Angel's Backlinks - explain something, please

88 replies
  • SEO
  • |
These links are not niche specific, right? And, if not, how is it helping to get targeted traffic to your site from people actually interested in your topic? Thanks.


***Sorry, of course I meant Angela's. Need to proofread more!
#angel #backlinks #explain
  • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
    The link packets aren't intended for direct traffic. They are simply to "vote" for your site so the SEs think it's more popular than it really is and thus get the SEs to favor your site in the SERPs.

    Tina
    Signature
    Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
    Fast & Easy Content Creation
    ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416083].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
      I assume you mean "Angela links." These have extremely low value and only help you slightly for keywords that are not competitive. Basically they are a waste of time and of "a little" money when it comes to ranking for anything worth ranking for. Don't buy into the hype, get some real SEO going instead.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416420].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jazbo
        "get some real SEO going instead"

        A service like the one you conveniently offer in your sig link I presume?

        Dismissing any "type" of link is extremely short sighted.

        Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

        I assume you mean "Angela links." These have extremely low value and only help you slightly for keywords that are not competitive. Basically they are a waste of time and of "a little" money when it comes to ranking for anything worth ranking for. Don't buy into the hype, get some real SEO going instead.
        Signature
        CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
        Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419191].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author shaktimaan
        Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

        I assume you mean "Angela links." These have extremely low value and only help you slightly for keywords that are not competitive. Basically they are a waste of time and of "a little" money when it comes to ranking for anything worth ranking for. Don't buy into the hype, get some real SEO going instead.
        It is wrong. I have ranked competitive keywords at at # 1 and 2 position in all search engines with only Angela type links. Niche is related to mortgages. From the day i am working on it, nobody ever outranked wikipedia. I am the only who outranked wikipedia and got # 1 spot for the keywords wikipedia was not very strong.

        Site i optimized has now become # 1 in this niche. My success has inspired some of other competitors and they are also started building these type of links. But they did not get the type of success that i got. Because they do not know how to use these type of links and they are poor at indexing.
        Signature

        Shaktimaan

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2428255].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
          Originally Posted by shaktimaan View Post

          It is wrong. I have ranked competitive keywords at at # 1 and 2 position in all search engines with only Angela type links. Niche is related to mortgages. From the day i am working on it, nobody ever outranked wikipedia. I am the only who outranked wikipedia and got # 1 spot for the keywords wikipedia was not very strong.

          Site i optimized has now become # 1 in this niche. My success has inspired some of other competitors and they are also started building these type of links. But they did not get the type of success that i got. Because they do not know how to use these type of links and they are poor at indexing.
          It's nonsense that no one ever outranked Wikipedia and that you are the first.

          Here's a little experiment. Let's pick a niche. Let's say it's Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks. Please check my Google ranking for Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks on Google 10 minutes from now. I am betting that I will be "#1 on Google!" for "the main keyword in my niche"! And no one has ever outranked Wikipedia for the terms Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks or the singular form, or the inverted form, Woodchucks Tetragrammatonic , or for such related terms as Tetragrammatonic Woodchuck USA and Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks Hong Kong, but look, I just did! I dominate my whole niche within mere seconds! How hard was that?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2428367].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
            Banned
            Before Caffeine, it used to be that pages with a PR of 3 or less ended up in the supplemental index only, and and links from such pages passed exactly zero link juice.
            Wow, it's really getting deep in here now, lol. Where's mah boots?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2428455].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
              Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

              Wow, it's really getting deep in here now, lol. Where's mah boots?
              The info I provided came from Google itself. You have a point?

              Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

              I don't take a position on these links, against any others. I neither know or care. I just think it is in poor taste to just run down your competition in such a manor.
              Not to be a spelling Nazi, but my manor is only moderately glamorous.

              The claim that what I am doing here is running down my competition is BS. My view regarding bottom-feeding linkbuilding is the mainstream view in professional SEO, as witness the published writings of Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, Eric Enge, Bruce Clay and pretty much any SEO whose name I would recognize.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2428474].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author John Durham
                I use to have 3 guys like you working full time for me for 12 bucks an hour!

                There were alot of GREAT Jazz Musicians who hated on Hit bands like "Poisen..." back in the 90's... saying "They arent real musicians those bottom feeders..." While they sat on the street playing for tips... and couldnt even afford a 40 oz of colt 45.

                Haters. I always consider the the source, people are biased. angela would not be endorsed by the huge marketers on this forum who value their credibility and have much more of it than you... if there were not some truth to their effectiveness.

                Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

                The info I provided came from Google itself. You have a point?



                Not to be a spelling Nazi, but my manor is only moderately glamorous.

                The claim that what I am doing here is running down my competition is BS. My view regarding bottom-feeding linkbuilding is the mainstream view in professional SEO, as witness the published writings of Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, Eric Enge, Bruce Clay and pretty much any SEO whose name I would recognize.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2495221].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
                  Originally Posted by John Durham View Post

                  I use to have 3 guys like you working full time for me for 12 bucks an hour!
                  Bubba Jacks used to have claims like this coming out his nether regions three times a day.

                  There were alot of GREAT Jazz Musicians who hated on Hit bands like "Poisen..." back in the 90's... saying "They arent real musicians those bottom feeders..." While they sat on the street playing for tips... and couldnt even afford a 40 oz of colt 45.

                  Haters. I always consider the the source, people are biased. angela would not be endorsed by the huge marketers on this forum who value their credibility and have much more of it than you... if there were not some truth to their effectiveness.
                  I won't question your metrics of credibility. Believe what you will, but if one followed your logic then there would be some truth to the effectiveness of Christian science, since any number of reputable and "huge" Christian scientists will stake their reputations on it.

                  If you bothered to read carefully, I have given a balanced view for profile links, allowing some limited scope for them. My view is the mainstream view of professional SEO, whether you like it or not. The burden of proof isn't on me. Even so, I have addressed the only specific "evidence" of the effectiveness of profile links that was posted here.

                  The Web is filled with reported disappointments regarding the effectiveness of Angela links -- from people who tried to use them. These disappointments are conveniently suppressed from the propaganda for those links.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2495706].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post


                    The Web is filled with reported disappointments regarding the effectiveness of Angela links -- from people who tried to use them. These disappointments are conveniently suppressed from the propaganda for those links.
                    For the upteenth (yes, made up word) :rolleyes: time, it is just foolish to equate Angela's links with the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of profile links in general. Despite the thread title, this thread has been about the effectiveness of profile links in general, and not what it is in Angela's packets. Perhaps those on the outside equate Angela's packets with what profile backlinking is, but those on the inside generally don't.

                    There are many of us that have expanded on this process and methodology quite a bit and there are many other games in town. I would never dream of doing one of those packets today, as I just don't find the opportunity cost worth it with respect to those packets.

                    As has been enumerated many times by many of us here on WF and elsewhere, there are shortcomings to Angela's packets and her approach to profile backlinking in general. The sites in her packets tend to get way too overloaded, 25 profile links really is not that many (I have done up to 10k in a day before), and most of us advise using additional addon tools like Backlink Indexer Express. You wouldn't expect the first Ford vehicle ever created to be able to compete well in Nascar would you? But, nevertheless, there are Fords in Nascar today (just not the original models).


                    Tom
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2497595].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
                      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                      For the upteenth (yes, made up word) :rolleyes: time, it is just foolish to equate Angela's links with the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of profile links in general.
                      Um, it's "umpteenth"! But you have a pointm and I've added my thanks. Theoretically, profile pages are not different from any other pages. I have seen robust and authoritative profiles that can certainly be relevant to an industry (and with high PR, dammit!) and surely "dofollows" from such profiles are not worthless.

                      Similarly, a blog comment can have some use. There is a relevant PR6 page out there with only my linked comment up it -- I page no doubt it's worth something. The value of a comment link from an irrelevant PR 0 or n/a page with 200 other comments on it is infinitesimal by comparison. Similarly, a PR 0 or n/a ghost profile in a random forum conveys extremely little. And it's those kinds of profile links that are usually meant when people talk about "profile links" as a "link building technique."

                      But of course, I suppose large quantities can have a certain brute force to them. 10,000 profile links a day is a bit of a mind-numbing number.

                      There are many of us that have expanded on this process and methodology quite a bit and there are many other games in town.
                      Sounds interesting. Tell us? Or provide links to earlier posts?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2501693].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
            Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

            It's nonsense that no one ever outranked Wikipedia and that you are the first.

            Here's a little experiment. Let's pick a niche. Let's say it's Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks. Please check my Google ranking for Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks on Google 10 minutes from now. I am betting that I will be "#1 on Google!" for "the main keyword in my niche"! And no one has ever outranked Wikipedia for the terms Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks or the singular form, or the inverted form, Woodchucks Tetragrammatonic , or for such related terms as Tetragrammatonic Woodchuck USA and Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks Hong Kong, but look, I just did! I dominate my whole niche within mere seconds! How hard was that?
            Ah, I was wrong about 10 minutes. It took me a whole two day to dominate my niche!
            tetragrammatonic woodchucks - Google Search
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2440943].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author cclou
            Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

            It's nonsense that no one ever outranked Wikipedia and that you are the first.

            Here's a little experiment. Let's pick a niche. Let's say it's Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks. Please check my Google ranking for Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks on Google 10 minutes from now. I am betting that I will be "#1 on Google!" for "the main keyword in my niche"! And no one has ever outranked Wikipedia for the terms Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks or the singular form, or the inverted form, Woodchucks Tetragrammatonic , or for such related terms as Tetragrammatonic Woodchuck USA and Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks Hong Kong, but look, I just did! I dominate my whole niche within mere seconds! How hard was that?
            I think you misread their post. They were talking about one specific keyword. Wikipedia was in the first spot for this mortgage-related keyword. As long as they were tracking that particular keyword, Wiki was number one. Thus, they were the first to rank for that keyword above Wiki. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

            Also, I did Google Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks. Yes this post is number one, but Wikipedia doesn't appear in the listing results. If you are going to do a pointless and silly experiment, you should at least do the same thing the other poster did, which is take a number one spot that was previously occupied by Wikipedia. Shouldn't be hard, actually.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2444280].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
              Originally Posted by cclou View Post

              I think you misread their post. They were talking about one specific keyword. Wikipedia was in the first spot for this mortgage-related keyword. As long as they were tracking that particular keyword, Wiki was number one. Thus, they were the first to rank for that keyword above Wiki. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

              Also, I did Google Tetragrammatonic Woodchucks. Yes this post is number one, but Wikipedia doesn't appear in the listing results. If you are going to do a pointless and silly experiment, you should at least do the same thing the other poster did, which is take a number one spot that was previously occupied by Wikipedia. Shouldn't be hard, actually.
              I think that it's you who needs to wake up. The point here is that some keywords are so uncompetitive that you can rank for them in a variety of easy ways (and yes, those include Angela links and what not).

              You can benefit from a bit of humor as well. There are countless Google SERPs in which Wikipedia is present, but not as a first result. The posters claim to have been the first to "beat" Wikipedia is just silly.

              P.S. I will look into the **** Berry stuff sometime soon.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2444859].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author cclou
                Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

                I think that it's you who needs to wake up. The point here is that some keywords are so uncompetitive that you can rank for them in a variety of easy ways (and yes, those include Angela links and what not).

                You can benefit from a bit of humor as well. There are countless Google SERPs in which Wikipedia is present, but not as a first result. The posters claim to have been the first to "beat" Wikipedia is just silly.
                But the poster didn't claim to be the first person ever to beat Wikipedia. That was my point. They only said that they were the first to beat Wikipedia for the term they were going after. I don't know their keywords so I have no idea if they are as competitive as the person claims.

                I wasn't commenting on the difficulty of beating Wiki or the merits of profile links (which I don't use at this time, though I did subscribe to Angela's packets for a few months a year ago). I was pointing out that you misconstrued the poster's words and that your silly experiment was completely useless. If you had wanted to show that it isn't hard to beat Wikipedia in the search engines you would have picked a term that Wikipedia is actually ranked for rather than just making up your own. The fact that you didn't leads me to think you were trying to be cute rather than helpful.

                And I'll end with a winking smiley, since you seem very fond of them.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452490].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
                  Originally Posted by cclou View Post

                  But the poster didn't claim to be the first person ever to beat Wikipedia. That was my point. They only said that they were the first to beat Wikipedia for the term they were going after. I don't know their keywords so I have no idea if they are as competitive as the person claims.

                  I wasn't commenting on the difficulty of beating Wiki or the merits of profile links (which I don't use at this time, though I did subscribe to Angela's packets for a few months a year ago). I was pointing out that you misconstrued the poster's words and that your silly experiment was completely useless. If you had wanted to show that it isn't hard to beat Wikipedia in the search engines you would have picked a term that Wikipedia is actually ranked for rather than just making up your own. The fact that you didn't leads me to think you were trying to be cute rather than helpful.

                  And I'll end with a winking smiley, since you seem very fond of them.
                  You have a point, I see now that I misread the text "From the day i am working on it, nobody ever outranked wikipedia. I am the only who outranked Wikipedia and got # 1 spot for the keywords wikipedia was not very strong." My apologies to the poster ad to you.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452535].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ebizman87
        Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

        These have extremely low value
        This is because SPAMMERS have misused her links BADLY to the extend till many people have concluded that those links are low quality
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2443913].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
          Originally Posted by ebizman87 View Post

          This is because SPAMMERS have misused her links BADLY to the extend till many people have concluded that those links are low quality
          People whose only purpose is to build link in the forum profile (without owner's permission) is as guilty as the spammers. This breaks the T.O.S.

          Paul had made this very clear.

          Whether a person uses this lightly or heavily, he or she still breaks the rules.

          You still have an issue?


          Hardi
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2446506].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
            Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

            People whose only purpose is to build link in the forum profile (without owner's permission) is as guilty as the spammers. This breaks the T.O.S.
            Actually, on the vast majority of forums it does not. Lots of people seem to fail to grasp that around these parts lately. For obvious reasons I understand that the mods here at WF don't have the time nor inclination to go site by site to check TOS, so it is much, much easier to simply create these bright-line rules.

            Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

            Paul had made this very clear.
            Last time I checked, Paul was not the definitive guide on what actually violates a site's TOS. Obviously here at WF they can implement any policy they want, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't violate the TOS on the vast majority of these forums. They can say the Sun is really purple, but that doesn't make it so. When the whole WSO shakeup occurred, they thought SENuke was just some simple article spinner/distributor. Even if you don't have SENuke, if you do any sort of decent SEO you sure as heck know what it is. Then again, they do like to quote Klingon law or some crazy made-up alien law for rulings though :-) I despise article marketing (on others' sites) like the plague, but I sure as heck know what the major article directories and related software are like.

            Tom
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2449982].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
              Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

              Actually, on the vast majority of forums it does not. Lots of people seem to fail to grasp that around these parts lately. For obvious reasons I understand that the mods here at WF don't have the time nor inclination to go site by site to check TOS, so it is much, much easier to simply create these bright-line rules.



              Last time I checked, Paul was not the definitive guide on what actually violates a site's TOS. Obviously here at WF they can implement any policy they want, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't violate the TOS on the vast majority of these forums. They can say the Sun is really purple, but that doesn't make it so. When the whole WSO shakeup occurred, they thought SENuke was just some simple article spinner/distributor. Even if you don't have SENuke, if you do any sort of decent SEO you sure as heck know what it is. Then again, they do like to quote Klingon law or some crazy made-up alien law for rulings though :-) I despise article marketing (on others' sites) like the plague, but I sure as heck know what the major article directories and related software are like.

              Tom
              It doesn't take a definitive guide to be clear. No means no to all. Yes means yes to all.

              Of course! it's a Klingon law over here. Want to be here? Just obey the rule. Or else, go somewhere else. Difficult rule is always painful to most people.

              This is what I perceive. It cannot be disputed <period>


              Hardi
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2450917].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                I was 100% clear, yet somehow you missed my entire point?!?

                The point is:

                You stated that profiles (as we do them) violate forums' TOS, and your proof of that argument was pointing to what Paul says?

                Did you actually think that through before you typed that into your keyboard?

                WF can implement their own rules and policies, but if they say that 2+2=5, that does NOT mean that 2+2 actually does equal 5. While we are here, we have to live with the fact that 2+2=5, but that doesn't mean that 2+2=5. I don't know how I can be any clearer with you.

                Get it now?

                Do you really want an English teacher grading your Calculus homework?

                I'm OK with WF rules, so I don't know what you mean by go elsewhere, I"m just disputing your point about the TOS violation.

                Would you like me to explain it for a 3rd time, perhaps in French this time?


                P.S. When I said "vast majority", i really do mean almost all forums are OK. I just don't want to be like Kelsall who promised something like he would wear women's underwear if they found 1 site that violated a TOS, lol.


                Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

                It doesn't take a definitive guide to be clear. No means no to all. Yes means yes to all.

                Of course! it's a Klingon law over here. Want to be here? Just obey the rule. Or else, go somewhere else. Difficult rule is always painful to most people.

                This is what I perceive. It cannot be disputed <period>


                Hardi
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bigcat1967
    I can't believe ppl are still talking about Angela's links. These are nothing more than profile links that G bot will barely follow.
    Signature

    <a href="https://changeyourbudget.com/save-money-on-your-water-bill/">How to Lower Your Water Bill</a>

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416456].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bondtana
      I assume you mean "Angela links." These have extremely low value and only help you slightly for keywords that are not competitive. Basically they are a waste of time and of "a little" money when it comes to ranking for anything worth ranking for. Don't buy into the hype, get some real SEO going instead.
      I can't believe ppl are still talking about Angela's links. These are nothing more than profile links that G bot will barely follow.
      I have to disagree with you guys. I have had someone backlinking for me in the past few weeks using angela & paul links. I've bumped up 2 of my main keywords to #1 and have definitely been opting my these visitors to my mailing list. Its ABSOLUTELY worth the price.

      That's not to say it's the end all and be all to SEO. But I think it should definitely be part of your resume.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416600].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
        Originally Posted by Bondtana View Post

        I have to disagree with you guys. I have had someone backlinking for me in the past few weeks using angela & paul links. I've bumped up 2 of my main keywords to #1 and have definitely been opting my these visitors to my mailing list. Its ABSOLUTELY worth the price.

        That's not to say it's the end all and be all to SEO. But I think it should definitely be part of your resume.
        Let's hear the success story! What keywords, please? How much have you made in profits that can be attributed to using Angela links?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416653].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
      Originally Posted by bigcat1967 View Post

      I can't believe ppl are still talking about Angela's links. These are nothing more than profile links that G bot will barely follow.
      And even when people ping and tweet and Facebook their profiles "to get them indexed by Google" and put those ULRs in RSS and ping the RSS and submit all that crap to Googe, those links are still worthless junk even when the pages do get indexed. But then, they are cheap. "Cheap" is a great way to waste money!

      Here is the best link-building model in the world: the best-kept secret of all SEO secrets. Do you expect to make money from SEO? Do you really have something that sells? Then, instead of spending your precious time doing low-level SEO that has nearly no effect, spend that same time earning money via some form of gainful employment, invest that money in hiring an SEO professional who really knows what he is doing (and has access to the right kinds of links), get your rankings, and (only if your business model makes sense and your product sells), SEO will soon begin to pay for yourself and eventually will let you quit your day job.

      If you don't have something that sells, don't bother, it's sheer frustration.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416627].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

        And even when people ping and tweet and Facebook their profiles "to get them indexed by Google" and put those ULRs in RSS and ping the RSS and submit all that crap to Googe, those links are still worthless junk even when the pages do get indexed. But then, they are cheap. "Cheap" is a great way to waste money!
        Pure, unadulterated, hogwash. I am a big fan of mixing up types of backlinks, but still, you clearly have to know that many of us do quite well with sites that rely almost exclusively on profile links. Lots and lots of people post their success stories all of the place. Why would anyone tell you the keywords here that they are ranking for? That is nuts.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2416685].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
          Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

          Pure, unadulterated, hogwash. I am a big fan of mixing up types of backlinks, but still, you clearly have to know that many of us do quite well with sites that rely almost exclusively on profile links. Lots and lots of people post their success stories all of the place. Why would anyone tell you the keywords here that they are ranking for? That is nuts.
          So we can test how competitive those keywords are? I am betting they are not.

          Give a ballpark figure of how much you are making a month from investing in profile links? That would actually be valuable information and should speak for itself.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2417003].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HCLee
            I have benefited from Angela's backinks and while relevant links are the best, don't discount profile links especially when they are from high PR sites. I once asked an SEO strategist why so and he said "Well, when you talk about PR6 to PR9, even with lower value, there's still hell lot of link juice passing through. Even if a PR9 only valued at PR6-7 that's still bound to bring some value.
            Signature
            Electric Foot Warmers -End your cold feet days now.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2417250].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author simpleonline1234
              I have to side with PhilipSEO....Angelia style backlinks were okay back in the day but with the ever evolving Google...they don't hold much water these days in the ranking power of higher level competition niches....Google is starting to lean towards relativity more than sheer mass of backlinks..I will say that those links will get you into the top 20 but as far as ranking in the top 5....not likely.

              I will give you an excellent example...how many times have you opened up a good research tool like Market Samauri to find that the #1 spot in Google is held down by a site that has 30 high pr, relevant backlinks against the #5 spot that has 3000 high pr, non-relevant backlinks?

              I run across that scenario more and more each day.
              Signature
              Check out deals
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2417296].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Bondtana
              I just said that they have worked for me, which is true. No reason to get sand in your female part. Funny thing was I was about to check out your site for possible business before you got all diva'd out. You should chill out.

              Let's hear the success story! What keywords, please? How much have you made in profits that can be attributed to using Angela links?
              I haven't monetized my site yet so I havent made a dime.

              The keywords I'm #1 for get about 12,000 exact searchs in g keyword tool. And I'm getting about 8-15 visitors a day from each keyword. Maybe not much to an SEO guru like yourself, but that's great for my blog. And worth the 100-200 I spent on the links & outsourcing.

              I still think these links will eventually be worth nothing as google gets smarter. But that doesnt matter when I'm building my email list NOW...

              Also for the record, my site isnt some BS affiliate site. It also gets good natural links and I have lots of quality content. So I'm not saying angela is the only one getting me to rank.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2417326].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author JamesM
                Originally Posted by Bondtana View Post

                I still think these links will eventually be worth nothing as google gets smarter. But that doesnt matter when I'm building my email list NOW...
                Amen to that! I've got to say that I was dubious about profile links after I tried a few on a new domain and got nowhere. I recently tried again, in greater volume, and with aged domains. Let's just say I'm now a happy camper and somewhat of a convert!
                Signature

                If this post has been helpful please click the "thanks" button ;-)

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2418202].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                Originally Posted by Bondtana View Post


                I still think these links will eventually be worth nothing as google gets smarter. But that doesnt matter when I'm building my email list NOW...
                Obviously Google's algo will evolve over time, as it always has. That being said, how long has blog comment spam been around? ...and it certainly still helps.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419846].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
              Originally Posted by HCLee View Post

              I have benefited from Angela's backinks and while relevant links are the best, don't discount profile links especially when they are from high PR sites. I once asked an SEO strategist why so and he said "Well, when you talk about PR6 to PR9, even with lower value, there's still hell lot of link juice passing through. Even if a PR9 only valued at PR6-7 that's still bound to bring some value.
              The PR of the site makes absolutely no difference. What does make a difference is the PR of the linking page. The PR of your profiles is zero. It's funny that the PR of a page is often said not to matter. Before Caffeine, it used to be that pages with a PR of 3 or less ended up in the supplemental index only, and and links from such pages passed exactly zero link juice. Now we have Caffeine and no one knows the specifics yet, but Google still filters the index, and I assure you Google is not stupid and knows exactly what sort of editorial value those links have. Admit it, they are junk, you are just hoping that Google doesn't see they are junk. Good luck hoping!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419836].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author jazbo
            Profile links can form part of, and benefit a fully-rounded linkbuilding strategy. Nobody in this thread is claiming that you can rank well purely from using them, that was your assumption when you jumped in.

            Basically you are as much of an SEO as I am a world class Chef if you think any sort of profile link is worthless.

            Me? I love automating profile and blog comment link runs for my long tail sites, and they are doing very nicely in the SERP's thank you very much. Fit the strategy to the content.


            Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

            So we can test how competitive those keywords are? I am betting they are not.

            Give a ballpark figure of how much you are making a month from investing in profile links? That would actually be valuable information and should speak for itself.
            Signature
            CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
            Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419199].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
              Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

              "get some real SEO going instead"

              A service like the one you conveniently offer in your sig link I presume?
              One of them. And why not? I am not ashamed of the quality my services.

              Dismissing any "type" of link is extremely short sighted.
              BS. What is extremely short sited is the idea that every little bit helps. This causes people to waste a lot of time on things that help only a tiny bit. In some parts of the world (and to several of them SEO is often outsourced!) they use manual construction for roads and buildings. It's a policy to combat unemployment. Sure, free low-quality links "work" in the same way as manual high-rise construction works. I mean, yeah, the buildings are there. They just took a very long time to build. Surely it would have been more efficient to use machines (for construction purposes, though machines cause unemployment).

              Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

              Profile links can form part of, and benefit a fully-rounded linkbuilding strategy.
              I will give you a clue: my company routinely develops free links like the one discussed here: blog comments, forum posts, profile links. I know from my mileage that these are bottom-feeding techniques and bring very little value. Why do I use them? Solely for link profile diversification. I don't use them for any ranking power that they (don't) have.

              Nobody in this thread is claiming that you can rank well purely from using them, that was your assumption when you jumped in.
              BS, you need remedial reading help. Read the damn thread! A quote for you from above: "but still, you clearly have to know that many of us do quite well with sites that rely almost exclusively on profile links."

              Basically you are as much of an SEO as I am a world class Chef if you think any sort of profile link is worthless.
              BS. My view is the mainstream view in SEO. It is the published view of Aaron Wall, Rand Fishkin, Eric Enge, Eric Ward and any other SEO whose name I recognize.

              [qute]Me? I love automating profile and blog comment link runs for my long tail sites, and they are doing very nicely in the SERP's thank you very much. Fit the strategy to the content.[/QUOTE]

              You know, this sucks big time. You are filling the web with the worst kind of spam. It is morally wrong, gross, annoying, and contributes to global warming. Spam's effect depends on vast quantities of junk: it is criminally inefficient.

              For those interested in more info on comparative link value, here is the best resource (even if I say so myself):
              SEO Link Building - SEO Chat
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419927].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
            Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

            So we can test how competitive those keywords are?
            Again, who in their right mind would disclose the keywords they are going after (for any sites they really care about) on a public forum. Maybe that is how you run my business, but I certainly don't run things that way.

            Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

            I am betting they are not.
            Define "competitive." Personally, I generally don't see the point after going after keywords like "weight loss", as IMHO you'll get a better ROI going after easier keywords. For super competitive keywords, would I rely on just profile links? of course not. I add in links on the 200+ PR3+ domains that I own.


            Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

            Give a ballpark figure of how much you are making a month from investing in profile links? That would actually be valuable information and should speak for itself.
            Not sure what you mean by "investing." I don't own any publicly traded stocks if that is what you mean, nor do I own any backlinks bonds.

            Tom
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419882].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
              Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

              Define "competitive." Personally, I generally don't see the point after going after keywords like "weight loss", as IMHO you'll get a better ROI going after easier keywords. For super competitive keywords, would I rely on just profile links? of course not. I add in links on the 200+ PR3+ domains that I own.
              OK, this is a valid point. You can pursue long-tail keywords with low value links, I won't argue with that. Given a lot of cheap labor, it's a strategy that still works. It is still inefficient, since there are methodologies of targeting many more long-tail keywords much more effectively with a much smaller number of powerful links, resulting in much greater returns. Like it or not.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419950].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

                OK, this is a valid point. You can pursue long-tail keywords with low value links, I won't argue with that. Given a lot of cheap labor, it's a strategy that still works. It is still inefficient, since there are methodologies of targeting many more long-tail keywords much more effectively with a much smaller number of powerful links, resulting in much greater returns. Like it or not.
                Again, going to have to strongly disagree with these assertions. First, note that it doesn't make sense to compare the power or value of 1 link versus another link in the abstract. The time/cost used in obtaining the link is a key ingredient in the equation.

                Saying that you can rank a site with fewer backlinks is irrelevant. What matters is the cost/time it takes for your set of backlinks versus my set of backlinks. Period. I can assure that for the power I get from my links, I spend very little time putting them up, which results in a great ROI.

                Again, though, I urge everyone to get a wide variety of backlinks for diversity sakes.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2419989].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
                  Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                  Again, going to have to strongly disagree with these assertions. First, note that it doesn't make sense to compare the power or value of 1 link versus another link in the abstract. The time/cost used in obtaining the link is a key ingredient in the equation.

                  Saying that you can rank a site with fewer backlinks is irrelevant. What matters is the cost/time it takes for your set of backlinks versus my set of backlinks. Period. I can assure that for the power I get from my links, I spend very little time putting them up, which results in a great ROI.

                  Again, though, I urge everyone to get a wide variety of backlinks for diversity sakes.
                  We have already established that we disagree. It's not about ranking a website with fewer links, it's about ranking a website quickly to a level that, in practice, will most likely never be achieved or neared by low value links.

                  Here is an excellent essay by Eric Ward that I recommend to everyone:
                  Link Building’s Glass Ceiling
                  Ignore it at your own risk.

                  By the way, in case someone hasn't noticed, the Web is filled with poor reviews of Angela links by people who are frustrated in their efforts to get worthwhile results out of them. Just look around!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2420033].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                    Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post


                    By the way, in case someone hasn't noticed, the Web is filled with poor reviews of Angela links by people who are frustrated in their efforts to get worthwhile results out of them. Just look around!
                    We have been talking about profile links generally here, and not Angela's links (despite the original OP topic), have we not? Clearly there are issue's with Angela's product in terms of over-saturation and just not enough links. To be honest, most people who use her product just have no clue what they are doing or how to best utilize profile links. It's like saying Article marketing doesn't work because some people suck at writing.

                    Many of us have been trying to "show people the light" on the best way to use the links for awhile now, as well as the best way to scrape your own sites, etc. Profile links do exist outside the realm of Angela ;-)

                    Tom
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2420056].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
                      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                      We have been talking about profile links generally here, and not Angela's links (despite the original OP topic), have we not? Clearly there are issue's with Angela's product in terms of over-saturation and just not enough links. To be honest, most people who use her product just have no clue what they are doing or how to best utilize profile links. It's like saying Article marketing doesn't work because some people suck at writing.

                      Many of us have been trying to "show people the light" on the best way to use the links for awhile now, as well as the best way to scrape your own sites, etc. Profile links do exist outside the realm of Angela ;-)

                      Tom
                      Well, I don't know your work (yet) so I won't comment. I admit that you can get some results with long tail keywords, and yes, the qualntity of links makes a difference (and it had better be great).

                      By the way, it's true that article marketing "doesn't work" (very well). I agree with this guy, and he is surely an expert:
                      SEOmoz | Article Marketing + Submission for SEO | Whiteboard Friday
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2420316].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author FlashDriveDT
                        Hmm, you seem to be quite cynical PhillipSEO. Ive been using Angelas and PJ's backlinks for over a year now and every time I did a keyword campaign within a month or two I would be in the top 5 of google, sometimes even 1 (and still are). Some of these are very competitive product keywords. The key is to not just dump your anchor text link in the profiles but to actually make a genuine profile that contains information PLUS *one* link and to actually participate in the site itself. Leaving a comment, uploading an image, whatever leaves a breadcrumb to your profile so that Google can find and index it. This method has worked very well for me and I bet it has for others too (as a matter of fact, in Angela's thread you can find tons of testimonials that attest to the effectiveness, especially if its along the method I just outlined). Trying to get the profiles indexed by pinging or social media and what have you is utterly useless - thus my suspicion that you only used Angelas packet to dump your links like a spammer in the night.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2420393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author timpears
        Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post

        And even when people ping and tweet and Facebook their profiles "to get them indexed by Google" and put those ULRs in RSS and ping the RSS and submit all that crap to Googe, those links are still worthless junk even when the pages do get indexed. But then, they are cheap. "Cheap" is a great way to waste money!

        Here is the best link-building model in the world: the best-kept secret of all SEO secrets. Do you expect to make money from SEO? Do you really have something that sells? Then, instead of spending your precious time doing low-level SEO that has nearly no effect, spend that same time earning money via some form of gainful employment, invest that money in hiring an SEO professional who really knows what he is doing (and has access to the right kinds of links), get your rankings, and (only if your business model makes sense and your product sells), SEO will soon begin to pay for yourself and eventually will let you quit your day job.

        If you don't have something that sells, don't bother, it's sheer frustration.
        One SEO company/person, running down his competition. How much stock should we put in this? I would venture not too much.

        I don't take a position on these links, against any others. I neither know or care. I just think it is in poor taste to just run down your competition in such a manor.

        My feeling is that you should get as much a variety in your link building as you can. And profile links are just one of the many that you probably should use. I have no expertise to back this up, just my logical mind at work. I neither know or care. I am working on a different model right now, and back linking is not my focus. So you folks can fight it out if you want to. I just think it is a little tacky.

        But then, $5 and my opinion, and you can get yourself a cup of coffee.
        Signature

        Tim Pears

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2417652].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bfas
        Originally Posted by PhilipSEO View Post


        ...spend that same time earning money via some form of gainful employment, invest that money in hiring an SEO professional who really knows what he is doing (and has access to the right kinds of links), ....
        Talk about lame and transparent, self-serving cr@p.

        Why don't YOU post YOUR brilliant successes - in the WSO forum.

        bfas
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2449622].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
          Originally Posted by James Blair View Post

          Phillip, do yourself a favor bro, if you want to promote your service then go right ahead but don't come bumbling into threads about the services others offer and bash them while pointing out all of the key benefits of the services you offer.

          Extremely lame, and I hope you don't seriously think these methods will gain you any business. Nobody in this thread has agreed with what you're trying to pull, if you haven't noticed. The whole world is wrong, while you are right?

          Just some friendly advice. Take it how you want.


          James
          Originally Posted by bfas View Post

          Talk about lame and transparent, self-serving cr@p.

          Why don't YOU post YOUR brilliant successes - in the WSO forum.

          bfas
          Fellers, it is curious and revealing that you will snipe without engaging the argument. It sounds like you have nothing to say.

          All I am interested in discussing SEO principles and practices. What you take as self-serving is merely consistent. Now if I preached something I didn't believe in or practice myself, merely because it served my interests, that would be cynical and self-serving. You think I discount low-level link building because I offer a different sort of service. You get the causality backwords: it's the other way around. Now the next question would be whether you object so strenuously to my saying what I believe here because you have a vested interest in objecting? Nah, no worries, it bothers me only slightly.

          As I have stated, I know quite a bit about low-level link building and I actually hire people who provide it. It has it's uses. Moreover (gasp), I even sell low-level link building, but with the full disclosure that it probably won't work significant magic for Google rankings. I specifically warn clients that I don't recommend it. It is, however, a little better than nothing, as I have repeatedly stated. In some cases people cannot afford regular SEO yet. In some cases brand-new sites can use some el cheapo links. In some cases keyword niches are not competitive. In some cases they are necessary for profile diversification (this is how we mostly use them). A link is a link, but all these are all special cases, and we should resist the urge to conclude that just because free links have these uses this somehow makes them the bread-and-butter of quality SEO. There is high quality and there's low quality, and these links (profile links, blog comments, forum posts, free directory submissions, article marketing etc.) are low quality.

          This position is not lame, transparent, serf-serving crap, but the mainstream view in professional SEO. Denying it is stupid and serves no reasonable purpose. Predictably, there has been some insinuation that the likes of Rand Fishkin (one of the world's top SEOs) advance this position of self-serving reasons. That is BS. Rand Fishkin and SEOmoz do not offer SEO services. They merely perform SEO testing and provide information and software for SEOs. The whole stance that the mainstream of the SEO industry has launched a self-serving conspiracy to deny the awesome powers of low-level link building is simply laughable.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452269].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
            Hardi, I am not going to address at length your allegation that I am bashing anyone here and your invocation of the mods and their awesome powers. I am a mod myself over at SEOchat and I have a pretty solid sense of what constitutes abuse and bashing. I am not interested in discussing specific persons or services, all I care about here is SEO fundamentals, which is what we are addressing. So let me turn to your "**** Berry" question instead.

            Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

            Alright I can't resist.

            Let's type "**** berry" in US google. You'll find certain rank comes from forum profile.

            This is a highly competitive search term, by the way.

            People who don't know how to counter such competitors will yell "foul play".

            Can the so-called famous specialists counter and bring this site out of the game? Or, they're merely good at publicizing their names....

            Take this challenge... or I've to pay my cracker to shame you guys.


            Hardi
            Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

            Thank you.

            zzz.vbstyles.c0m/f0rum/bl0g.php?cp=6?****-berry

            (remove the zzz, replace 0 with o)

            It's sitting at 5th spot in US Google.

            I believe it's worth the time to take this out by SEO means. The winner gains the limelight in this forum

            Hardi
            This is not much of a challenge, Hardi, but it's instructive to address this in some detail. Your example merely confirms my point. The ranking to which you are referring sponges off the trust of an authoritative domain, vbstyles.com. Before the recent MayDay Update it was especially easy to obtain results like this: I used to do so by simply making forum posts on authoritative forums. The MayDay update has made it harder to pull this off when there are no backlinks (links from external sites) pointing to such pages. Your example shows that when there are such backlinks, even if they are of very low quality, such results are still achievable. Fine, I admit this is one of those special uses that low quality links can be put to. The problem is that such links cannot be used to rank sites. Without the authority of the domain on which this blog post appears, you would be nowhere with your links.

            Proof? Sure!

            The result you have cited is the fifth Google result for "**** berry". But let us consider result #6: panix.com/userdirs/blog/****-berry/ .This result is very similar to the one you gave, with the difference that it ranks lower while using a much larger number of low quality links (almost 7,000 as opposed to 50+ -- that's an astonishing number of profiles, either automated or someone's labor is really cheap). The lower ranking is explained by the lesser authority of the panix domain.

            The relationship between these two results is clear from the fact that both URLs are co-referenced in a number of the same forum profiles. I am betting that these two pages are being promoted by the same SEO.

            Now consider the fact that the whole point of the Panix page is to promote and drive traffic to the site acaiberrysite.com, which I am betting is also promoted by the same SEO. This main site uses some 17,000 (probably more) mostly low quality back links. The vast majority of those links use the anchor text "**** berry", but the site ranks only at #86 for "**** berry." (That's a truly mind-numbing number of profile links by the way, although all other kinds of low quality links also seem represented.)

            Which clearly establishes my point that in and of themselves the low quality links of the sort that you are defending here are quite powerless.

            QED.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452431].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author uniquecontent
    Does somebody has Angela & Paul's websites list ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2418696].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MarkAse
    Tom-I think you bring up a good point in terms of the opportunity cost to acquire that 1 link. If it's a Yahoo Directory link then we might be talking about either a ton of time writing an education section, or $299 a year in fees. Either way, that is a significant investment.

    Personally these profile style links are working well on both long tail and competitive keywords....of course they are only part of my link building plan.
    Signature

    My current project, the Uncorked Ventures Wine Club. More coming soon, here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2420007].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Graemewhi
    Hi guys
    Ok my results with just Angela,s links and nothing else (but plenty of them) are for a 90,000,000 term competition - to start my site was on page 50 then after heaps of linking with just these forementioned "no good links" as the guy above (The great and knowledgeable Guru PhilipSEO) described them - I am now on position 8 on page 2 and I hate to disappoint the guru but I havnt finished with them yet.

    Regards
    Graeme
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2428076].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
    Alright I can't resist.

    Let's type "**** berry" in US google. You'll find certain rank comes from forum profile.

    This is a highly competitive search term, by the way.

    People who don't know how to counter such competitors will yell "foul play".

    Can the so-called famous specialists counter and bring this site out of the game? Or, they're merely good at publicizing their names....

    Take this challenge... or I've to pay my cracker to shame you guys.


    Hardi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441023].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
      Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

      Alright I can't resist.

      Let's type "**** berry" in US google. You'll find certain rank comes from forum profile.

      This is a highly competitive search term, by the way.

      People who don't know how to counter such competitors will yell "foul play".

      Can the so-called famous specialists counter and bring this site out of the game? Or, they're merely good at publicizing their names....

      Take this challenge... or I've to pay my cracker to shame you guys.


      Hardi
      Interesting, thanks for stepping up. What is the website we're looking at?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441094].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sahil
    I have used Angela's links on one of my website and they work best for me. The keyword is Reseller Hosting. And it is enough competitive. I think it is well worth of $5 and I would recommend it for everyone.

    Sahil
    Signature

    - Sahil @ Twitter

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Audi
    Angela's backlinks and all those other backlink packets are the equivalent of when people used to stuff keywords on their site and hide them in white text. Google is eventually going to pick up on it and slap the **** out of you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2446713].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by Audi View Post

      ...Google is eventually going to pick up on it and slap the **** out of you.
      Um no. Could they discount the value of certain kinds of links? Sure, but they aren't going to be slapping sites for incoming links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2449993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hendricius
    These link packets worked well for me in past for my clients sites, these links are from high authority sites, you can easily find such sites by yourself. Profile backlinks still works.
    Signature
    Follow me on Twitter: @hendricius
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2446951].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
      Originally Posted by hendricius View Post

      you can easily find such sites by yourself
      Of course, with so much footprint being left behind such as "angelaeXXXX". Not to forget the BH guys are tracking this without buying. And they're distributing the package all around the Internet. I did mentioned this to the owner of this package. She can't do anything with it.

      Even a simple engineer from Google can track that easily, btw

      The best policy is to use good practice, such as creating niche-related values in sites that allow user to generate content. Even if someone tracks you down, you're still safe.

      What are you guys thinking?


      Hardi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2447197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author James Blair
        Phillip, do yourself a favor bro, if you want to promote your service then go right ahead but don't come bumbling into threads about the services others offer and bash them while pointing out all of the key benefits of the services you offer.

        Extremely lame, and I hope you don't seriously think these methods will gain you any business. Nobody in this thread has agreed with what you're trying to pull, if you haven't noticed. The whole world is wrong, while you are right?

        Just some friendly advice. Take it how you want.


        James
        Signature

        2017... Will it be YOUR year??

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2449594].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
          Originally Posted by James Blair View Post

          Phillip, do yourself a favor bro, if you want to promote your service then go right ahead but don't come bumbling into threads about the services others offer and bash them while pointing out all of the key benefits of the services you offer.

          Extremely lame, and I hope you don't seriously think these methods will gain you any business. Nobody in this thread has agreed with what you're trying to pull, if you haven't noticed. The whole world is wrong, while you are right?

          Just some friendly advice. Take it how you want.


          James
          Cool it James.

          Apparently, most people in this SEO forum are doing this no matter how much they deny AND how much they claim that they're just helping. This is just being practically hypocrite.

          To some people, this sounds lame. To some, this sounds like a godsend 'messiah'.

          Nevertheless, if it sounds like Phillip is bashing others, it is better to let the major moderators decide, although the principle over here is "everyone is a moderator".

          Sometimes, the wisdom of the crowd could be wrong!


          Hardi

          P.S.

          I'm still waiting for someone to take out the fifth spot in US Google for "**** berry" search term by SEO means. Too much talk avails nothing, you know?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2450892].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seolbs
    Understand, a link is a link and the more the better!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2449815].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author inter123
      Going for anything remotely competetive, this stuff is a waste of time. But they are effective for keywords with little or no competetion, i.e. sites with zero backlinks and PR 0.

      Most of the sites on the first page are authority sites who have not gone to the process of SEOing the keyword either because they are not interested in receiving an extra 20 visitors a month or they simply don't have the time.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2497667].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author marketguy
        Originally Posted by inter123 View Post

        Going for anything remotely competetive, this stuff is a waste of time. But they are effective for keywords with little or no competetion, i.e. sites with zero backlinks and PR 0.

        Most of the sites on the first page are authority sites who have not gone to the process of SEOing the keyword either because they are not interested in receiving an extra 20 visitors a month or they simply don't have the time.
        I will tell you what i think and than i will explain why i highlighted the part of your post.

        1. I agree that Angela's back-link packages are crap, if you are going for keywords with actual (active) competition.

        2. I also know, that those same links still have their use for intermediate competition

        Which brings me to why i highlighted part of your post.
        I am a newbie (just out of the noob stage, lol) and have one site where i did test those links. We are talking about keywords with roughly 7k searches a month and just under 100k broad match competition.
        Wikepidia was, in fact, in the number one spot, but is no more, since i took that over. Now the only things i have done, besides using Angela's links, is write articles and put decent content on my site.

        The rest is a guessing game.
        Signature


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2497746].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy123
          there are enough people on the WF who have seen positive results with Angela's backlinks for one to conclude that they do work

          it is silly to argue this anymore

          Phil, good job creating controversy so as to draw attention to your service.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498695].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jacked
      Originally Posted by seolbs View Post

      Understand, a link is a link and the more the better!
      Haha yes this. They are not meant to drive traffic to your site, just to increase your rankings. I do a Angela style link building service if you want to check it out its in my sig.
      Signature

      BEST LINKS AT THE BEST PRICE GUARANTEED

      HIGHLY REVIEWED - BEST PRICES - AMAZING SERVICE
      Comments, Profiles, Pyramids, Bookmarks, Article Submissions, Web 2.0 Creation, & Much MORE
      WF THREAD
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3159466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author searchnology
    Angela's links are "Backlink Spam". They are an opportunistic play and have their place for just that purpose but in my opinion you are kidding yourself if you think you can build a long-term business with backlink spam. Just like email spam, direct mail spam, and telemarketing spam, backlink spam will fall by the wayside.

    My 2 cents.
    Signature
    Google's Keyword Tool is Gone!..You will NEED this! - Watch Demo that Uncovers 1000s of KEYWORDS Other Tools Miss! »


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2451028].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
      Originally Posted by searchnology View Post

      My 2 cents.
      And that's about it's all it worth.

      SEO is built on artificial links. If you think that's going to change anytime soon you're kidding yourself.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2451035].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author searchnology
        I don't think that is completely true....I have a client that built their SEO completely around PR and linkbait...they were very successful in driving traffic and developing a PR6 site (I recommended they add artificial link building but with high quality content) Most people don't take this approach because it is very expense to conduct PR campaigns and create linkbait type content on a regular basis.

        However, I think at least some backlink spam (I don't consider all artificial link building spam) will actually change very abruptly just like onpage bluefart tactics (which people also claimed would never change) once Google figures it out....and Google will indeed figure it out because their business model of providing relevancy depends on it....the MayDay update was just a glimpse of things to come.

        Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

        And that's about it's all it worth.

        SEO is built on artificial links. If you think that's going to change anytime soon you're kidding yourself.
        Signature
        Google's Keyword Tool is Gone!..You will NEED this! - Watch Demo that Uncovers 1000s of KEYWORDS Other Tools Miss! »


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2451078].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
          Originally Posted by searchnology View Post

          I don't think that is completely true....I have a client that built their SEO completely around PR and linkbait...they were very successful in driving traffic and developing a PR6 site (I recommended they add artificial link building but with high quality content) Most people don't take this approach because it is very expense to conduct PR campaigns and create linkbait type content on a regular basis.

          However, I think at least some backlink spam (I don't consider all artificial link building spam) will actually change very abruptly just like onpage bluefart tactics (which people also claimed would never change) once Google figures it out....and Google will indeed figure it out because their business model of providing relevancy depends on it....the MayDay update was just a glimpse of things to come.
          What do you consider backlink spam them? Profile links? Blog commenting?

          Blog commenting has been around for years and it's still effective today as it was when it first started.

          One thing is for sure, as long as you have a varied linking profile (And most likely even if you don't) you're never going to get penalised for those types of "spam" links. It would be too easy to sabotage the competition if you could.

          I'm not expecting profile links to stay effective forever but right now they are very easy to create automatically and they are very effective.

          As such, I will continue to use them until they are no longer effective at which point I will then move on to what is effective then.

          If and when profile links begin to get devalued I will move on to something else, but as of right now they work incredibly well and they should be a part of your plan if you want good rankings.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2451103].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
            Pat,

            Machines are stupid for a time being. You get what you want to be ranked. Profile is still good for its purpose. What more can I say?

            But human are not stupid. Do you know there's an ongoing movement to clear profile spamming?

            And they do not mean just 'clear' literally. They collect data of spam profile. They show it to the forum owners. They teach them how to remove them, remove the cache in the search engine, and do some nasty things.

            I'm not part of it. I just know that some people are doing this.

            Presently, it looks like a losing war but as more people are spamming the profile, more forum owners will rally together to fight back. Who wins in the end? It's the same history during the days when people were fighting email spams.

            Sure, you can ignore this at your own peril.

            Hardi

            P.S.

            Check out the presumption on May update. This is just the beginning of the doom of irrelevant link.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2451148].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
              Do you know how many forums spring up every single day? Many more than even know what a place like stopforumspam is. There will always be juicey forums, and that isn't even up for debate. Again though, at worse, we are talking about discounting of the value of links.

              As for any updates to Google's algo...

              I can't speak for other people's sites, but my sites (including brand new ones), have NEVER ranked better.

              Yes, even my crappy 3 page made for adense sites are kicking ass. I have no clue what peopel are talking about with respect to any crazy update.

              Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

              Pat,

              But human are not stupid. Do you know there's an ongoing movement to clear profile spamming?

              And they do not mean just 'clear' literally. They collect data of spam profile. They show it to the forum owners. They teach them how to remove them, remove the cache in the search engine, and do some nasty things.

              I'm not part of it. I just know that some people are doing this.

              Presently, it looks like a losing war but as more people are spamming the profile, more forum owners will rally together to fight back. Who wins in the end? It's the same history during the days when people were fighting email spams.

              Sure, you can ignore this at your own peril.

              Hardi

              P.S.

              Check out the presumption on May update. This is just the beginning of the doom of irrelevant link.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452685].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mcampbell075
    I also avail the angela's back-linking and I'm still observing the effect to it on my handled website. I just started it last July 15. Although there is 10% improvements with my targeted keyword. But I'm not sure if it's because of angela's. Since I'm also doing some off page factors.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2452621].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hireava
    Angela's backlink method is pretty simple, she's able to find high page rank sites where she is able to place an internal link to your webpage. Most of the sites that she finds placement for have a sign-up form and a profile form or blog page.


    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2495325].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
    Ad hominem
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2495852].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TrafficMystic
    guys... if you only do angelas links for you link building you will not create a long term business.. they are useful but you need other link types as well..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2500684].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jordan Kovats
    Here is the short answer. Yes they work. How well they work depends on your targeted keywords and competition. I don't recommend basing your entire campaign on that method. I have with less competitive terms, and taken sites to #2 with that method only. Hope that helps.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502221].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rossmeister
    Hi All

    I'm new here and subscribe to Angela's and Pauls backlinks. Admittedly, though, I only started last month and now I cant find any reference to Angela in my emails and nor can i find her website. When are Septembers links due? What is the url of her website? Does she send via email? Same goes for Paul?

    I must also add that PhillipSEO is quite transparent in damning these links, especially as he provides an (expensive) SEO service himself.

    SEO is all about common sense in my view. Google havent invented AI, they just code their common sensical approaches to ranking sites....and these methods and theories are simple to work out.

    Thanks

    Michael
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2560566].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PhilipSEO
      Originally Posted by Rossmeister View Post

      Hi All

      I'm new here and subscribe to Angela's and Pauls backlinks. Admittedly, though, I only started last month and now I cant find any reference to Angela in my emails and nor can i find her website. When are Septembers links due? What is the url of her website? Does she send via email? Same goes for Paul?

      I must also add that PhillipSEO is quite transparent in damning these links, especially as he provides an (expensive) SEO service himself.

      SEO is all about common sense in my view. Google havent invented AI, they just code their common sensical approaches to ranking sites....and these methods and theories are simple to work out.

      Thanks

      Michael
      Um, you have a lot to say about Google SEO and all that, for someone who doesn't know how to find Angela's website. You sound like the right sort of customer, good luck, I hope they work great for you!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2560796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JFalcon
    PhillipSEO, I went to your website and checked out a few of the sites you are working on: Lot's of blog comments without keywords, directory submissions, etc. The same stuff that everybody does. What makes your SEO so powerful?
    Signature
    Local Internet Marketing For Small Business
    - Do It Yourself Internet Marketing For Small Local Business

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2562812].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author davidjames42973
      Excellent discussion. I love hearing both sides of the SEO spectrum.

      I won't give any keyword demonstrations, but I have LITERALLY ranked within the top 10 for several highly competitive keywords.

      I've also beaten out a multi billion dollar company's website for a client by using these backlinks and some other simple SEO techniques.

      Sure it's going to take some serious backlinking and time. As a matter of fact, it usually takes my team and I close to 2 months to reach the top 10 for these keywords, but once I reach that top 10, the rankings stick.

      I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend Angela's Backlink packets as part of your SEO arsenal.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2562912].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cowboy123
      Youthful ego

      Originally Posted by JFalcon View Post

      PhillipSEO, I went to your website and checked out a few of the sites you are working on: Lot's of blog comments without keywords, directory submissions, etc. The same stuff that everybody does. What makes your SEO so powerful?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2563652].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author edgarsrutkis
    Angelas and Pauls backlinks are good to say no more
    But i find backlinks that i have found exactly in my niche, whether that is forum or blog, more valuable
    I use so called ''black hat'' softwares like Scrapebox and Xrumer(ok not xrumer, but hrefer) to find backlinks related to my niches.

    I tested 2 blogs with similar ranking difficulty one with pauls+angela backlinks and second with links that i found with ''black hat'' seo softwares(link building was done manually)
    Blogs were as much seo optimized as possible

    In time of one week blog which had links from related blogs and forums was ranking on
    #9 (After my blog got indexed it was already ranking on #35)
    Second blog with Pauls and Angela links was ranking in #15(started from #34)

    In the end i can say that those packets are great, that's for sure, but investment of 57$ + 570$ which is a lot of money of course(ok going offtopic already..ending soon) is worth it

    And in the end Angelas backlinks are good, but there's a BUT.
    Quantity! For those who have no knowledge about finding links manuallythis is death penalty. make 30 backlinks and you have no more, and 30 backlinks is nothing.

    Ok gone a bit in offtopic, don't judge me too much

    Edgars Rutkis
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2563283].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MarkAse
    Even if you're creating profile style links within your niche, I highly doubt you'd ever get any traffic from them.

    Angela's backlinks are solely looking to improve SERPS and drive organic traffic.

    They can be effective over time as many people are proven already. Look into Terry Kyle's backlink packets as well.
    Signature

    My current project, the Uncorked Ventures Wine Club. More coming soon, here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2564599].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author davidjames42973
      Originally Posted by MarkAse View Post

      Even if you're creating profile style links within your niche, I highly doubt you'd ever get any traffic from them.

      Angela's backlinks are solely looking to improve SERPS and drive organic traffic.

      They can be effective over time as many people are proven already. Look into Terry Kyle's backlink packets as well.
      Terry Kyle's Backlink Packets? I'll look into that. Thanks for the tip...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2564709].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author totman
    has anyone had success with these types of links? (angelas)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3158555].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan B Rusu
    Profile backlinks work - and they're nice cause they're easy to make - but they'll only take your site so far. You'll have to get good high PR or contextual backlinks eventually.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3159348].message }}
  • One good thing about Angelas service is you manually build the links, so you can control what is being said for you and your SEO.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3159845].message }}

Trending Topics