11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

What is the difference?

by kamalmix
8 replies
Hi

I saw here someone posted that he provides 50 .EDU backlinks for 15$, why? Why, if I can get more than 100. EDU and .GOV backlinks on fiverr for 15$?
#difference
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Same thing goes for everything, isn't it?

    Why pay you to submit/ping/add my site to 2.5K properties if I can do it for free?
    Why pay someone 50$ to create one banner when there is a guy doing it for 5$?
    Why pay 2K for a week in a villa with pool when I can get one week in a trailer park for 100$?
    Why pay 35K for a car, when I can walk?

    Why? You tell me.

    Oh and your Fiverr Gig is off.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4267337].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Itachi
      Well said Fernando.

      Nothing much more to add to this .

      Im kind of surprised noone said something yet, no offense but this seems to be some kind of irrelevant question asked blindly to get some blatant advertising.

      Im saying that because yesterday i made a thread about twitter being slow and i see today it got deleted, so yea twitter has nothing ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with IM right im sorry.

      Sorry for this random rant also but it seem common for peoples to ask random "made up questions" here to get some exposure and when i ask a legitimate question i get slapped.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4267487].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by kamalmix View Post

    I saw here someone posted that he provides 50 .EDU backlinks for 15$, why? Why, if I can get more than 100. EDU
    Hi Kamal, I strongly advise you to stop thinking of SEO in terms of "numbers of backlinks".

    .edu backlinks, in particular, are very widely misunderstood.

    Don't assume that .edu backlinks are necessarily going to be valuable "just because they're .edu backlinks".

    That isn't how it works.

    Domain-extensions have no bearing, in themselves, either on SEO or the value of backlinks. It's perfectly true, of course, that many .edu backlinks are very good backlinks to get, but correlation isn't causation, and it's not the fact that they're on .edu pages that, in itself, confers any "extra benefit" at all.

    The point here is simply that many (by no means all!) .edu sites are also, at least to some extent, authority sites, and that's what makes their backlinks valuable ones.

    Other .edu pages aren't "authority sites" at all.

    I have a couple of .edu blogs, myself, but sadly their backlinks are worth no more than a backlink from any of my .com, .info or any other sites, and in fact usually worth quite a bit less, because some of my main .info/.com sites are now building up quite a bit of "authority" and some of their pages are building up some higher PR's, too.

    So don't imagine that "being on a .edu site" necessarily makes a backlink better than any other sort of backlink. Sadly.

    The analogy that always springs to mind, in this context, is the belief that having a "blog" rather than a "non-blog website" is going to confer extra SEO/backlink benefit "because Google loves blogs". Again, the logic here is pretty mistaken, and in the same way: it's the attribution of causation that's at fault. The reality, in this case, is simply that "Google loves regularly updated websites", and a lot of blogs do happen to be regularly updated websites. Again, correlation is not causation.

    If you have a niche site about arthritis remedies, for example, a .edu backlink from a university's/med-school's rheumatology site is going to be potential gold-dust, while a student forum or blog which - like so many - is non-context-relevant and PR-0 will actually be no better at all than any other random non-context-relevant, PR-0 backlink such as an article directory.

    Contrary to popular belief, it isn't the "being on a .edu site" aspect of it that gives any advantage.

    Call me a skepchick, but if you ask people selling them, of course, you may hear a slightly different story.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4267600].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author C A Perez
      Alexa,

      As I understand your comment, attributing positive SEO to authority sites on the assumption that links to them alone improves your site SEO is erroneous.

      It is rather the relevancy of the content of those sites to your site that matters.

      Is it that your point?

      Carlos


      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Hi Kamal, I strongly advise you to stop thinking of SEO in terms of "numbers of backlinks".

      .edu backlinks, in particular, are very widely misunderstood.

      Don't assume that .edu backlinks are necessarily going to be valuable "just because they're .edu backlinks".

      That isn't how it works.

      Domain-extensions have no bearing, in themselves, either on SEO or the value of backlinks. It's perfectly true, of course, that many .edu backlinks are very good backlinks to get, but correlation isn't causation, and it's not the fact that they're on .edu pages that, in itself, confers any "extra benefit" at all.

      The point here is simply that many (by no means all!) .edu sites are also, at least to some extent, authority sites, and that's what makes their backlinks valuable ones.

      Other .edu pages aren't "authority sites" at all.

      I have a couple of .edu blogs, myself, but sadly their backlinks are worth no more than a backlink from any of my .com, .info or any other sites, and in fact usually worth quite a bit less, because some of my main .info/.com sites are now building up quite a bit of "authority" and some of their pages are building up some higher PR's, too.

      So don't imagine that "being on a .edu site" necessarily makes a backlink better than any other sort of backlink. Sadly.

      The analogy that always springs to mind, in this context, is the belief that having a "blog" rather than a "non-blog website" is going to confer extra SEO/backlink benefit "because Google loves blogs". Again, the logic here is pretty mistaken, and in the same way: it's the attribution of causation that's at fault. The reality, in this case, is simply that "Google loves regularly updated websites", and a lot of blogs do happen to be regularly updated websites. Again, correlation is not causation.

      If you have a niche site about arthritis remedies, for example, a .edu backlink from a university's/med-school's rheumatology site is going to be potential gold-dust, while a student forum or blog which - like so many - is non-context-relevant and PR-0 will actually be no better at all than any other random non-context-relevant, PR-0 backlink such as an article directory.

      Contrary to popular belief, it isn't the "being on a .edu site" aspect of it that gives any advantage.

      Call me a skepchick, but if you ask people selling them, of course, you may hear a slightly different story.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4372498].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by C A Perez View Post

        Alexa,

        As I understand your comment, attributing positive SEO to authority sites on the assumption that links to them alone improves your site SEO is erroneous.

        It is rather the relevancy of the content of those sites to your site that matters.

        Is it that your point?
        Hi Carlos, not quite - my point (in the post above) is simply that assuming that backlinks from pages of .edu-sites are "authority site backlinks" just because they're .edu domains is greatly mistaken.

        It strikes me that most contributors to most forum threads imagine that it's "being .edu" in itself that confers some link-juice advantage, and this simply isn't so, and there's no plausible reason why it would ever have been so, because domain-name extensions are not relevant to SEO. People selling these backlinks say that they believe otherwise, and some of them even (purport to) believe that when Google's Matt Cutts goes to great lengths (and great repetitions) to explain this, that he's deliberately lying in order to "throw people off the scent". To me, this seems a frankly ludicrous thing to believe, but I suppose it's the only way people making those claims about .edu backlinks can conceivably try to justify what they're claiming.

        But I do also think that, in general, relevance - especially these days - is far more important than many people realise, and page-ranks far less important. For this impression, I rely on my own experience, what other people whom I trust have told me, and what I've read in up-to-date editions of SEO textbooks. Everything about Google's attitude, behaviour, announcements, policies and algorithm changes tells me that quality and relevance are gradually but consistently becoming more and more important, and quantitative (and page-rank-based) approaches less and less rewarded.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4372560].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ebusinessireader
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Hi Kamal, I strongly advise you to stop thinking of SEO in terms of "numbers of backlinks".

      .edu backlinks, in particular, are very widely misunderstood.

      Don't assume that .edu backlinks are necessarily going to be valuable "just because they're .edu backlinks".

      That isn't how it works.

      Domain-extensions have no bearing, in themselves, either on SEO or the value of backlinks. It's perfectly true, of course, that many .edu backlinks are very good backlinks to get, but correlation isn't causation, and it's not the fact that they're on .edu pages that, in itself, confers any "extra benefit" at all.

      The point here is simply that many (by no means all!) .edu sites are also, at least to some extent, authority sites, and that's what makes their backlinks valuable ones.

      Other .edu pages aren't "authority sites" at all.

      I have a couple of .edu blogs, myself, but sadly their backlinks are worth no more than a backlink from any of my .com, .info or any other sites, and in fact usually worth quite a bit less, because some of my main .info/.com sites are now building up quite a bit of "authority" and some of their pages are building up some higher PR's, too.

      So don't imagine that "being on a .edu site" necessarily makes a backlink better than any other sort of backlink. Sadly.

      The analogy that always springs to mind, in this context, is the belief that having a "blog" rather than a "non-blog website" is going to confer extra SEO/backlink benefit "because Google loves blogs". Again, the logic here is pretty mistaken, and in the same way: it's the attribution of causation that's at fault. The reality, in this case, is simply that "Google loves regularly updated websites", and a lot of blogs do happen to be regularly updated websites. Again, correlation is not causation.

      If you have a niche site about arthritis remedies, for example, a .edu backlink from a university's/med-school's rheumatology site is going to be potential gold-dust, while a student forum or blog which - like so many - is non-context-relevant and PR-0 will actually be no better at all than any other random non-context-relevant, PR-0 backlink such as an article directory.

      Contrary to popular belief, it isn't the "being on a .edu site" aspect of it that gives any advantage.

      Call me a skepchick, but if you ask people selling them, of course, you may hear a slightly different story.
      Like your description.
      Visualize it. ^___^
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4372585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fazal Mayar
    Alexa has summed it up well. EDU backlinks arent as strong as people think they are.
    Signature

    Blogger at RicherOrNot.com (Make Money online blog but also promoting ethical internet marketing)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4373179].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author C A Perez
      Thank you, Alexa. I agree with your analysis. If we believe that M. Cutts, et al, are seeking the ultimate user searching experience, and I do not see why we should doubt this, then quality content and relevant back links is what we should pursue.

      Carlos
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4373287].message }}

Trending Topics