Backlinks from Web 2.0 Sites?

I agree here. But why not do more? (Not that Alex doesn't.) But as the OP suggests, there is a balance here. Do more than build backlinks via social media. Write articles, exchange links with reputable partners (or ask for a one-way link), seek out your own backlinks (comments, forums, etc.).

One tactic that is rarely mentioned is guest blogging. Ask blog owners if they want a high-quality article/post in return for a link back to your own site. This offers many benefits (targeted and immediate traffic, a high-value one-way backlink, and higher perceived expertise in your field, to name a few).

I appreciate the reply Alex, but it really does not alleviate my concerns. If Google Webmaster Tools and Yahoo Site explorer don't show links back to a web site... how do you know they have them indexed? How do you know from experience that they are giving you high PR if you can't even validate that your links on those sites are indexed? What concrete data do you have that validates the numbers above?

I'm sorry, but if I were the owner of a large business hiring someone to do marketing for my product, I would ask for more than hand waving and touchy feely ideas about how things work. If I don't see links that I have created on Squidoo, Hubpages or any other site appearing in search results or as links in Yahoo Site Explorer or Google Webmaster tools, then why would I assume that they are being considered in any ranking algorithm?

This is the problem that I have with those that promote "link wheels" involving high PR web 2.0 properties. 1. They never provide any statistical or verifiable evidence that this actually works. In addition, you put yourself at the mercy of these properties who, on any given day, can decide to make links no-follow or otherwise cloak the links (like I've observed on Squidoo).

This is a fact... I generate backlinks by exchanging blog posts, adding useful commentary to relevant blogs, and adding useful posts to relevent forums. In every case I can go to either Google Webmaster Tools or Yahoo Site Explorer and see the results after a reasonable amount of time has passed to index. (I actually asked a question on Google's Webmaster Forums one day and included a link to my site... it was in Google's search results in 10 minutes). So if I am not seeing links from high PR web 2.0 sites (that supposedly get indexed rather frequently) appear in my site links in Yahoo or Google Webmaster, I can only assume that these sites are not providing much, if any, benefit to my ranking.

I have seen many lists but none that spelled it out with speed of indexing etc. Very nice. Thank you!

BTW do you know what criteria they use for the top web2.0? I notice the first one in the articles section is 365articles a PR0 with just a few thousand links.

List of social networking websites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will find a list of good Web 2.0 with their index time and other useful information at TargetHut

All the best

I'm all ears. Please explain with verifiable evidence how they provide great link juice and why a link from Squidoo is better than a link from a directly related PR 6 blog/forum/website.

From my earlier example... I think I would much rather fill my own web site with 30 - 40 articles to add credibility to my own site.

Think about the logic of this. Proponents of this suggest that folks spend a bunch of time building several separate web pages pointed at their money page for the sole purpose of hoping that Google sees the link and somehow magically rates your money site higher because the link exists on a site that contains massive amounts of completely unrelated content.

Again... if I was to create a site in the iPod niche... I would much rather have some links from content on Apple's web site, or a high PR Apple forum than put a bunch of time and effort into creating five separate web pages on a site full of unrelated content.

How did we test that google is ... "discounting" anything?

Where can I read more about this "discount" factor to backlinks that google can arbitrarily apply?

Please take a screen shot of your google webmaster tools and yahoo site explorer, and please point out where it says whether the link is from a web 2.0 website or not.

Google does not care if the link is on a static html site, or a database drive interactive site.

You make it sound like google tells the difference between different types of sites.

The "web 2.0" buzz word was outdated 5+ years ago. There is no need in even using it unless your talking about design - do you want a static site, or a dynamic site.

Why even use the buzz word "web 2.0" at all? If you can post a link on a site, its a given that its going to be an interactive site.

While your on the topic about the types of sites that google indexes links on, did you know that google indexes links on sites about cars, blue cars, red cars, yellow cars, race cars, sites about cheese, sites about cheese burgers, red sites, green sites, yellow sites, big sites, and even small sites.

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

Bocephus - something you may not be taking into consideration is the age of the link. From my experiments with old domain names that have 10+ year old backlinks - google seems to give more respect to older backlinks.

New backlink - search engine sees it and says, "hey, this might be a spam link and might get removed, so I'am just going to ignore it for a little while"

Old backlink on high ranking site - search engine sees the same link for 10 years ago and says "this link is like a wine, its well aged and on a respected site"

I bought an expired domain name that had backlinks dating to 1998 and 1999. Once the site was setup, it never floated in the results pages like a lot of sites do. It appears to me that the older the site, and the older the backlinks, the more respect it will get from the search engines.

Onsite VS offsite - To answer your question about putting too much effort into link building - yes - I think people put too much effort into off site projects, and not enough effort into onsite.

If you create your content, natural backlinks will come in time. But on the same hand, I do not think it hurts to submit a few links to social bookmarking sites.

I see people that spend a massive amount of time creating pages on sites like hubpages and squidoo. While that same amount of time could have been invested into their own site. And I have to ask myself, why? Why take that time you could have invested into your own site, and put it towards a site that belongs to someone else?

This is the one process by which you can get traffic on your site very fast and it also gives you more useful backlinks then the other process.

You can find a good list on TargetHut