for the site.

    However, I personally don't see any difference between using a javascript exploit to drop a link on someone's blog (after all, it won't really hurt the blog, right?...and all you are doing is getting a backlink..you aren't being malicious) and dropping a link on a forum profile for your own sole benefit.

    Do I have a problem with this? Not really. I guess when the rubber hits the road, we all have done shady stuff. The issue I see here is that people aren't willing to call it what it is. It is no better than comment spam, content spam, article directory rubbish (spam) and it really serves no purpose to inform, make the world a better place, or offer anything of value for the person who may or may not read it....it is there just to elevate your site on the backs of unsuspecting forum admins.

    The funny thing is that IMers who do this, don't even do it the right way to grab the most juice from their forum profile. While I won't get into how to draw more relevant juice, all you have to do is look at the black hats that are doing the exact same thing that you are doing....they are only doing it better.

    It is what it is....You can try to justify it to make you feel better or make you feel white hat or whatever but at the end of the day, you can't sit back and point fingers at the black hat world...you are pretty much doing the same thing....

    ...you have just managed to justify in your head that you aren't....
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993503].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Hey let's go offline for a moment, where is the value of a billboard?

    What value does that thing provide for me as I'm driving down the street?

    How do I measure the content of that thing? How do I determine whether it is a "quality" content billboard or not?

    It does not matter.

    The city decides to let these signs go up as a way of getting revenue. When the city gets revenue I get a better city but I have to put up with crappy billboards on my Sunday drive.

    My Sunday drive takes a backseat to what the city allows. The business is going to do what is in the best interest of the stockholders and if that means taking advantage of a city that allows billboards then it will place an ad right in front of my beautiful view.

    Before my Sunday drive I like to read the Sunday paper but it's full of full page crap about joining eHarmony so I can find a date.

    I don't like it but what am I going to do? It's legal. The paper allows it.

    If a forum allows me to put a link in my profile and they don't tell me that I have to contribute quality content every other day and they don't explain to me what they define as "quality content" then all of a sudden I'm a spamming asshole?

    This is the part that I don't get.

    You have to find ways to advertise when you are in business and you should take advantage of all of your opportunities to do so as long as they are legal and ethical.

    Why is it ok for a kid on Myspace to advertise for his favorite band by placing a link,(Which the band benefits from) but it's not ok for me to do the same with my business?

    Would it be viewed in a better light if my kid placed my link instead of me?

    Now we're talking about self promotion.

    If you don't want self promotion on your forum say so. If you view a link in your profile and not contributing to the forum as self promotion then say so.

    If you only want kids to promote bands then say so.

    I don't have a problem with rules. I have a problem with unwritten expectations and then punishing people for not living up to those unwritten expectations.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993555].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
      Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

      Hey let's go offline for a moment, where is the value of a billboard?

      What value does that thing provide for me as I'm driving down the street?

      How do I measure the content of that thing? How do I determine whether it is a "quality" content billboard or not?

      It does not matter.

      The city decides to let these signs go up as a way of getting revenue. When the city gets revenue I get a better city but I have to put up with crappy billboards on my Sunday drive.

      My Sunday drive takes a backseat to what the city allows. The business is going to do what is in the best interest of the stockholders and if that means taking advantage of a city that allows billboards then it will place an ad right in front of my beautiful view.

      Before my Sunday drive I like to read the Sunday paper but it's full of full page crap about joining eHarmony so I can find a date.

      I don't like it but what am I going to do? It's legal. The paper allows it.
      There is a difference. In all of these examples, the ad on the billboard or in the paper are paying for it. They didn't just go up there and grab it for themselves.

      If the forum admins decided to charge for the link, how many IMers would jump on it?


      Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

      You have to find ways to advertise when you are in business and you should take advantage of all of your opportunities to do so as long as they are legal and ethical.
      In the case of forum profile links, I imagine that most aren't expecting traffic from their link, ESPECIALLY if they aren't really a part of the community. They aren't advertising at all. They are hoping that by linking their profile page, google will help them rise in the rankings....

      Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

      Why is it ok for a kid on Myspace to advertise for his favorite band by placing a link,(Which the band benefits from) but it's not ok for me to do the same with my business?
      Because it is allowed and most of the bands are active in the MySpace Community. You wouldn't be able to add a link in the band section of MySpace if you were a dentist in Ohio. Once again, the bands are advertising. Profile links aren't meant for anything other than stealing link juice.

      On a side note, if myspace suddenly no followed the links (which they probably do), the bands would advertise regardless. Would most of the IMers who are using forums for links do the same?

      The quick fix for these forums is to allow links but nofollow them. This way they would only have to deal with the BlueFarts who could care less about follow or nofollow.

      Once again, this isn't really about link building practices...I just think that people have a very hard time when they realize that their link building practices are shady...after all, who wants to be one of "them"?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993714].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
        Originally Posted by Ldimilo View Post

        There is a difference. In all of these examples, the ad on the billboard or in the paper are paying for it. They didn't just go up there and grab it for themselves.

        If the forum admins decided to charge for the link, how many IMers would jump on it?




        In the case of forum profile links, I imagine that most aren't expecting traffic from their link, ESPECIALLY if they aren't really a part of the community. They aren't advertising at all. They are hoping that by linking their profile page, google will help them rise in the rankings....



        Because it is allowed and most of the bands are active in the MySpace Community. You wouldn't be able to add a link in the band section of MySpace if you were a dentist in Ohio. Once again, the bands are advertising. Profile links aren't meant for anything other than stealing link juice.

        On a side note, if myspace suddenly no followed the links (which they probably do), the bands would advertise regardless. Would most of the IMers who are using forums for links do the same?

        The quick fix for these forums is to allow links but nofollow them. This way they would only have to deal with the BlueFarts who could care less about follow or nofollow.

        Once again, this isn't really about link building practices...I just think that people have a very hard time when they realize that their link building practices are shady...after all, who wants to be one of "them"?
        Offline advertising, by its very nature is controlled.

        The offline version of IM would be to sneak out at midnight with a million leaflets, and pasting them all around town in the most innapropriate places such as peoples front windows, special interest clubs, high traffic places and so on.

        Twitter, Facebook, Craigslist not to mention people's private blogs and forums and all the other public services exist for the enjoyment of the general web public and their owners, not to be defaced by vandals. Make no mistake, many IM'ers behave like reckless vandals.

        I know my comments might not be popular with some, but the truth sometimes hurts.

        There are plenty of ways of getting high quality, appreciative, ready to purchase visitors, while putting genuine value and quality in to the web at the same time. That is the way it should be, and that is the way I do it - and I am more than happy with my results.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993795].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author patlondon
      Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden View Post

      Hey let's go offline for a moment, where is the value of a billboard?

      What value does that thing provide for me as I'm driving down the street?

      How do I measure the content of that thing? How do I determine whether it is a "quality" content billboard or not?

      It does not matter.

      The city decides to let these signs go up as a way of getting revenue. When the city gets revenue I get a better city but I have to put up with crappy billboards on my Sunday drive.

      My Sunday drive takes a backseat to what the city allows. The business is going to do what is in the best interest of the stockholders and if that means taking advantage of a city that allows billboards then it will place an ad right in front of my beautiful view.

      Before my Sunday drive I like to read the Sunday paper but it's full of full page crap about joining eHarmony so I can find a date.

      I don't like it but what am I going to do? It's legal. The paper allows it.

      If a forum allows me to put a link in my profile and they don't tell me that I have to contribute quality content every other day and they don't explain to me what they define as "quality content" then all of a sudden I'm a spamming asshole?

      This is the part that I don't get.

      You have to find ways to advertise when you are in business and you should take advantage of all of your opportunities to do so as long as they are legal and ethical.

      Why is it ok for a kid on Myspace to advertise for his favorite band by placing a link,(Which the band benefits from) but it's not ok for me to do the same with my business?

      Would it be viewed in a better light if my kid placed my link instead of me?

      Now we're talking about self promotion.

      If you don't want self promotion on your forum say so. If you view a link in your profile and not contributing to the forum as self promotion then say so.

      If you only want kids to promote bands then say so.

      I don't have a problem with rules. I have a problem with unwritten expectations and then punishing people for not living up to those unwritten expectations.
      Exactly! Um...why do website owners allow you to posts a self promoting link in the first place...? If they're truly bothered by profile links...then take the feature out- what gives..?

      Maybe they should have some rules about this- like, you must add 10 useful posts somewhere on this site in order for your self promoting link to go live.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994089].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nick818d
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993923].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
      Originally Posted by Nick818d View Post

      Are the new packets safer than the old ones? What months are safest?
      It's not really the packets so much that are safe or unsafe... it's how they're USED. In other words, YOU decide whether to get backlinks in a "safe" or "unsafe" manner.

      It's like this forum. Those who contribute thoughtfully can safely drop a link. Those who spew one-line answers are going to look like spammers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993940].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    A couple of points and then I will leave this thread. I have no intention of getting into the "battle of wits" (with some VERY intelligent folks, I might add ) that happened the other day. You don't have time for it and either do I.

    First of all, about the Ufaq site, it's one person's perception whether what was posted there was "spam" or whether it "added value". The post I made was in response to a person who had an issue with an application. I have a living, breathing, very close friend who is also a neighbor who would have been able to tell me anything I wanted to know about this product, so I offered assistance to the poster:

    Okay, I didn't write three paragraphs of "value" but in this situation, I didn't think it was necessary.



    As you can see, the ONLY things I linked to was my "About Me" page, which has absolutely NOTHING to sell on it and actually gives away some pretty cool stuff, and my "Backlinks" article, which you could either argue 'added value' or was 'spam', depending on how you look at it.

    I notice that no one has yet mentioned all the times I warn folks to use their "About Me" pages on sites that I think are more 'sensitive' to links. Here is one example. This is when I had a .Edu site in the packet:




    There have been many times that I've asked people to be careful NOT to spam and advised them to use a page like this. The following is one of those times:




    Now, no one here knows how many folks are also CANCELLING their subscriptions:

    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
    so how can they make judgements on how many people I allow to sign up; knowing that a lot of the "rush" is simply from "black hatters" who got my packets for free and which I am doing everything in my power to curtail?

    I've posted my thoughts on this pressure some are trying to put on how my program is run. You can read my thoughts here if you are interested.

    Big Mike sells Social Bookmarking software. I know this for a fact, because I am signed up to his affiliate program for it. Other marketers sell other types of "backlink" type products, including Peter Drew and Brute Force. How is this sort of thing any different from what I am offering? People using Social Bookmarking Software are using it for their OWN stuff, in order to get the SEO and traffic power of Social Bookmarking to their sales pages. And if they have to use software, you know they are not writing unique content for every, single, site. How is this any different?
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993949].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      Big Mike sells Social Bookmarking software. I know this for a fact, because I am signed up to his affiliate program for it. Other marketers sell other types of "backlink" type products, including Peter Drew and Brute Force. How is this sort of thing any different from what I am offering? People using Social Bookmarking Software are using it for their OWN stuff, in order to get the SEO and traffic power of Social Bookmarking to their sales pages. And if they have to use software, you know they are not writing unique content for every, single, site. How is this any different?
      Don't beat yourself up over this Angela - you have done nothing wrong either with your responsible linking practices or the linking packages you offer.

      To many inexperienced IM'ers - and we all have to start somewhere - letting them loose with a package of 30 high PR links is like giving a kid a loaded 44 magnum to play with - someone is going to get hurt.

      Responsible linking takes experience, restraint and above all a deep knowledge of the inner workings of Google. One slip and the damage is done.

      As for software - and I speak from hard experience as the designer and supplier of such software back in the wild west days - no software on the planet can be justified to manipulate the web assets of others for personal gain. It is wrong, and ultimately doomed to failure.

      As I have said time and again - if we add valuable, relevant, thoughtful content to the Web - to our own sites, to forums, to blogs, to Twitter, to EZA, to Yahoo Answers - to any of these sites - we are adding positively to the web and user experience while building the respect and confidence of web readers and participants. Visitors and sales always follow - they must.

      It is clear to me that many users of your package have no clue how Google works.

      It is so simple.

      Google look for natural, relevant, plausible linking patterns.

      I have seen the argument that there are a Trillion pages on the web - and there probably are - but you look at your website logs and you will find Google there most every day. They are not dropping in to say hello, they are indexing your sites and accounting for every link in the algorithm. Don't underestimate Google - they have thousands of very, very smart software engineers who know what IM'ers are doing, and are one step ahead almost all the time.

      It only takes a good PR 7 link or two to make a huge difference in the rankings of your site. Throwing 30 at your site will kill it because it never happens in real life. Actually, that tactic hasn't worked for at least 3, maybe more years after Google dealt with the paid link industry.

      My advice, FWIW, is to continue to locate the link sites, but place the links yourself as part of the service to a very rigid schedule, e.g. one link every month, to different inner pages on the site, making sure the anchor text matches, and the same anchor text is not used twice - because it does not happen in real life. Google discounted links using the same anchor text years ago as well for that reason.

      Well - just my 2 cents anyway - I realise some will think I am being a party pooper, but trust me, I know every word I offer is true, otherwise I would not do so in the first place.

      Everyone has the choice to ignore it if they wish.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994032].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
      Hello,

      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      Big Mike sells Social Bookmarking software. I know this for a fact, because I am signed up to his affiliate program for it. Other marketers sell other types of "backlink" type products, including Peter Drew and Brute Force. How is this sort of thing any different from what I am offering? People using Social Bookmarking Software are using it for their OWN stuff, in order to get the SEO and traffic power of Social Bookmarking to their sales pages. And if they have to use software, you know they are not writing unique content for every, single, site. How is this any different?
      I agree with much of what you wrote, but I think this paragraph is the point that others are making and many are failing to realize...

      The bots that Big Mike sells and the software that Peter Dew Sells as well as software such as SENUKE were created for people to get backlinks much like the packet you are selling.

      Here is the difference though...

      The sites that those pieces of software target want us to leave bookmarks about our sites, they want us to create content on them about our projects, interests, and hobbies - In most cases even if it is at the expense of of doing it just for a backlink.

      The sites in your packet in almost all cases are owned by someone that doesn't want or need the input of people who are showing up just to try to pass some of their PR onto their own site. A Jewish community forum like Jewcy or the addiction forum that you referenced above more than likely view our participation in the capacity that it is in 99% of the time as a pain in the ass
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994048].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
        Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

        The bots that Big Mike sells and the software that Peter Dew Sells as well as software such as SENUKE were created for people to get backlinks much like the packet you are selling.

        Here is the difference though...

        The sites that those pieces of software target want us to leave bookmarks about our sites, they want us to create content on them about our projects, interests, and hobbies - In most cases even if it is at the expense of of doing it just for a backlink.
        BUT these people want eye-balls on their sites. Th eyes of people looking at the content AND adding it. Sure some are created, primarily, to build an email list but thats another bag of worms.

        Mikes tools, which I own, are spam tools. They are made to mass submit articles, links, etc.

        The site owners add captcha to stop software so people must visit the site so Mikes software shows you the captcha.

        Let's not kid ourselves or try to rationalize are actions.

        Garrie
        Signature
        Screw You, NameCheap!
        $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

        SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994138].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
          Garrie,

          Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

          BUT these people want eye-balls on their sites. Th eyes of people looking at the content AND adding it. Sure some are created, primarily, to build an email list but thats another bag of worms.

          Mikes tools, which I own, are spam tools. They are made to mass submit articles, links, etc.

          The site owners add captcha to stop software so people must visit the site so Mikes software shows you the captcha.

          Let's not kid ourselves or try to rationalize are actions.

          Garrie
          I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed what what you have just said. But, the last time I checked Squidoo, hubpages, and blogger were not sending me emails threatening legal action.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994146].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            Garrie,



            I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed what what you have just said. But, the last time I checked Squidoo, hubpages, and blogger were not sending me emails threatening legal action.
            Yeah, I think you and I are on the same page about these types of sites, Jeremy. It is best to remove our links and move on; I would never advocate forcing a link on a site that gets upset about it and when I find out about a site like that in my packet I do warn folks to stay away from it. So does Paul.
            Signature
            -----------------------------------------


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994175].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed what what you have just said. But, the last time I checked Squidoo, hubpages, and blogger were not sending me emails threatening legal action.
            My point was you, in a round about way, said Mikes is OK because of the type of places it submits to and Angelas was "bad" because of it's type of sites. At least that was my interpretation.
            Signature
            Screw You, NameCheap!
            $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

            SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994239].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
              Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

              My point was you, in a round about way, said Mikes is OK because of the type of places it submits to and Angelas was "bad" because of it's type of sites. At least that was my interpretation.
              I'm saying those kinds of sites invite you to come and place links on them...Hell, on the front page it often says "Leave a link to the sites you find interesting" so, they are not the least bit surprised when they realize that you are leaving links on their site.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994248].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
    Hey Angela,

    I don't think what you are doing is wrong. I think you are merely supplying a service to those who think they need it, just like Big Mike...just like Peter Drew...and I don't think this thread is a personal attack on your service...

    The problem isn't necessarily the service as much as it is the people who use the service. There are many here that seem to believe that backlinks packets equate to a free-for-all mentality and they do so without regard to the communities that they are invading.

    I hear the word "value" thrown around here like it means something. If you contribute then that automatically should merit a backlink. However, let's face it. Most people here who use these forums are likely not even interested in the forum aside from the backlink that they can poach from it. I imagine most are 1-and-done and move on to the next backlink.

    Once again, I don't really have a problem with this. People do what they do. What bothers me is that marketers have some sort of answer for this...like a justification for the reason why they are doing it. And then they get surprised when a forum admin comes here and is pissed.

    It is what it is. If you want to game google and shortcut your way on the backs of others, that's fine but call it what it is. A spade is spade no matter what color you draw it.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993983].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Yep. I'll have to say I agree with everything you just said, Ldimilo. And you're right; with all the posts about "adding value" being thrown around, if we get right down to brass tacks, we are doing all of it for the benefit of getting the backlink. Even times when I've been careful to use my "About Me" page, I was doing it for the benefit of the backlink. I am sure that is pretty clear to most, considering what it is that I sell.

    However, I do NOT advocate the crazy practices that are causing some of these sites to be shut down, including things like trying to stuff 10-20 links in every profile. I gave the "benefit of the doubt" a lot of the times, but it's clear that I probably need to spell out what I think the "best practices" are when people are trying to get a backlink, but still want to be a good neighbor and "add value".
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[993998].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Angela,

      You make some valid points that made me think about this from a different angle - here and on page 41 of the WSO.

      I think this is true -

      it's clear that I probably need to spell out what I think the "best practices" are when people are trying to get a backlink, but still want to be a good neighbor and "add value".
      Regarding -

      People using Social Bookmarking Software are using it for their OWN stuff, in order to get the SEO and traffic power of Social Bookmarking to their sales pages. And if they have to use software, you know they are not writing unique content for every, single, site. How is this any different?
      There are similarities, but there are also differences, which are -

      a) the primary function for users of a social bookmark site is to store and manage their favourite links - in other words, the primary action of any user is to leave a link. They might leave a little sidenote, or a tag for searching. But it's not a content site, it's a site where people leave links.

      When people use these sites for promotional reasons (leaving their own links) it very often turns out that this also helps the site owner, at very little extra expense, and the 'damage' caused by spamming the sites is quite easy for the site to soak up. This is because it is more than likely that the business plan is to either 1) earn from advertising, once the site is established, or 2) (more likely) sell the site, once it has captured a majority of the market. Both of these plans are probably worth much more to the owner with a user-count that is boosted by 'spammers' (for want of a better word).

      The primary function of the sites mentioned in this thread (from your packets) is very different, and doesn't revolve solely around users leaving links. It revolves around providing advice for recovering alcoholics, or for people who can't work their OS.

      The bookmarking site owners appear to be more like marketers - they presumably have a monetisation plan and an exit plan - cold, hard business.

      These sites you are backlinking on appear to be obviously totally different in nature, and so do the people running them. They appear to be purely charitable individuals, with no idea how to, and no inclination to monetise their sites. This is clearly the biggest and most obvious difference. When you see the site is a genuine .org, or that it is for alcoholics, then surely even a regular link spammer might decide to give it a miss and let them be.

      It is immediately clear upon visiting these sites, that if the owners have to spend a large amount of time removing stuff, it will severely affect their ability to function properly - much more than it would the average bookmarking site. If a bunch of alcoholics can't find it as easy to get the advice that they need, is that on an absolutely identical level to a situation where someone won't find it as easy to store their bookmarks at that particular time? Surely there is at least a small ethical question raised by the differences?

      The bookmarking sites simply accept a bookmark, through their own automated processes. On the other forums, the admin of the site is there in nearly every thread, answering peoples' questions. Again, the difference is quite obvious.

      b) right from the off, the bookmarking sites surely knew what would happen, they had processes to deal with it, and most likely - deep pockets. Most of the smaller bookmarking sites don't appear to be able to exist. It appears that the ones that have survived are the biggies - the ones with capital.

      I am sure that as soon as someone sat down and started writing out the business plan, the first consideration would be - 'everyone is going to be bookmarking their own sites in order to get a free link - how do we combat this and still present an image of being in control and offering a valuable site?' I doubt there was any surprise when automated bookmarking tools were created immediately.

      They knew it would happen because it was inevitable. And this is why it is different.

      Has anyone seen the bookmarking sites coming to the forum (or any forum, or anywhere else) and complaining about people damaging their business by spamming the sites with their own link - and asking them to stop?

      Most bookmarkers will see the total lack of complaint as a green light to continue and ramp it up (and will assume that the sites appreciate the inflated user figures), because even the search engines knew what would happen and made sure a bookmarking link was virtually useless for ranking, right from the off. So bookmarking is only worth it to a spammer, if they do an absolute ton of it - which (generally) requires automation.

      The reason that your links are more valuable for ranking is purely because Google knows the situation with the smaller sites - if they allow it, they get spammed to death so they HAVE to try and curtail it. Because of this, Google sees no reason to downgrade/discount the 'juice' passed, because in all probablility, the site owner will HAVE to stay on top of it - or close down.

      .............

      If used responsibly, there isn't anything wrong with your idea. But as with the bookmarking sites, it was obvious what was going to happen.

      It's also pretty obvious what is likely to happen next. It always happens if a shortcut appears to be working and becomes popular, because people are looking to make money in all of the ways that it can be made, whether they are promoting their sites via backlinking, or providing the tools for others to do it more profusely.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994101].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LIndaB
        Big Mike sells Social Bookmarking software. I know this for a fact, because I am signed up to his affiliate program for it. Other marketers sell other types of "backlink" type products, including Peter Drew and Brute Force. How is this sort of thing any different from what I am offering? People using Social Bookmarking Software are using it for their OWN stuff, in order to get the SEO and traffic power of Social Bookmarking to their sales pages. And if they have to use software, you know they are not writing unique content for every, single, site. How is this any different?
        Exactly! There is an awful lot of hypocrisy going on in this thread. Yes, social bookmarking is a prime example. I have a strong suspicion that Digg, et al, were not created for the purpose of marketers submitting links to pages on their sites for the purpose of links and indexing. These sites were created so people could share bookmarks of interesting sites with each other, not market their sites. And yet social bookmarking is recommended and used by most marketers on this forum. I've seen no long threads every few days excoriating people who use Big Mike's software for spamming. (Not picking on Big Mike. I have his software and use it). What is really suspicious here is that all the current threads about link spamming are always about Angela's WSO. Even though there are quite a few others who also have backlinking WSO's. Why is Angela the only one ever made to defend what she is selling?

        This is particularly odd to me when some of the people slinging the mud sell products that could be considered far more in the ebony hat realm. Go to the WSO forum on any day and you'll see products about e-whoring, gaming the CPA companies, gaming Craigslist, Twitter, My Space, Facebook, etc. I've even seen cookie stuffing products there. So why the constant Angela-bashing threads? And it doesn't count to say: "I'm not trying to bash Angela, but . . . " I don't see long threads throwing mud at the very definite BH products and their creators that I've mentioned. So what is really going on here?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994112].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
          Originally Posted by LIndaB View Post

          Exactly! There is an awful lot of hypocrisy going on in this thread. Yes, social bookmarking is a prime example. I have a strong suspicion that Digg, et al, were not created for the purpose of marketers submitting links to pages on their sites for the purpose of links and indexing. These sites were created so people could share bookmarks of interesting sites with each other, not market their sites. And yet social bookmarking is recommended and used by most marketers on this forum. I've seen no long threads every few days excoriating people who use Big Mike's software for spamming. (Not picking on Big Mike. I have his software and use it). What is really suspicious here is that all the current threads about link spamming are always about Angela's WSO. Even though there are quite a few others who also have backlinking WSO's. Why is Angela the only one ever made to defend what she is selling?
          Social bookmarking sites are there for you to save your "favorite links". I'm fairly certain that any site that you own could be considered as your favorite?

          Originally Posted by LIndaB View Post

          This is particularly odd to me when some of the people slinging the mud sell products that could be considered far more in the ebony hat realm. Go to the WSO forum on any day and you'll see products about e-whoring, gaming the CPA companies, gaming Craigslist, Twitter, My Space, Facebook, etc. I've even seen cookie stuffing products there. So why the constant Angela-bashing threads? And it doesn't count to say: "I'm not trying to bash Angela, but . . . " I don't see long threads throwing mud at the very definite BH products and their creators that I've mentioned. So what is really going on here?
          If you have not read the threads about the BH products in the WSO and on this forum in general, you need to come around a little more and read this part of the forum. There have been several threads about this in the past month.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994145].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author LIndaB
            Originally Posted by LIndaB
            This is particularly odd to me when some of the people slinging the mud sell products that could be considered far more in the ebony hat realm. Go to the WSO forum on any day and you'll see products about e-whoring, gaming the CPA companies, gaming Craigslist, Twitter, My Space, Facebook, etc. I've even seen cookie stuffing products there. So why the constant Angela-bashing threads? And it doesn't count to say: "I'm not trying to bash Angela, but . . . " I don't see long threads throwing mud at the very definite BH products and their creators that I've mentioned. So what is really going on here?

            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            If you have not read the threads about the BH products in the WSO and on this forum in general, you need to come around a little more and read this part of the forum. There have been several threads about this in the past month.

            Yes, there have been a few threads complaining vaguely about WSO's using certain techniques. But none naming names as these threads regarding Angela's backlink packets have done. When has a thread been posted specifically naming someone's WSO and complaining about either the product or the technique? This is what I'm talking about. I've always thought these types of threads were against the rules of the forum.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994834].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
              Originally Posted by LIndaB View Post

              Yes, there have been a few threads complaining vaguely about WSO's using certain techniques. But none naming names as these threads regarding Angela's backlink packets have done. When has a thread been posted specifically naming someone's WSO and complaining about either the product or the technique? This is what I'm talking about. I've always thought these types of threads were against the rules of the forum.
              Ahhh...

              Several of the threads have had links directly to the WSO's in question...One guy was even outed for faking proof of income in the last 48 hours. It's even gone as far that you can no longer say black-hat if you try to type the word normally it will be blackhat

              It's not as though random people are starting these threads, they are Angelas customers. Further more, I don't think they are starting them to bad mouth here, but more to find out whether or not the links in question are going to get them in trouble or damage their sites. Not to mention, in the past, I'm willing to bet that she has had an influx of orders when these threads were started and they had 50 people in them boasting about what the links were doing to their sites when the threads were popping up 60 days ago

              Anyone that doesn't feel that this thread or any thread is appropriate is free to hit the report button and it will disappear. The fact that this thread is still here is a testament to the fact that people thought that this was a conversation that needed to be had. Noone is talking bad or bad mouthing Angela personally that I have seen. People are discussing whether or not a certain tactic is ethical and effective.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Well, in some cases that is probably true, Jeremy as the "criteria" I was looking for was the Page Rank and not the content or the niche of the site. But I've had quite a bit of those same types of sites in my packets that you mention; including every, single, "social networking" and "social bookmarking" site that I could get my hands on that had High Page Rank and is Do Follow. So in a lot of cases, my packet is just about the same as these other people's product.

    You also have the situations where some of these "niche specific" sites DO appeal to and meet the needs of some of the people who are subscribers who CAN participate and add actual value that's exactly the same as what other users on the site are adding.

    The decision to not put blogs or forum sig links in the packets wasn't only due to spammers; a big part of that decision is because these are the types of sites that really don't like links.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994058].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
      Again, I agree with much of what you have said...

      I will go on the record again and say, I was a very happy subscriber who had no problem recommending your product on numerous occasions even as a non-affiliate.

      It wasn't until I started getting email correspondences from site owners and warnings about "spamming" that I started to think twice about what was going on. Granted, I never stuck around the sites long as I pretty much just followed the instructions in the .PDF to place my link and move on so, I can understand why some of the site owners were upset.

      The emails and complaints didn't start until probably 2 months ago. I personally feel that it started because of the number of people that were crashing the gates at the same time which kind of put a spot light on our activities

      I would again be a happy subscriber and recommend your product again in the future if you maybe limited the number of people that were getting the same links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994072].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Well, I will have to say that I am working on that...I've got an idea that I think a lot of people are going to really like.

    Thank you for your kind words.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
    I hope this isn't duplicate info: Google Warns Of Social Profile Spam -- InformationWeek

    Originally Posted by patlondon View Post

    Exactly! Um...why do website owners allow you to posts a self promoting link in the first place...? If they're truly bothered by profile links...then take the feature out- what gives..?

    Maybe they should have some rules about this- like, you must add 10 useful posts somewhere on this site in order for your self promoting link to go live.
    Meaningful links in an About Me section of a forum or social networking site add value to a community. I use them all the time to learn more about people on various sites. I'm not sure why the popular software doesn't seem to use nofollow as a default.

    Perhaps there's a product or project idea for someone - provide a guide for site owners to hardening the software against this type of spam.
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994129].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Quite a few sites are like this, actually. Many of mine either outright give you a WYSIWYG editor or they tell you you can use the <a> tag or BBCode, meaning they are well aware that links can (and probably will) be created. Again, "social" sites are something I spent many days looking through in order to add the highest Page Rank ones to my packets, so many of my sites are these type as well.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994280].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      Quite a few sites are like this, actually. Many of mine either outright give you a WYSIWYG editor or they tell you you can use the <a> tag or BBCode, meaning they are well aware that links can (and probably will) be created. Again, "social" sites are something I spent many days looking through in order to add the highest Page Rank ones to my packets, so many of my sites are these type as well.
      Umm. No.

      The sites provide them as a benefit to members. Not fot drive by links and one post wonders.

      Using your rational, the WF should be in your pack. After all, it has a WYSIWYG editor, blog and sig.

      Now I'm not saying anything bad about your pack and I was a member until today but don't rationalize or confuse member benefits w/ the ability to spam.
      Signature
      Screw You, NameCheap!
      $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

      SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994307].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
        Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

        Umm. No.

        The sites provide them as a benefit to members. Not fot drive by links and one post wonders.

        Using your rational, the WF should be in your pack. After all, it has a WYSIWYG editor, blog and sig.

        Now I'm not saying anything bad about your pack and I was a member until today but don't rationalize or confuse member benefits w/ the ability to spam.
        I've never advocated "drive by links and one post wonders" as you probably already are aware. However, don't forget that most "blog commenting" backlinks (which marketers have been getting for years) are gained with ONE post on each blog; unless the person is trying to achieve the 'best commentor' award that some (but not all) blogs allow. (And why are people aiming for this "goal", anyway?) So if this sort of thing is wrong, then we should throw out all "do follow search engines" and lists of "do follow" blogs as well.

        I often add other types of information about myself, including my full name, my location, my photo, and often quite a bit of other information. If you look in my guides, you will see my photo and a lot of this other information.

        The Warrior Forum is already being used by pretty much everybody who has the packet, anyway and pretty much everybody has their link in their sig file.
        Signature
        -----------------------------------------


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994321].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
          Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

          However, don't forget that most "blog commenting" backlinks (which marketers have been getting for years) are gained with ONE post on each blog; unless the person is trying to achieve the 'best commentor' award that some (but not all) blogs allow. (And why are people aiming for this "goal", anyway?) So if this sort of thing is wrong, then we should throw out all "do follow search engines" and lists of "do follow" blogs as well.
          I never said blog commenting is wrong. I do it when I want to make the time but my comments actually add something of value. But your list is mainly forums not blogs and you are comparing apples to oranges.

          Rationalize much?

          I also never said people should toss your list but since you brought it up...
          Signature
          Screw You, NameCheap!
          $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

          SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994382].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      To say this thread was a long read would be an understatement.

      Here's something I'm not quite understanding that hasn't been touched on in any of the previous reponses...

      If a packet of backlinks is being diseminated, both paid and pirated, out to a group of people who use them, what happens regarding the link dilution factor.

      It seems, on the surface, that this is a self defeating program in as much as for every link created the link juice is getting diluted from the high PR pages (I'm making some assumptions here).

      In essence, the pie isn't getting any bigger for the high PR pages, their juice is what it is, so every link that leads away from the page(s) competes with every other link on the page for the juice.

      This, to me, seems self defeating to rely on a system that inherently is self diluting.

      What am I missing here?

      I understand link building tactics, per se, what I don't fathom is how a shared system such as the one under discussion can be sustainable over time.

      Does any of my response make sense, or have I just 'read' myself into a blither?

      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994313].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
    Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

    Quite a few sites are like this, actually. Many of mine either outright give you a WYSIWYG editor or they tell you you can use the <a> tag or BBCode, meaning they are well aware that links can (and probably will) be created. Again, "social" sites are something I spent many days looking through in order to add the highest Page Rank ones to my packets, so many of my sites are these type as well.
    Those are usually in an About Me section. I think most site owners are expecting people to tell a bit about themselves and perhaps leave a link to their blog or interesting site, not just leave a list of unrelated links.

    An example of the issue is the new social site a warrior posted for review today. If his site made it onto a backlink list the front page of his site would show the activity log detailing the profile creation. When real contractors came to sign up and clicked on a profile they'd see spammy links instead of finding real people they would like to interact with. The fact that his site is on a backlink list could directly affect the success of his site and his bottom line.

    I find it hard to believe that you're comfortable with that.
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994329].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by AmyBrown View Post

      Those are usually in an About Me section. I think most site owners are expecting people to tell a bit about themselves and perhaps leave a link to their blog or interesting site, not just leave a list of unrelated links.

      An example of the issue is the new social site a warrior posted for review today. If his site made it onto a backlink list the front page of his site would show the activity log detailing the profile creation. When real contractors came to sign up and clicked on a profile they'd see spammy links instead of finding real people they would like to interact with. The fact that his site is on a backlink list could directly affect the success of his site and his bottom line.

      I find it hard to believe that you're comfortable with that.
      Of course I'm not comfortable with that. I warn everybody who writes to me about "how many" links they should put on each profile about doing this and I even mentioned it in my little "explanation" which I posted here. But again, my product provides the sites for people but cannot hold their hand to make sure they do it correctly. All I can do is advise and provide the example.

      Let's not forget that not ALL "social" sites are just for everybody to go there and put their stuff in, either. Quite a few of those sites have a particular "theme" to them.
      Signature
      -----------------------------------------


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994340].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
        Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

        Of course I'm not comfortable with that. I warn everybody who writes to me about "how many" links they should put on each profile about doing this and I even mentioned it in my little "explanation" which I posted here. But again, my product provides the sites for people but cannot hold their hand to make sure they do it correctly. All I can do is advise and provide the example.
        That's hard to reconcile with the screenshot from your linkbuilding WSO:
        http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ted-space.html
        Signature
        "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
        Tom Peters

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994347].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
          Originally Posted by AmyBrown View Post

          That's hard to reconcile with the screenshot from your linkbuilding WSO:
          http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ted-space.html
          That's actually NOT my WSO. It's Paul's. But he's the only Warrior that I allow to use my links for this kind of WSO.

          But I didn't create that WSO, nor do I pay for it. I do some of the work for folks (if they want the type of service I offer, which is not all of these "levels" shown in the WSO), but this work is done either by me, or by outsourcers I know personally and who I've personally trained to to the work.
          Signature
          -----------------------------------------


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994356].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
            Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

            That's actually NOT my WSO. It's Paul's. But he's the only Warrior that I allow to use my links for this kind of WSO.

            But I didn't create that WSO, nor do I pay for it. I do some of the work for folks (if they want the type of service I offer, which is not all of these "levels" shown in the WSO), but this work is done either by me, or by outsourcers I know personally and who I've personally trained to to the work.
            My apologies, from the title I thought you were partners with Paul in this WSO.
            Signature
            "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
            Tom Peters

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Not a problem, Amy...but I honestly don't see what the issue is with the WSO, anyway. The "screenshot" on the front page is simply an example that Paul made up to show folks what kind of report they will get at the end of the job. It doesn't say or show anything about "drive by link spamming" the sites.

    When I do the work for folks, I have a list of personal information I must have before I can start the job. Not only that, but many of the posters who have been talking about "issues" with my packets want me to switch over to doing the job for everybody, anyway. If I am the one doing the job for everybody, how is that people going to sites they are interested in and posting interesting things about themselves? To my mind, me doing everybody's links is no different from the same things people are "concerned" about right now.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994374].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    LOL, the only reason my list is the types of site it is is because of the spammers who abused those sites! In the beginning (and all the way through May of this year) I had blogs and .Edu sites and forums and "news commenting" sites and all sorts of sites. (The "addiction recovery" site that I showed in the screenshot is very similar to a blog.) People tie my hands and then want to point fingers of blame at me for the "types" of sites in the packets. How does that work?
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Brite
    Nice to see you getting involved angela!

    You seemed to have been away for like 2 days since all this talk of your backlinks arrised on full throttle force!

    Tom Brite
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994456].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by Tom Brite View Post

      Nice to see you getting involved angela!

      You seemed to have been away for like 2 days since all this talk of your backlinks arrised on full throttle force!

      Tom Brite
      That's because I'm not sure the "debating" has always been positive. In fact, in some cases and on some threads it was most definitely not positive. This forum has always been my favorite forum because it's well managed and there are some highly intelligent people here. I don't know that negative "debating" has been a good thing for the forum. I also don't think that it's wise to feel like I'm on the defensive so much of the time. So someone starts a thread about my backlinks? (How many threads has it been now?) I don't think it's required that I have to come to the thread and defend what I am doing yet again.

      I wrote up a pretty clear message on my own thread so that people could see "where I'm coming from". But I certainly don't have the time or the energy to be posting the same defenses over and over and over again. The one and only reason I posted here is so that people could see that I've never advocated "drive by" spamming and have given strong advice on how to NOT upset the sites that are "sensitive" to backlinks and yet still get a backlink; which is the same sort of thing marketers have been doing on blogs and forums and Social Bookmarking sites all along.
      Signature
      -----------------------------------------


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994467].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Brite
        Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

        That's because I'm not sure the "debating" has always been positive. In fact, in some cases and on some threads it was most definitely not positive. This forum has always been my favorite forum because it's well managed and there are some highly intelligent people here. I don't know that negative "debating" has been a good thing for the forum. I also don't think that it's wise to feel like I'm on the defensive so much of the time. So someone starts a thread about my backlinks? (How many threads has it been now?) I don't think it's required that I have to come to the thread and defend what I am doing yet again.

        I wrote up a pretty clear message on my own thread so that people could see "where I'm coming from". But I certainly don't have the time or the energy to be posting the same defenses over and over and over again.
        Fair enough!

        I have noticed recently that there are alot of threads about yourself and your backlinks packs, however what amazes me is that pauls backlink packs don't seem to be of a problem or hot conversation at all yet i know for a fact these are shared too!

        Ive seen you being active in certain areas to stop people sharing your link packs too so that is a plus credit to yourself and your service's here.

        Tom Brite
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994474].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Thank you, Tom.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994480].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author momkat
    Angela:
    I appreciate that you have managed to handle what has appeared to be some nasty behavior on the part of others with some class. As I like to tell my kids - life is not about what happens to you so much as how you respond to it - you responded well. As for others...they didn't respond so well..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994607].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by momkat View Post

      Angela:
      I appreciate that you have managed to handle what has appeared to be some nasty behavior on the part of others with some class. As I like to tell my kids - life is not about what happens to you so much as how you respond to it - you responded well. As for others...they didn't respond so well..
      Exceptional point.

      Angela has conducted herself with dignity and honesty - and that says much about her personal integrity and tells me that she is an honest person, not just another opportunist out to make a quick buck.

      Everyone is here to learn through experience through Freewill. If it does not work out, don't blame the shopkeeper or shoot the messenger. Instead learn from the experience and move on. Such lessons are worth many times the price you paid Angela, because you will not make the same mistakes in future, and you have just gained valuable business experience.

      By "mistakes" I don't mean buying the backlinks package, I mean the way it was applied.

      I am sure Angela has also learned a lot, and will return with an even better service which I for one would consider.

      No one is obligated to use these backlink packages. If people are honest they would admit that many do because they are lazy.

      Caveat emptor, quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.

      "Let a purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party."

      If you buy a gun and then shoot yourself in the foot, you cannot blame the gun maker or the shop you purchased it from.

      If you shoot someone else with the gun it is your own fault - not the aforementioned.

      It seems to me that some people here are blaming Angela for offering the package in the first place, when in fact she is simply part of the equation.

      As mentioned before, I came from the bricks and mortar offline business world - starting 33 years ago when we had little technology to help us. I created my first national company on $500 after selling my car, and then created 2 more. Compared to IM that was hard, very, very hard.

      Bricks and mortar enforces disciplines and personal qualities that simply do not apply to online business which many seem to treat more like a Casino.

      If you want help from someone in the offline world, you do not go and slap a bunch of posters all over their property with your phone number on it do you?

      Well it is the same thing when IM'ers deface public websites, many of which exist freely for the enjoyment of others.

      Twitter is a great service - I would not like to see it rendered unusable.

      I would personally like to see Google remove the linking benefits of links from all public sites including forums, blogs etc, so IM'ers can re-focus on making a positive contribution to the Web ecosystem with quality content, to make the web a better place for everyone, instead of parasitically feeding off it.

      EZA would be exempt as now, because they pro-actively manage the service and approve articles.

      Yahoo Answers is an excellent example where we can help thousands of people while suggesting our sites for "further reading".

      From what I know of Google, their core ethos - a link is a "vote" from one webmaster to another - I believe all public sites will lose any SEO benefit - they have probably already been devalued.

      Be creative.

      Buy your own high PR site on an auction.

      Find a high PR .org site who are offering a really great service for kids, animals, the environment or whatever - these are authority sites - and offer to sponsor them for $50 towards their costs in return for a link. Such a link would be worth a thousand forums posts, and again it is making a positive difference to others without net vandalism.

      I make no apologies for the lecture.

      After 12 years in IM I have made the mistakes many here are making now, and many more will make in the future under the current circumstances.

      You cannot build a long-term web business on sand.

      Learn how to write quality content that thousands of people can benefit from, add it to your site, submit others to EZA and other article directories, provide detailed, thoughtful answers in Yahoo Answers, and so on.

      This does not include "spun" material either.

      You must and will succeed.

      Above all, send out a regular, quality newsletter on the subject. Build a relationship with your customers and prospects. That is what offline business has always been about - just to succeed - and that is what online business is about.

      Become an authority in your field - preferably one you are passionate about and expert in.

      After this post I am preparing to send my own weekly newsletter -11 Letter sized pages of solid information - and not promoting any products.

      I hope this is food for thought.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Thank you very much for your kind words, momkat.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994616].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jesus Perez
    I can confirm that when I first started Angela's Backlinks, they did not endorse any spamming and the methods were extremely clean (as I'm sure subsequent methods will be as well).

    She created a top notch service that never endorsed spamming.

    Unfortunately, there's always bad apples that create "scripts" to automate the process and, in the process, ruin it for everyone.

    Sorry to hear about the trouble this has raised...some people don't know how to value a good thing.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994729].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mitch Miller
    I am wondering why Angela insists that the spamming is coming from people that have stolen her links? That just seems silly. Could it not be that you sold and sold and sold this thing to the point where it is just over sold? I have to believe that there are paying customers that are abusing the strategy also.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994753].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kkchoon
      Originally Posted by Mitch Miller View Post

      I am wondering why Angela insists that the spamming is coming from people that have stolen her links? That just seems silly. Could it not be that you sold and sold and sold this thing to the point where it is just over sold? I have to believe that there are paying customers that are abusing the strategy also.
      May be this is the case, but I think most of the time, the list is being over use...

      Think about it, you can use the list for your own sites, I mean "sites" with a "S".

      if Angela has 1000 members, and each member has 20 sites... that's a lot!


      Don't mention about the SEO service provide on digitalpoint and other sites that uses Angela backlinks.

      If Angela can provide segmented premium service, this problem should be minimized.

      Premium package A: 100 members only
      Premium package B: 100 members only
      Premium package C: 100 members only

      Each premium package has different sites, and some sites may cross to each package, that would greatly reduce the spam complaints until someone started to distribute the list to everyone...
      Signature

      Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994798].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Mitch Miller View Post

      I am wondering why Angela insists that the spamming is coming from people that have stolen her links? That just seems silly. Could it not be that you sold and sold and sold this thing to the point where it is just over sold? I have to believe that there are paying customers that are abusing the strategy also.
      The only way Angela's service can work is to place every link herself - following strict linking guidelines.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[994970].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AndyBlackSEO
    I have noticed that with Angelas links, the way in which you set your profile up can make a huge difference with your rankings.

    I've had much better results creating just 15 profiles for one of my sites than I have with 40 profiles for another site. And it's all down to the way I set them up.

    On another note. It would be quite easy to write a web app / script that could query google, analyze each of the sites to see whether you can 'create profile', 'register' etc, check for nofolow and then display ALL the results in a table along with page rank. This would be based on keywords you enter so you could return (broad) niche specific results.

    If I developed this, would anyone like a copy?
    Signature
    [FREE SEO TOOL] Build 29 Effective, High Authority Backlinks that Will Increase Your Google Rankings in 2020... CLICK HERE ...
    ... Instant backlinks that can get you results within 24-72hrs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995173].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jon Steel
      I would definitely want a copy.

      js

      Originally Posted by AndyBlackSEO View Post

      I have noticed that with Angelas links, the way in which you set your profile up can make a huge difference with your rankings.

      I've had much better results creating just 15 profiles for one of my sites than I have with 40 profiles for another site. And it's all down to the way I set them up.

      On another note. It would be quite easy to write a web app / script that could query google, analyze each of the sites to see whether you can 'create profile', 'register' etc, check for nofolow and then display ALL the results in a table along with page rank. This would be based on keywords you enter so you could return (broad) niche specific results.

      If I developed this, would anyone like a copy?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995194].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WinsonYeung
      Originally Posted by AndyBlackSEO View Post

      I have noticed that with Angelas links, the way in which you set your profile up can make a huge difference with your rankings.

      I've had much better results creating just 15 profiles for one of my sites than I have with 40 profiles for another site. And it's all down to the way I set them up.

      On another note. It would be quite easy to write a web app / script that could query google, analyze each of the sites to see whether you can 'create profile', 'register' etc, check for nofolow and then display ALL the results in a table along with page rank. This would be based on keywords you enter so you could return (broad) niche specific results.

      If I developed this, would anyone like a copy?
      If you can create that, I'm definitely interested to have a copy too.
      Signature
      [WSO of The Day] Discount How To Generate 172.56% Positive Return OR build your List for FREE!

      "Case Study: Discover You Can Make $1371.66 With A Simple Blog Post by Clicking Here"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995603].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
    ExRat:

    I am sharing the benefit of my own experience - not stating it is absolute.

    I have noticed that rather than sharing the benefit your own experience you find it more gratifying to debunk what I am sharing here. I have played along in a few posts - but no more - it is counter-productive.


    I would just mention paid links vis a vis sponsored links - they are very different.

    Paid links originate on sites that seek to profit from their PR status by either pro actively selling links or using a link brokerage service - all of which Google know about and monitor

    Offering to sponsor a charity or whatever for $50 per month in return for a "Sponsored by....." link on the home page is completely different, and not something Google would either detect or know about.

    I am not going to argue with you - if you think you know better, or have more real life experience, then just go right ahead and do it - you don't need to convince me.

    After all - one of the best ways to learn is the hard way
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[995979].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    To be brutally honest, it absolutely amazes me that anyone believes they can single handedly beat Google in the long-term, considering the vast amount of real-time data they have and their thousands of PhD software engineers who are probably the best in the world at what they do.
    This is just my own personal opinion, but I suspect that Google DOES allow some of this stuff. Google would have to be living under a rock in the last few years not to know that people are doing stuff like Social Bookmarking and Blog commenting in order to give their own sites a bit of a "push". Heck, all they have to do is pay attention to their own advertisers! How much money is spent on PPC for "Social Bookmarking software and services" and "Blog commenting software and services"? I guarantee you, those services are raking in the money for Google.

    You're correct in that Google has some super well-educated, very intelligent people working for them; don't forget that people from the "outside" sometimes get hired on to work for Google too...possibly people who know what sorts of things that others will do to get good rankings. Matt Cutts himself, with all the talking to "outsiders" that he does, has got to know about some of this. Some of the questions aimed at him hit on these very subjects!

    I wonder if Google is actually allowing some of this to work so that people will interact with each other on these sites. Some sites appeal to folks that might not have any other "stake" online (like the sites that appeal to teens and other niche groups) but with so many people online nowadays, a good percentage of the population has something online they'd like to see traffic to. Maybe there's a chance that this sort of thing is a "controlled allowance" that Google is well aware of so that there is less autonomy online and so that it creates a bit of "online synergy".

    Of course they are not going to come out and tell us this; they are also going to "recommend" things like the 'no follow' tag so that they can say that they don't want people to manipulate the search results. But in the end, I have to believe that Google does know about and is deliberately allowing some of this.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996538].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SarahMcHarry
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      You're correct in that Google has some super well-educated, very intelligent people working for them; don't forget that people from the "outside" sometimes get hired on to work for Google too...possibly people who know what sorts of things that others will do to get good rankings. Matt Cutts himself, with all the talking to "outsiders" that he does, has got to know about some of this. Some of the questions aimed at him hit on these very subjects!
      ............................
      Of course they are not going to come out and tell us this; they are also going to "recommend" things like the 'no follow' tag so that they can say that they don't want people to manipulate the search results. But in the end, I have to believe that Google does know about and is deliberately allowing some of this.
      If Google is as paranoid as people seem to think then I'll bet they have people monitoring this forum (and others), and all the dodgy WSOs and spammy tools, 24/7/52 and they know perfectly well what is going on.

      I am a user of Angela's and Paul's links and I generally post to 2-3 sites per day. Without exception my sites have risen in the search results on all three major engines and my traffic has increased. Maybe not surprisingly my biggest boost in the rankings has come from Bing. Maybe Bill Gates has other things on his mind right now... :rolleyes:

      Sarah
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996961].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by SarahMcHarry View Post

        If Google is as paranoid as people seem to think then I'll bet they have people monitoring this forum (and others), and all the dodgy WSOs and spammy tools, 24/7/52 and they know perfectly well what is going on.
        I think a good question would be, "Why wouldn't they?"

        It there a legit reason why they wouldn't hire a staff to "infilitrate" the top 50 or so SEO forums, as well as buy SEO products?
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[997067].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
        Originally Posted by SarahMcHarry View Post

        If Google is as paranoid as people seem to think then I'll bet they have people monitoring this forum (and others), and all the dodgy WSOs and spammy tools, 24/7/52 and they know perfectly well what is going on.
        Sarah
        It is not about paranoia, it is about quality in the eyes of Google.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998011].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
    I agree to a point, but I like to look at things, Google in this case from a more fundamental perspective.

    Larry Page and Sergey Brin had this dream of a search engine that worked like references to academic papers. Quite simply - the more a paper was referenced by other papers, the more important it is deemed to be in that field.

    Now Larry and Sergey held to that principle when they founded Google, when they realised that the more times a web page was referenced - linked - the more important it is deemed to be.

    In absolute terms Google have one fundamental objective - to return the most relevant results based upon the deemed importance of a web page based on the democratic environmentof the Internet.

    However - the whole concept was built around webmasters referencing pages on other websites that they felt were relevant and added value to their own site - this is the basis of hyper linking.

    But of course the advent of social and community sites that allow anyone to link to any page for any reason has made a complete mockery of this fundamental, founding principle.

    Google have zero interest in allowing anyone to abuse their algorithm to promote their own sites, not the least of which reason is they provide AdWords which anyone can use as paid advertising - which is the way it has worked in one form or another for a couple of hundred years.

    Honestly - over the last few years I have seen wave after wave of IM products developed to undermine and profit from the Google service in some way - all have failed. IM'ers have collectively spent billions of dollars on these products - all wasted except for any short term benefit.

    The only people that ever benefit are the makers of these products. It can be likened to the old Gold rush days where most prospectors went home broke, while the people making all the money were the shrewd ones selling the picks, shovels and pans to feed the greed of the prospectors.

    History repeats itself and it is repeating itself in IM.

    Everyone wants a quick fix, magic bullet, the holy grail to "overnight riches" but you know what - there isn't one - never has - never will be.

    It is just that the IM promises so much, because billions of people see the claims - and there are plenty of successes out there - and want a slice of the action without any business experience, commitment or dedication - which is why 97% fail and end up like those Gold prospectors from days of yore.

    As I mentioned before - I study everything I can about Google, including the patents, and that gives me a very good idea of where they are heading.

    They want the best possible search experience that ranks sites on merit.

    There are degrees of merit of course.

    It could be said that Google allow links in forums because the poster is genuinely voting for a site - and that might well be. Same on a blog, Facebook or whatever, but the truth is all these services have been swarmed over by IM'ers, without regard for the service itself, or its users, and rendered all links meaningless.

    Google provided "nofollow" as an opportunity for public services to police themselves - which has been quite successful in the blogosphere, but much less so in forums.

    I have no doubt that Google will soon deal with this in the algorithm, which they could do with extreme ease.

    Matt Cutts has been asked about his view on public links, and has consistently indicated that they are fine from the point of view of inviting a reader to click through to a site from the link, but not to gain any advantage in the SERPS.

    My entire focus now is on click through traffic, with SEO benefits a bonus, although I still write all pages for SEO and link using SEO providing there will be no adverse effects.

    The SEO free for all party ended at least three years ago, which is why many of the IM heavyweights of that time have now retired with their stash.

    Traffic acquisition today is a whole new ball game, and in fact is exiting in terms of the ever increasing number of opportunities to gain visitors without gaming Google, and without vandalising public services or wrecking the social networking experience of the 99.99% of Internet uses who have no interest in IM - they just want to hang out, network and enjoy surfing the 'net.

    So where does this leave your links?

    I think you have a major opportunity in fact.

    It is obvious that the previous system is no longer viable, but nevertheless high PR links, from non-public sites in particular are very valuable. You don't need a bucket full of PR7 to boost your rankings - one will make a big difference depending on the origin and other factors.

    My suggestion, FWIW, is to offer smaller packages of high PR, high quality links, say 5, and manage them yourself - adding them at one per month at most, and to different inner pages. This could be preferably on trust so the source sites do not leak out and get abused. Also remember that the source link site should broadly match the niche relevancy as the target site and be thoughtful - i.e. no posting weigh loss adds on sites helping anorexics.

    Many IM'ers seem to have an almost total disregard to the feelings of others in their obsession to post links and low quality, spun articles at all costs.

    I think this thread has been most valuable as a reality check, but also shows that your service could be as valuable as ever, if only you learn from what has been said by everyone, and configure your service accordingly.

    I certainly wish you well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996737].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author adamv
      Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

      Blah blah, blah blah blah.
      A lot of what you say sounds valid but you also make it sound like search engine optimization is impossible and anyone who is able to get ranked for a term is somehow immoral or unethical and breaking the rules of the almighty Google.

      It certainly IS possible to get ranked for keywords with some effort and this has been proven countless times. And, I see nothing morally wrong with trying to get ranked in the search engines. There are methods that are morally wrong but you make it sound like the very act of trying to obtain rankings is wrong and I'm just not buying it.
      Signature

      Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996838].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
        Originally Posted by adamv View Post

        A lot of what you say sounds valid but you also make it sound like search engine optimization is impossible and anyone who is able to get ranked for a term is somehow immoral or unethical and breaking the rules of the almighty Google.

        It certainly IS possible to get ranked for keywords with some effort and this has been proven countless times. And, I see nothing morally wrong with trying to get ranked in the search engines. There are methods that are morally wrong but you make it sound like the very act of trying to obtain rankings is wrong and I'm just not buying it.
        I did not imply it was wrong. but rather, in my view, a misdirection of efforts in the context of sites allowing links to be placed by anyone.

        "Search Engine Optimisation" implies optimising your site for the search engines, which used to be the case 10 years ago - although -of course all sites should be search engine friendly.

        These days it is all about links, except for the fact that Google devalue new sites to the age of 3 to 5 years -making rankings for anything other than low traffic keywords difficult.

        I am not asking you to "buy" anything - where is my WSO?

        I am contributing to this forum with my usual total agenda free open ness.

        My position is simple.

        I am very busy with numerous projects, and have learnt over three decades to manage my time most efficiently for the maximum possible return.

        Whereas 5 years ago SEO was #1, now it is probably #5 on my list of priorities.

        My main message is to look ahead. Just because it works today does not mean it will work tomorrow - history supports that time and again, and we should all learn from history.

        Again - my view is that links from public sites are of questionable value now, and probably of no value in the future, so I prefer to focus my time on factors for long-term success, which generally means in sync with Google.

        What you believe or do is your own affair - makes no difference to me - I am simply endeavouring to help those here who might appreciate it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996887].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael D
          Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

          I did not imply it was wrong. but rather, in my view, a misdirection of efforts in the context of sites allowing links to be placed by anyone.

          "Search Engine Optimisation" implies optimising your site for the search engines, which used to be the case 10 years ago - although -of course all sites should be search engine friendly.

          These days it is all about links, except for the fact that Google devalue new sites to the age of 3 to 5 years -making rankings for anything other than low traffic keywords difficult.

          I am not asking you to "buy" anything - where is my WSO?

          I am contributing to this forum with my usual total agenda free open ness.

          My position is simple.

          I am very busy with numerous projects, and have learnt over three decades to manage my time most efficiently for the maximum possible return.

          Whereas 5 years ago SEO was #1, now it is probably #5 on my list of priorities.

          My main message is to look ahead. Just because it works today does not mean it will work tomorrow - history supports that time and again, and we should all learn from history.

          Again - my view is that links from public sites are of questionable value now, and probably of no value in the future, so I prefer to focus my time on factors for long-term success, which generally means in sync with Google.

          What you believe or do is your own affair - makes no difference to me - I am simply endeavouring to help those here who might appreciate it.

          Well, it is appreciated to offer your "opinion" on these boards but not to say your word is an "absolute truth". The fact that you throw around "Google facts" is misleading. While many things can be read about and studied you still have no idea how or what direction they will be going in. You also have no idea what exactly goes into their algo because it has changed and is kept secret.

          The other thing people need to realize is anything we do today could be dead tomorrow. That includes buying links on sites even if you say that it is a "site sponsor" - which by the way is a huge paid link footprint no matter the intent.

          Which I find funny that you are so against gaming Google but are okay with buying links. Remember Google doesn't know your intent with these links. Paid links are one of the biggest "no-no's" from Google.

          This business changes so much from month to month. You can try and build a "long term" business built on specific principles, but these principles will inevitably change and could change your entire business model. So, instead of telling people what "you think" will happen with SEO in the future, which could be true, or not tell people to adapt. Those who adapt to whatever the "in thing" is at the time and can do that without losing their entire business are the ones who make it in this game. Speculation can be helpful, but until something happens and you adapt there really isn't much of a point worrying yourself.

          To set one thing straight too - tell me if I am wrong - Angela's links are not on the specific page which has the high PR. You are usually building new subpages on these sites with new profiles. So, limiting her links to 1 a month would do pretty much nothing for your site.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996941].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
            Originally Posted by Michael D View Post

            Which I find funny that you are so against gaming Google but are okay with buying links. Remember Google doesn't know your intent with these links. Paid links are one of the biggest "no-no's" from Google.
            Paid links are perfectly fine with Google, so long as you buy your links through AdWords.

            It's other websites and people profiting from advertising that they don't like.

            If Google is so against paid links, they should put their money where their mouth is and shut down AdSense and AdWords.

            I don't see them doing that, do you?
            Signature

            Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

            Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996954].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
            Originally Posted by Michael D View Post

            Well, it is appreciated to offer your "opinion" on these boards but not to say your word is an "absolute truth". The fact that you throw around "Google facts" is misleading. While many things can be read about and studied you still have no idea how or what direction they will be going in. You also have no idea what exactly goes into their algo because it has changed and is kept secret.

            The other thing people need to realize is anything we do today could be dead tomorrow. That includes buying links on sites even if you say that it is a "site sponsor" - which by the way is a huge paid link footprint no matter the intent.

            Which I find funny that you are so against gaming Google but are okay with buying links. Remember Google doesn't know your intent with these links. Paid links are one of the biggest "no-no's" from Google.

            This business changes so much from month to month. You can try and build a "long term" business built on specific principles, but these principles will inevitably change and could change your entire business model. So, instead of telling people what "you think" will happen with SEO in the future, which could be true, or not tell people to adapt. Those who adapt to whatever the "in thing" is at the time and can do that without losing their entire business are the ones who make it in this game. Speculation can be helpful, but until something happens and you adapt there really isn't much of a point worrying yourself.

            To set one thing straight too - tell me if I am wrong - Angela's links are not on the specific page which has the high PR. You are usually building new subpages on these sites with new profiles. So, limiting her links to 1 a month would do pretty much nothing for your site.
            I am not suggesting what I am saying is the absolute truth, and do not represent it as such.

            It is however by absolute experience and knowledge of the past 12 years in IM that I choose to freely share, using my valuable time, in the hope of saving people here a lot of pain and wasted efforts.

            I only have one desire in this context - to see everyone succeed with their IM dreams.

            Anyone who does not agree - and this is a forum of many views - can ignore my contribution and do what they like to their own sites - it is a free world.

            I am not against gaming Google in principle - they are fair game - my message is that Google is against people gaming Google, and their ongoing objective is to prevent it - and they always do - or at least always have in the past.

            Long-term business principles never change much, if at all.

            What we are referring to is one aspect of a website - SEO - nothing else.

            What I am saying, plain and simple, is that yes responsible SEO should be a part of any strategy, but irresponsible SEO -which is what this thread is all about - will not only kill any SEO benefits sooner or later, it could kill the entire site.

            These days there are so many more long-term strategies to bring quality traffic, which are in harmony with Googe and the web ecosystem, that I cannot understand why people would knowingly do something that would even risk wrecking months or years of effort, never mind defend it.

            I am only trying to same people here pain and disilusionment, while suggesting, not stating, ways that are much more productive in the long-term.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998042].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author adamv
          Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post


          What you believe or do is your own affair - makes no difference to me - I am simply endeavouring to help those here who might appreciate it.
          It sounds more like you're endeavouring to keep people from attempting to rank in the search engines. I can't imagine why you would want to do that but that is sure as hell the way it sounds when reading your posts.

          I don't think that simply writing great content and getting a PR 7 link once per month is going to get my sites ranked in the search engines any time soon and I don't want to wait 5 years or so to start getting traffic to my sites. There are however plenty of other techniques (many of which are not spammy) that show positive results in a timely fashion.

          I know it makes no difference to you but for anyone else who's reading, I'm going to do what works today (in as spam free a way as possible). I'm not going to worry that at some point in the future a technique may become irrelevant and no longer work. When that day comes I will learn and adapt but to take no action because something might not work in the future is just an excuse to be a failure and not take any action.
          Signature

          Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[996944].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
            Originally Posted by adamv View Post

            It sounds more like you're endeavouring to keep people from attempting to rank in the search engines. I can't imagine why you would want to do that but that is sure as hell the way it sounds when reading your posts.
            Now why would I do that? It really makes no difference to me.

            The point I am making is that if people have so many hours per day to engage in their IM business - by necessity or choice - it is much better - in my opinion - to focus only on strategies that can bring long term results.

            Yes you can boost your new site for up to 6 weeks - most likely 2 weeks - but then it is more likely than not to get sandboxed which is counter-productive.

            Time is vastly better spent on creating content for the website and places that bring direct traffic than on gaming Google for your site which has never worked in even the medium term, and likely never will.

            A quality PR 7 link can have dramatically better results than thousands of PR 5's for many reasons.

            Firstly - it is almost impossible to backlink hundreds of PR 4 or 5 links without tipping Googles filters, because they would naturally take months or years to add. You can get a single backlink to great effect, and add more over months.

            Like I sad though - I am simply making a contribution based on my own knowledge and experience. What you choose to do it up to you.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dorim
    This topic has already been discussed here:
    http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...backlinks.html
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[997370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ethics101
    I'm really glad that I signed up to this forum, so much information here and so many genuine opinions on any topic...that seems to be absent on other forums I visit. Back on topic...It's good to see that this thread has had such a response from everyone, even though the topic has been discussed in other threads. No offense to anyone...at some point...unless, you are one of the few who are truly contributing something to sites in the packets AND plan to do so in the future, soley out of interest in the site/topic, you should consider the possibility that you might be, in reality, a "spammer". In addition, the high PR of sites mentioned in the packets seems a bit misleading. These pages do not have a PR7, PR8 etc., the site might, but the pages for one's links do not. I think Kurt summed things up perfectly a few posts above mine. Eventually, if SE's aren't already compiling info/stats about them, these packets might not show any effectiveness in the future...and most likely, penalties for attempting to manipulate search results. I respect your business efforts on some level, Angela...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[997941].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Ethics101 View Post

      I'm really glad that I signed up to this forum, so much information here and so many genuine opinions on any topic...that seems to be absent on other forums I visit. Back on topic...It's good to see that this thread has had such a response from everyone, even though the topic has been discussed in other threads. No offense to anyone...at some point...unless, you are one of the few who are truly contributing something to sites in the packets AND plan to do so in the future, soley out of interest in the site/topic, you should consider the possibility that you might be, in reality, a "spammer". In addition, the high PR of sites mentioned in the packets seems a bit misleading. These pages do not have a PR7, PR8 etc., the site might, but the pages for one's links do not. I think Kurt summed things up perfectly a few posts above mine. Eventually, if SE's aren't already compiling info/stats about them, these packets might not show any effectiveness in the future...and most likely, penalties for attempting to manipulate search results. I respect your business efforts on some level, Angela...
      All good points worth noting.

      And yes - even if the home page of a forum is PR 8 or whatever, the inner pages will not be because of the considerable link dilution on forums.

      I operate my own forums, two of which are large and been around for years, and I see a lot of PR dilution on the inner pages. On a forum a profile must be at least three pages in: Home page > posting page with profile link > profile.

      And yes - most importantly - serious IM'ers would never sacrifice building a successful, long-term business for short term gratification.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    I suppose it's all in the perception. Some folks who posted on this thread, applauding the ones who implied that creating a profile or making a post or what have you on these sites for the sole purpose of getting a backlink is wrong are the very same ones that say Marketing under a Pen Name is okay.

    Myself, I don't see much difference. The sole purpose of a pen name is to cause some sort of belief in something that is not authentic, be it a name or a title or whatever. And yes, it's VERY possible that if the end customer finds out that they've been deceived, they might be quite upset. If the FCC is going after affiliate blogs now, imagine what they might do with "pen names" that sell affiliate products in the future.

    And what about ghostwriters? After all if YOU put YOUR name on something that someone else wrote, you are implying (AND your reader believes) that you are the original author. And that's deceptive.

    Pen Names and Ghostwriters are more deceptive than backlinks, I believe, because none of us are trying to hide the fact that we got a link from the site. We're not disguising the links in any way on any of the sites.
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[997981].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      I suppose it's all in the perception. Some folks who posted on this thread, applauding the ones who implied that creating a profile or making a post or what have you on these sites for the sole purpose of getting a backlink is wrong are the very same ones that say Marketing under a Pen Name is okay.
      I personally do not see posting a link in a profile is wrong at all. If the facility has been provided by the site owner to add a link, then that is fair game. Cynical maybe, but legit nevertheless.

      The issue is people adding such links, or any links, on multiple sites the same day, or within days, because it is that Google sees and flags.

      Again - it is all about natural linking patterns, to which end Google have a phenomenal amount of data to sample, and thousands of smart software engineers to analyse and incorporate it.

      One of the very errors I see IM'ers make is pointing all links at the home page.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998018].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    This is the exact, same, thing I was hearing two years ago about Social Bookmarking. When I first started finding backlinks for people, I actually had people who were against putting a link on these kinds of sites, too; that's because this same, exact, sort of talk about Social Bookmarking was the "talk of the town" back then.

    The truth is, none of us really know what Google may or may not devalue in the future. And we don't know that Google doesn't know people are getting links this way; I suspect that Google does know a lot of what people are doing. Certainly Google MUST know about Social Bookmarking and Blog Commenting. I just don't see any way they wouldn't know about it. Their own advertisers are paying them BIG MONEY to advertise software and services that take advantage of these mediums. And there are folks out there that will tell you that blog links are devalued or that forum links are devalued. You don't hear too much of that about Social Bookmarking anymore.

    And why would people even bother to ask Matt Cutts stuff like "Is a .Edu or .Gov link more valuable than a .com link?" if they didn't intend on using that information to their advantage? He's even been asked directly about Social Bookmarking links. Matt Cutts is not operating in a vacuum when he's talking to webmasters. He's a smart enough man to figure out why people are asking him questions like this.

    Stephan Spencer: OK.
    Next question: are social bookmark links given less weight than other back links - given how easy these services are to manipulate? (Notice Stephan came right out and told Matt Cutts that Social Bookmarking services could be manipulated and obviously, this interview took place back when people were saying and believing that Social Bookmarking links were devalued by Google.)

    Matt Cutts: Typically, our policy is: a link is a link, is a link; wherever that link's worth is, that is the worth that we give it. Some people ask about links from DMOZ, links from .edu or links from .gov, and they say: "Isn't there some sort of boost? Isn't a link better if it comes from a .edu?" The short answer is: no, it is not. It is just .edu links tend to have higher PageRank, because more people link to .edu's or .gov's.


    To the best of my knowledge, I do not think we have anything that says social bookmark links are given less weight. Certainly, some sites like del.icio.us and other people, may choose to put individual "nofollows" in and they may choose to take actions to try to prevent spam, but we do not typically say anything like: social bookmarking by itself - give less weight.
    http://www.stephanspencer.com/search...utts-interview
    Signature
    -----------------------------------------


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998051].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      This is the exact, same, thing I was hearing two years ago about Social Bookmarking. When I first started finding backlinks for people, I actually had people who were against putting a link on these kinds of sites, too; that's because this same, exact, sort of talk about Social Bookmarking was the "talk of the town" back then.

      The truth is, none of us really know what Google may or may not devalue in the future. And we don't know that Google doesn't know people are getting links this way; I suspect that Google does know a lot of what people are doing. Certainly Google MUST know about Social Bookmarking and Blog Commenting. I just don't see any way they wouldn't know about it. Their own advertisers are paying them BIG MONEY to advertise software and services that take advantage of these mediums. And there are folks out there that will tell you that blog links are devalued or that forum links are devalued. You don't hear too much of that about Social Bookmarking anymore.

      And why would people even bother to ask Matt Cutts stuff like "Is a .Edu or .Gov link more valuable than a .com link?" if they didn't intend on using that information to their advantage? He's even been asked directly about Social Bookmarking links. Matt Cutts is not operating in a vacuum when he's talking to webmasters. He's a smart enough man to figure out why people are asking him questions like this.

      Interview with Google's Matt Cutts at Pubcon
      Yes Angela - Google know about all these sites and what IM'ers are up to, and I know for sure they are constantly under review.

      And yes - no one knows Google's internal policies or attitudes or what they will do in the future.

      I am going on what I know of Google's stated objectives, technologies and patents - all of which are a good indication of where they are going.

      In the past I have participated in forums and made comments at the time that people almost took as a personal attack on their methods, but within a year their methods were useless and they had wasted months of valuable time.

      I think the word is "denial"

      Many IM'ers are so obsessed with "easy money" they focus their efforts in buying gazillions of products in trying to beat a system that cannot be beaten in the medium to long term.

      My own position is simple.

      If I think there is the slightest doubt that a strategy I am using will be cancelled or worse penalised in future, I will not use it - simple as that.

      I am only interested in progressive, productive and profitable strategies in the long-term that respect other the web assets of others and user experience.

      When we approach our IM business in this way, it actually works massively in our favor.

      As I said before - I have the benefit of creating three large, national bricks and mortar companies, and ultimately, there is really no difference except the medium.

      #1 by far is treating People like People. Ultimately, whatever strategy we use, our success is determined by customer perception - their willingness to do business with us which includes trust.

      Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

      If you have your own forums, blogor community, would you want to spend your days fighting spammy links, removing ads etc to maintain the quality of your web asset?

      I can sense the resistance from members here on my views, but really it is only because those people do not want to admit to themselves they might just be taking a wrong turn in IM.

      Let me make this clear.

      It would be much easier for me to be Mr. Nice Guy, make lots of feel-good posts to be popular, agreeing with everything people say, and even cynically following it up with a WSO.

      Anyone can be popular like that - but is it really helping people which is what this forum is all about - in fact it is the best IM forum on the 'net, which is why there should always be a balanced input, not one sided posts with an agenda.

      But that is not what I am about.

      Those who choose only to wear rose coloured spectacles, take the path of least resistance and take all posts that don't suit them as a personal attack or attack on their "strategy" are just fooling themselves.

      I am giving freely of my valuable time here- and I have plenty of productive things to do - in the hope I can help people based upon my own experience and mistakes - some of them painful mistakes.

      But is people don't want to be helped then fine - just get on with whatever it is you are doing - but don't shoot the messenger.

      As for blog comments etc. Google are leaving them alone for one very good reason - blogs now have "nofollow" implemented as standard, e.g. in Wordpress, and 99.999% of people putting up blogs have no clue what "nofollow" even is, and therefore 99.999% of all new blogs are worthless for SEO purposes.

      WikiPedia did this a couple of years back - closing a valuable source of high PR links.

      It will not be long before forums go the same way for the same reasons as well as all the remaining social sites.

      Social bookmarking is the same for the same reasons.

      EZA remains the site of choice because they police it properly.

      Another thing I can tell you is that Google do not penalise sites where they have multiple links from the same site - they simply count the link once or not at all.

      Why - because many people legitimately include their link in forms sigs and other places such as social networks.

      But if you point too many links of a certain PR to your site over a certain amount of time, they will find and stop you in weeks - or even days.

      Again - Google determine and implement natural web linking patterns, and they are improving and refining at an exponential rate.

      Matt Cutts is a very smart guy as well as very respectful of IM'ers who follow the rules.

      Google are absolutely not against IM'ers.

      They are however against spammers of all sorts - including link spammers - and people who devalue either their search services or web generally - and you know what - I agree with him.

      Anyone can start and develop incredibly successful and profitable businesses with Google's blessing, it is only people who are lazy or not genuinely committed who get slapped by Google.

      But again Angela - a linking service is a valuable asset for this forum, but the only way to do it is if you, and you alone manage the placement of the links based upon trust.

      I would definitely trust you completely, because I can see you are an ethical person who genuinely cares, as opposed to someone just trying to exploit other IM'ers.

      So again - I suggest you offer a package of say 10 high PR links - based upon the PR of the page they are placed not the site home page - on the condition they are placed one per month, to different pages, and the source is not disclosed.

      There are plenty of other ways of providing quality links safely as well, but always within the constraints of Google's policies and algorithm.

      And yes - with reference to a previous comment people made - of course Google staff read this and other IM forums as well as all dark hat shade forums.

      Again - those extremely highly paid and well treated Google staff are very, very smart people, who know far more about what goes on that people would like to believe.

      Google is your friend. The sooner people respect Google accordingly, and work within the rules they set, the sooner they will reap the rewards.

      Google knows very well that once a person becomes successful in IM starting with little or no money, they will go onto be big spenders on AdWords.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998272].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Adrian,

        If I think there is the slightest doubt that a strategy I am using will be cancelled or worse penalised in future, I will not use it - simple as that.
        I hope forum posting isn't one of your strategies.

        As I said before - I have the benefit of creating three large, national bricks and mortar companies, and ultimately, there is really no difference except the medium.
        Of course. Yes, you have mentioned it before, many times.

        For years, people have been able to promote (from their bedroom) from a choice of millions of other companies simply by filling in a form.

        For years, people have been able to start multiple businesses from their bedroom, that can advertise to a worldwide customer base for less then a few hundred dollars.

        For years, people have been able to self publish information from their bedroom and sell their information to a worldwide audience.

        For years, people have been able to set up businesses in a day and start receiving the cash within a few days.

        The internet hasn't changed a thing.

        Matt Cutts is a very smart guy
        He is. That's why, as the public face of a company like Google, he is paid to distribute mis-information - it's his job, and he does it well and many people are so naive that they spend their time spouting it in forums, as if they are talking to other naive people, rather than business people who actually comprehend that as internet marketers, Google are the competition, rather than 'your friend'.

        But is people don't want to be helped then fine - just get on with whatever it is you are doing - but don't shoot the messenger.
        Regarding certain kinds of 'help', the messenger really does need shooting. Particularly if 'what we are doing', and have done for quite some time, is to ensure that the people who come to this forum looking for advice and guidance, don't find the place taken over by those whos 'help' is a bunch of self-contradictory, unproven mis-information that is simply a messed up re-hash of Google webmaster guidelines.

        If you really own a few forums, then you'll fully understand that you waltzing in here telling people to either accept your posts as gospel or to go and do something else is going to invite a spirited response.

        Again - those extremely highly paid and well treated Google staff are very, very smart people, who know far more about what goes on that people would like to believe.

        Google is your friend. The sooner people respect Google accordingly, and work within the rules they set, the sooner they will reap the rewards.
        Ugghhh.

        Sorry for rolling this old chestnut out again, but it's entirely appropriate -

        'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Franklin.

        Don't let any other business dictate to you what your business should do, unless they offer so much money to you for the privilege that it would be absurd not to do so.
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AndyBlackSEO
    I would imagine that Google will know everything that is discussed in this forum, particularly the 'hot' topics such as Angelas backlinks. There is probably a member of Google who is paid to monitor IM / SEO / Black hat forums all day long and report any patterns and trends with backlinking etc.

    Angelas links worked great for me. I created these links myself, doing them my own way. I recently outsourced this backlinking for a number of sites and they have all taken a drop in the rankings. Am I worried? Not really. These last links were only done about a week ago so it is quite normal for them to dance around or take a sudden drop.

    I'll monitor them over the next couple of weeks.
    Signature
    [FREE SEO TOOL] Build 29 Effective, High Authority Backlinks that Will Increase Your Google Rankings in 2020... CLICK HERE ...
    ... Instant backlinks that can get you results within 24-72hrs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998178].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yves
      [quote=AndyBlackSEO;998178]I would imagine that Google will know everything that is discussed in this forum, particularly the 'hot' topics such as Angelas backlinks. There is probably a member of Google who is paid to monitor IM / SEO / Black hat forums all day long and report any patterns and trends with backlinking etc.
      /quote]

      That's sort of what I was going to say, google'l be right on the button.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998193].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
    ExRat: Yes I do own my own forums - one of which was established in 2002 and has hundreds of thousands of posts and tens of thousands of members. My forums are in self-improvement which is my main niche - in common with my main purpose in life - to help others.

    That forum has thousands of pages indexed in Google, so all in all I feel qualified to make some valid observations as to the benefits of forums for SEO purposes.

    I also contribute - genuinely - to several high PR forums with several hundred posts. I actually removed my main site from my sig when my rankings started to go down, and guess what - my rankings went back up again after 4 weeks.

    As for the rest of your comments - I will not be baited - have said all I am going to say.

    If you disagree then by all means carry on - I won't be losing any sleep I assure you
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998397].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Adrian,

      have said all I am going to say


      I knew your posting style was familiar and that we had crossed paths before. You were APC01 when you joined. That explains so much.

      {adopts 'Del Griffith' look, complete with cheesy grin, blue anorak and looks over the top of paperback entitled 'Canadian Mounted'}

      'I knew I knew you....'
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998425].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi Adrian,



        I knew your posting style was familiar and that we had crossed paths before. You were APC01 when you joined. That explains so much.

        {adopts 'Del Griffith' look, complete with cheesy grin, blue anorak and looks over the top of paperback entitled 'Canadian Mounted'}

        'I knew I knew you....'
        Well I can't say I remember you from previous posts but still

        Yes I was apc01 when I first joined, but then I decided to use my full name instead of a handle and asked the forum admin to change it which they did.

        Not sure what exactly that "explains" in your own mind, but each to his own.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998449].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author adamv
        Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post


        it is much better - in my opinion - to focus only on strategies that can bring long term results.

        Yes you can boost your new site for up to 6 weeks - most likely 2 weeks - but then it is more likely than not to get sandboxed which is counter-productive.
        If SEO strategies only work for 2 weeks before they get you sandboxed then how is it that our very own Angela Edwards has maintained a very high position for a very competitive keyword for many months now?


        Time is vastly better spent on creating content for the website and places that bring direct traffic than on gaming Google for your site which has never worked in even the medium term, and likely never will.
        Many of the people posting to this thread are focused on creating content for websites and for places that bring direct traffic and we are trying to get that content seen in the SERPS.[/quote]

        A quality PR 7 link can have dramatically better results than thousands of PR 5's for many reasons.
        I disagree. PR 7 = better than PR 5 but PR 7 does not = several thousand times better than PR 5

        Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

        I personally do not see posting a link in a profile is wrong at all. If the facility has been provided by the site owner to add a link, then that is fair game. Cynical maybe, but legit nevertheless.
        It sure sounded like you thought it was wrong in some of your earlier posts.

        The issue is people adding such links, or any links, on multiple sites the same day, or within days, because it is that Google sees and flags.

        Again - it is all about natural linking patterns, to which end Google have a phenomenal amount of data to sample, and thousands of smart software engineers to analyse and incorporate it.
        It's only natural to get one link per month??? Whatever!!!!!!

        Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post

        I am not suggesting what I am saying is the absolute truth,
        Now THAT is something I can agree with 100%

        I am not against gaming Google in principle - they are fair game - my message is that Google is against people gaming Google, and their ongoing objective is to prevent it - and they always do - or at least always have in the past.

        Long-term business principles never change much, if at all.

        What we are referring to is one aspect of a website - SEO - nothing else.

        What I am saying, plain and simple, is that yes responsible SEO should be a part of any strategy, but irresponsible SEO -which is what this thread is all about - will not only kill any SEO benefits sooner or later, it could kill the entire site.
        So far, from what I've read your definition of long term SEO is to create quality content get one or two links quality links per month. This is definitely a "long term" strategy because with one link per month it will take a VERY long time to get noticed.

        My "long term" strategy is to get people to my websites and find a way to do it that does not take years to implement. If something works now (and it's not morally objectionable) I'm going to do it and if that same technique becomes less effective later, then I will find something else that works.

        Long term strategies involve doing things that get results in the short term.

        These days there are so many more long-term strategies to bring quality traffic, which are in harmony with Googe and the web ecosystem, that I cannot understand why people would knowingly do something that would even risk wrecking months or years of effort, never mind defend it.

        I am only trying to same people here pain and disilusionment, while suggesting, not stating, ways that are much more productive in the long-term.
        You make it sound like link building is the latest black-hat tactic that may have short term results but will get you banned in about 2 weeks.

        Backlinking has been an effective strategy for a very long time now and appears that it will continue to be effective for the foreseeable future. I'll certainly take my chances with it because I think it's a lot riskier to just put some good content on my site and hope for the best. Hoping for traffic has never done a damn thing for me but building backlinks has.
        Signature

        Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998532].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Adrian,

          Thanks where it's due. Due to the line of thinking you just sent me down, I've got 'Planes, Trains & Automobiles' on in the background, and you helped me to realise that my office needed more guaranteed mirth in it, so I've just ordered seven new 14" x 11" photos and will grab the clip frames later.

          (not aff links)

          Del 1
          Del 2
          Del 3
          3 amigos
          Leslie
          Rik & Ade
          Palin

          Sorry to go off-topic, but this is one of my business 'secrets' - if work is fun then it doesn't feel as 'work-like'. Cheers!
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998581].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            Hi Adrian,

            Thanks where it's due. Due to the line of thinking you just sent me down, I've got 'Planes, Trains & Automobiles' on in the background, and you helped me to realise that my office needed more guaranteed mirth in it, so I've just ordered seven new 14" x 11" photos and will grab the clip frames later.

            (not aff links)

            Del 1
            Del 2
            Del 3
            3 amigos
            Leslie
            Rik & Ade
            Palin

            Sorry to go off-topic, but this is one of my business 'secrets' - if work is fun then it doesn't feel as 'work-like'. Cheers!
            Well I definitely agree with you there. IM should definitely be fun.

            So why are you taking my posts so seriously - and defensively
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998647].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Adrian Cooper
          Adam: I will restrict myself to the relevant and substantive points.

          On the linking - Google look for natural linking patterns. Adding one or maybe even two backlinks per month would not trip any alarm bells.

          Adding the equivalent number of PR5 links definitely would, even if it were possible.

          I estimate that you would need 10,000 PR 5 links to pass the same PR as one PR 7 link assuming the source page has say 100 other links on it.

          Try adding 10,000 PR 5 backlinks to your site in a month, or a year, and see where it gets you.

          In my opinion - lest I be accused of stating opinion as fact - the only way to execute a medium to long term linking strategy is with PR 6+ links, preferably PR 7+, but of course you would need to add a mix of PR links so it looks natural.

          Also keep in mind that If a home page of a forum site is PR 7, the inner pages will likely be PR 5 at best, and then you need to subtract all the link dilution along the way due to the number of links on each of the intermediate pages.

          Now your main argument, as well as ExRat - if I understand him and I am not sure I do - is that such a long-term strategy will not bring short term traffic.

          Another reason it will not bring short term traffic is because Google now have a heavy bias towards mature domains, on the basis the owners are serious and in it for the long-term. This is to combat sales letters, landing pages, pure sales sites and of course "throw away domains" - which has caused .info domains to be so discounted.

          Well of course this is true and I have always stated as much when I said that my main strategy now is Direct Traffic from other high PR sites such as EZA.

          Again - I am stating an opinion based on experience.

          If you disagree please stop arguing about it - I suggest you simply disregard.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998635].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author abelacts
    Angela,

    As someone suggested, do yo think it's effective to offer your membership to a limited number of people?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998488].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Makabongwe Maseko
      Originally Posted by abelacts View Post

      Angela,

      As someone suggested, do yo think it's effective to offer your membership to a limited number of people?
      That wouldn't be fair.

      I think a good solutions would be to spin the links for each and every member, just like those article spinners, but this time its link spinner.

      Lets say shes got a data base of 5000 links, providing 30 different links a month to each customer would greatly reduce the number of links submitted per site and would reduce the number of people signing up for a single site.
      Signature

      Website Design | App Creation | Video Marketing | Social Media | Web Hosting

      ==> SlashTouch.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998639].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AndyBlackSEO
      Originally Posted by abelacts View Post

      Angela,

      As someone suggested, do yo think it's effective to offer your membership to a limited number of people?
      In my opinion this will never work. If Angela sold her packets to smaller groups, ie - packet A to 100 people, packet B to a different 100 people etc... those packets would still get leaked somewhere along the lines. A few distribution channels later and hey presto... thousands of people have ALL those packets and are hammering them.

      If she created a site which was a login membership style site where people could access the links with instructions (none downloadable) and also the ability to for members to track and log what links they have created and where .... and for what sites.... that may have chance of working.

      Although if one person decided HER / SHE has the time to extract that information and then create them in a PDF document... those packets could still be banded around.
      Signature
      [FREE SEO TOOL] Build 29 Effective, High Authority Backlinks that Will Increase Your Google Rankings in 2020... CLICK HERE ...
      ... Instant backlinks that can get you results within 24-72hrs.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998658].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Adrian,

        Well I definitely agree with you there. IM should definitely be fun.
        I'm pleased that we agree on something!

        So why are you taking my posts so seriously - and defensively
        Trust me - I'm not. But a lot more people lurk on these forums than post on them, and if we're going to offer them anything of value from a discussion, then we should try and be clear about what we are saying, and back it up wherever possible.

        As I have repeatedly said, many of your posts in this thread contradict each other (or themselves). EG -

        Post #197 -
        Google are absolutely not against IM'ers.
        Post #205 -
        Google now have a heavy bias towards mature domains, on the basis the owners are serious and in it for the long-term. This is to combat sales letters, landing pages, pure sales sites...
        And you keep concluding by saying things like -

        But is people don't want to be helped then fine - just get on with whatever it is you are doing - but don't shoot the messenger.
        If you disagree please stop arguing about it - I suggest you simply disregard.
        You want to have your say, and then tell people that if they totally disagree not to dispute your opinions stated as fact, but to 'disregard' or 'get on with whatever it is you are doing'. This is a discussion forum. If people want to debunk your myths whenever you deliver them, that is their right to do so, and in the best interests of the group as a whole.

        You've been here for 6 weeks and made nearly 600 posts. Many times I have found reason to disagree with your statements, and have ended up embroiled in these type of lengthy discussions in order to point out your bad advice. Others have had to remind you of the same things. It doesn't matter how many times you mention previous or current business experience - you could be anyone, and so could I - which is why it's a good policy to let your statements stand on their own foundation and therefore try and back them up by offering evidence, logic, reason, proof or anything else substantial that justifies your assertions.

        I might seem keen to get involved in a debate at times, but in my opinion that's a lot better then continually stating opinion as fact and then telling anyone who disagrees to ignore it and move along.
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[998713].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Justin Jordan
          Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

          Post #205 -
          Quote:

          Google now have a heavy bias towards mature domains, on the basis the owners are serious and in it for the long-term. This is to combat sales letters, landing pages, pure sales sites...
          And you keep concluding by saying things like -<