Backlinks from Web 2.0 Sites?

52 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I'm observing something that further leads me to question the validity of the linkwheel idea and the usefulness of web 2.0 sites to build backlinks.

On a few of my websites I have created very basic networks of dofollow web 2.0 sites with articles and links back to my main site. When I look at backlinks to my site from either Yahoo Site Explorer or my Google Webmaster page I do not see a single link from any of the sites. These sites have been stewing for two months with little or no activity on my part. I would think that this would be plenty of time for the frequent indexing of these high PR sites to have yielded a link or two.

It leads me to wonder if the effort a person might put into building these sorts of links would be better spent writing articles, contributing to forums and exchanging blog posts.
#backlinks #sites #web
  • Profile picture of the author AlexKei
    Hi,

    the links from Web 2.0 sites work perfectly for the main purpose: Getting high rankings.

    I can tell you from a lot of experience they work great.

    Don't trust the Yahoo site explorer because it won't show you ALL links to a site. In fact, it misses a lot of links.

    I would say that if ypu see 2K backlinks in the Y! Site Explorer, the site you are looking at may probable have 4K.

    I build about 200-250 backlinks per month to my sites and MANY of them show only 150, 190 backlinks in the Y! Site Explorer.

    Cheers!

    Alex Kei.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2437490].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author billspaced
      Originally Posted by AlexKei View Post

      Hi,

      the links from Web 2.0 sites work perfectly for the main purpose: Getting high rankings.

      I can tell you from a lot of experience they work great.

      Don't trust the Yahoo site explorer because it won't show you ALL links to a site. In fact, it misses a lot of links.


      Alex Kei.
      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).
      Signature

      Bill Davis
      Chief Marketing Officer, SoMoLo Marketing

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2437540].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bocephus
      Originally Posted by AlexKei View Post

      Hi,

      the links from Web 2.0 sites work perfectly for the main purpose: Getting high rankings.

      I can tell you from a lot of experience they work great.

      Don't trust the Yahoo site explorer because it won't show you ALL links to a site. In fact, it misses a lot of links.

      I would say that if ypu see 2K backlinks in the Y! Site Explorer, the site you are looking at may probable have 4K.

      I build about 200-250 backlinks per month to my sites and MANY of them show only 150, 190 backlinks in the Y! Site Explorer.

      Cheers!

      Alex Kei.
      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.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441103].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author billspaced
        Originally Posted by bocephus View Post

        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?
        You make some valid points. However, can you clarify for us what you mean when you say you don't see the links in search engines? I mean, if you type in the full URL of the page you're referring to in google (site:URL), you don't see results? Meaning, google (substitute any SE) hasn't indexed the page?

        That would be a problem. First thing that needs to occur for any backlinking to be effective is the page needs to be known by the search engine in question.

        Since none of us know how google or the other SEs work, we're just speculating on whether just because something appears in Webmaster Tools it matters. Put another way, what if that tool is "behind the curve" on indexing but google's bot is right on top of things?

        You could have a situation where the page has been indexed by google but it doesn't appear in Webmaster Tools. That's ENTIRELY possible.

        The main consideration in all of this is: Is the page indexed or not? If it's not, then you have very valid concerns. If it is but doesn't show up in any "tool," you can rest assured knowing that it's in the SE's algo process.

        ...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).
        Don't you put yourself at the mercy of other webmasters who might have do follow links one day and decide to go no follow?

        I get your point, though. Don't put a TON of lop-sided effort into building backlinks in one place or via one method. Spread your efforts around. You never know when one method takes off and another takes a hike.

        The thing that we're all at the mercy of is the SEs themselves. What if one day they discount backlinks? Then all this backlinking effort (and there is a LOT of it) is for naught.

        When doing anything "organic" we're all totally reliant on whether the search engines value our work.
        Signature

        Bill Davis
        Chief Marketing Officer, SoMoLo Marketing

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441169].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bocephus
          Originally Posted by billspaced View Post

          Since none of us know how google or the other SEs work, we're just speculating ....
          This is exactly what I am getting at.

          We believe quality backlinks are important because Google tells us they are. But I see many cases where this doesn't seem to be the case.

          What I don't necessarily believe is that link wheels and strategies that involve these high PR web 2.0 sites have any appreciable effect. Not because I don't think it's possible, but because I have yet to see any verifiable, repeatable evidence that this is the case.

          I find that the longer I work at this, the more questions I have about certain beliefs that I read here.

          For example, I have a blog that I am spending a great deal of time trying to develop. I'm adding high quality, relevent content. Articles that have to do with the subject, free downloads, pictures, videos, etc. All targeted to a particular (high competition keyword). My main focus has been on developing backlinks. I have about 400 right now. However, one or two of the sites sitting at the top of the SERPs have less than 50. The difference? They have thousands of articles. And you will have to trust me when I tell you that the content is garbage. Full of the right keywords... but garbage.

          Not sure what the lesson is here other than my original contention that spending any serious amounts of time building link wheels or pages on web 2.0 sites may not be as beneficial as some here would like you to believe.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441275].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
            Originally Posted by bocephus View Post

            This is exactly what I am getting at.

            We believe quality backlinks are important because Google tells us they are. But I see many cases where this doesn't seem to be the case.

            What I don't necessarily believe is that link wheels and strategies that involve these high PR web 2.0 sites have any appreciable effect. Not because I don't think it's possible, but because I have yet to see any verifiable, repeatable evidence that this is the case.

            I find that the longer I work at this, the more questions I have about certain beliefs that I read here.

            For example, I have a blog that I am spending a great deal of time trying to develop. I'm adding high quality, relevent content. Articles that have to do with the subject, free downloads, pictures, videos, etc. All targeted to a particular (high competition keyword). My main focus has been on developing backlinks. I have about 400 right now. However, one or two of the sites sitting at the top of the SERPs have less than 50. The difference? They have thousands of articles. And you will have to trust me when I tell you that the content is garbage. Full of the right keywords... but garbage.

            Not sure what the lesson is here other than my original contention that spending any serious amounts of time building link wheels or pages on web 2.0 sites may not be as beneficial as some here would like you to believe.
            That can be so frustrating. I know one of my competitors has content stolen directly from yahoo news right down to the photos.
            Another one has tons and tons of links with mostly garbage on them including spun content you would not believe.

            But you just have to ignore it and keep on providing high quality. As Google gets smarter and smarter hopefully those sites will disappear one day, but if not you know you are providing a quality impact.
            Signature

            Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441405].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author billspaced
            Originally Posted by bocephus View Post

            This is exactly what I am getting at.

            Not sure what the lesson is here other than my original contention that spending any serious amounts of time building link wheels or pages on web 2.0 sites may not be as beneficial as some here would like you to believe.
            I agree! I'm not going to say building backlinks isn't important, but my backlink efforts are diversified.
            Signature

            Bill Davis
            Chief Marketing Officer, SoMoLo Marketing

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441742].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author jtpada
              What I do in order to assure Google finds my links on these web 2.0 properties is to ping them.

              If written a Squidoo lense for example I head over to pingler or pingomatic and feed them the Squidoo lense URL.

              This has always reulted in these links being noted.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2442261].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author vakilwala
    Hello

    i am new to SEO, what is Web 2.0? any one have a list of web 2.0?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441129].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
      Originally Posted by John McEachern View Post

      Here's a good list somebody else on this forum posted the other day.

      Hope it helps.
      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.
      Signature

      Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441237].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Astron
      Originally Posted by vakilwala View Post

      Hello

      i am new to SEO, what is Web 2.0? any one have a list of web 2.0?

      List of social networking websites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2624364].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author olamilekan2
      Originally Posted by vakilwala View Post

      Hello

      i am new to SEO, what is Web 2.0? any one have a list of web 2.0?


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

      All the best
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2624448].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jaxrefinance
    Web 2.0 properties have a great link juice, you just have to know how to use it.

    But web 2.0 is definitely better than a simple website backlink
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2441316].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bocephus
      Originally Posted by jaxrefinance View Post

      Web 2.0 properties have a great link juice, you just have to know how to use it.

      But web 2.0 is definitely better than a simple website backlink
      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.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2442642].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FrankBowman
    Web 2.0s are being heavily discounted by google. To get them to count I would....

    Fill the Web 2.0 sites with content, not just 4 or five articles, more like 30-40 articles and then.........

    build backlinks to your Web2.0 props.

    persoanlly, for me............I don't use many of them that much anymore, but when I do I, use, wordpress.com. typepad.com, and blobspost.com, and build backlinks to them.

    Of course you could just build backlinks straight to your money site and achieve the same outcome.

    Just my opinion..........
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2442276].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bocephus
      Originally Posted by FrankBowman View Post

      Web 2.0s are being heavily discounted by google. To get them to count I would....

      Fill the Web 2.0 sites with content, not just 4 or five articles, more like 30-40 articles and then.........

      build backlinks to your Web2.0 props.

      ..........
      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.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2442682].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
      Originally Posted by FrankBowman View Post

      Web 2.0s are being heavily discounted by google. To get them to count I would....

      Fill the Web 2.0 sites with content, not just 4 or five articles, more like 30-40 articles and then.........

      build backlinks to your Web2.0 props.

      persoanlly, for me............I don't use many of them that much anymore, but when I do I, use, wordpress.com. typepad.com, and blobspost.com, and build backlinks to them.

      Of course you could just build backlinks straight to your money site and achieve the same outcome.

      Just my opinion..........
      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?
      Signature
      Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2467178].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
        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.
        Not entirely true ... many seo's are using the web 2.0's as a link spam shield and throwing 1,000's of links at the web 2.0 properties filled with UNRELATED content to their $$$ pages ... so ... that if Google does in the odd chance take a manual review of content and backlinks - the web 2.0 site can get de-indexed not the money site.

        They are driving all that link juice from thousands of links to their $$$ sites thru the web 2.0s.... which are readily replaceable if need be.
        Signature
        Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2467195].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Slin
          Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

          Not entirely true ... many seo's are using the web 2.0's as a link spam shield and throwing 1,000's of links at the web 2.0 properties filled with UNRELATED content to their $$$ pages ... so ... that if Google does in the odd chance take a manual review of content and backlinks - the web 2.0 site can get de-indexed not the money site.

          They are driving all that link juice from thousands of links to their $$$ sites thru the web 2.0s.... which are readily replaceable if need be.

          Shhhh...Shhh!!!

          Quit giving away secrets! No! Just stop!

          It's not like google seems to love 2.0 style sites and never deindex them :rolleyes:

          Now go back to your lives everyone, and forget what you just read.

          Man where's that MIB flash thing when I need it..
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2625910].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Hyaku_Man
            It`s well-known that Google and Yahoo don`t list all of your indexed backlinks, and they usually list quite different backlinks from each other. Nobody really knows why, but to put it simply I don`t care what backlinks they list. I don`t even check anymore. I judge based on ranking results alone, because there have been times when I built a lot of backlinks and my rankings improed dramatically even though Google and Yahoo only listed like 1 backlink.

            Some people think they`re trying to discourage spammers by making it seem like your spammy links are being ignored.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2626073].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author iminva
    I wondered a similar thing. I used senuke to set up a bunch of web 2.0 properties and almost none of them showed up in link checkers and this was after waiting quite a while.

    I know link checkers don't show all the backlinks, but almost none of the very many I set up showed up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2456874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AdultMySpace
    Webmaster tools reports web 2.0 sites
    Yahoo reports web 2.0 sites

    This is across 4 different sites I have. Get your links indexed, but not all links are going to be reported.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2457785].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
    Originally Posted by bocephus View Post

    I'm observing something that further leads me to question the validity of the linkwheel idea and the usefulness of web 2.0 sites to build backlinks.
    Do you think the search engines care if the link is on a static HTML site (web 1.0), or a database driven asp or php site (web 2.0)?

    That is like saying your car drives better on the interstate highway better then it does a state highway - a road is a road. Who cares if the highway goes east to west, or north to south?

    Please stop throwing the web 2.0 buzz word around, it was outdated 5+ years ago.

    Originally Posted by AdultMySpace View Post

    Webmaster tools reports web 2.0 sites
    Yahoo reports web 2.0 sites
    This is absurd - I have never seen google say that the link is from a web 2.0 site, or a static html site.

    A link is a link - regardless of what kind of site its on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2458064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AdultMySpace
    What is absurd about it? Do you speak english and by any chance did you completely misunderstand what I said? Context please

    Backlinks from content created in web 2.0 websites are indexed and being reported on by Google Webmaster Tools and the various services that use Yahoo for reporting for my websites. Which means links created in those websites count just like any other.

    Ill be sure to bring out the crayons for you next time
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2460390].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
      Originally Posted by AdultMySpace View Post

      What is absurd about it? Do you speak english and by any chance did you completely misunderstand what I said? Context please

      Backlinks from content created in web 2.0 websites are indexed and being reported on by Google Webmaster Tools and the various services that use Yahoo for reporting for my websites.
      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2461107].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thebarksmeow
    Well I use web 2.0 sites all the time. I'm always building them, so I don't care if some go down. I love them. I don't use them as link wheels though and I damn sure don't give them original content. I use them as extensions of my money site that are on different ip's. I just make sure to get them indexed and pump them full of backlinks. IMO, if you don't think they're effective then either you don't understand how to use them or you're not using them right.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2460956].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cutequotes
    link wheels works but you have to make sure that on the first stage those blogs are indexed by google. than you need to build few links to those blogs.

    they key is to promote the link wheels a bit and not only your money site
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2461972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AdultMySpace
    Jesus, Im not making it sound like anything mate. You misunderstood what I was saying and you are jumping up onto a soapbox and making yourself look like a right fool here. My God.Are you always this aggro when you get confused?

    But OK, Ill bring out the crayons for you because clearly this is way too complicated for you.

    Here, look what he don typed in his computer masheen

    Originally Posted by OP

    On a few of my websites I have created very basic networks of dofollow web 2.0 sites with articles and links back to my main site. When I look at backlinks to my site from either Yahoo Site Explorer or my Google Webmaster page I do not see a single link from any of the sites. These sites have been stewing for two months with little or no activity on my part. I would think that this would be plenty of time for the frequent indexing of these high PR sites to have yielded a link or two.
    Now, the response I gave him was a simple one. Google reports the links I have created that are on Web2.0 websites without any problems. Now here is the the clever part and where you are getting yourself all confused:

    I never said that it reports the link as a web2.0 site. I merely said that links from web2.0 websites are being indexed and reported in webmaster tools and the tools which use yahoo to drive them

    Comprende? Regardless of it being web2.0 or a "traditional" site, they are indexed and they are going to be reported. I never suggested that its going to label it web2.0 did I? I did not feel I had to because the OP never asked that as a question in the first place because it would be pretty ****ing retarded wouldnt it?

    Will Google and Yahoo index and report backlinks from web2.0 websites? YES IT WILL
    Will Google and Yahoo label those backlinks web2.0? NO, THEY WONT, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER

    I must say though, it is amusing that you have managed to outwit yourself to this degree.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2462039].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
      Originally Posted by AdultMySpace View Post

      I merely said that links from web2.0 websites are being indexed and reported in webmaster tools and the tools which use yahoo to drive them
      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?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2462100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author frqhuss
    I agree with alexkei in both what he said about profile backlinks value and yahoo site explorer result....So build as much as good profile links and feel the difference in short time...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2462088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DNChamp
    with 2.0 sites I use them 2 ways...

    1. Is just the straight baclink it produces for my niche. I can generally find any 2.0 site I use (bookmark, sqiudoo etc) on the first or second page of my niche.

    2. I use profile links pointing to those web 2.0 links and it helps push them up. For certain keywords my site comes up in all first 5 pages and within those 5 pages are a number of web 2.0 sites with my article or bookmark.

    This helps me keep the position as I keep updating the site with content to stay on top and soon start to rank for other keywords
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2462173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AdultMySpace
    Kev, you are an idiot. The OP's question was specific to Web2.0 sites and the entire point you are making is so frikken irrelevant now its not funny.

    Im not going to participate in a pissing contest with you.

    You have a nice day
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2462602].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author desouth
    Backlink form web 2.0 still the good "tool" if you how to make it work for money.

    Originally Posted by bocephus View Post

    I'm observing something that further leads me to question the validity of the linkwheel idea and the usefulness of web 2.0 sites to build backlinks.

    On a few of my websites I have created very basic networks of dofollow web 2.0 sites with articles and links back to my main site. When I look at backlinks to my site from either Yahoo Site Explorer or my Google Webmaster page I do not see a single link from any of the sites. These sites have been stewing for two months with little or no activity on my part. I would think that this would be plenty of time for the frequent indexing of these high PR sites to have yielded a link or two.

    It leads me to wonder if the effort a person might put into building these sorts of links would be better spent writing articles, contributing to forums and exchanging blog posts.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2467009].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author remoteuser
    Also, it always is very easy to hide among the millions of pages generated from the Web 2.0 sites..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2535982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author benjamin12
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2536422].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author connorbringas
      This strategy works, but its always better to get natural links. Try to find some time to post on forums like you said, blog commenting, social bookmarking..etc
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2536453].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JackPowers
    I don't like Web 2.0 anymore for SEO purposes. Take too long to create and not enough effect on rankings.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2536872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ajmorgans
    Care to share these web 2.0 sites with the Warriors, that allow dofollow links?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2537452].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stevedmello
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2587766].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author billspaced
      Originally Posted by stevedmello View Post

      I have used senuke to obtain backlinks from web 2.0 sites but none of them appeared in link checker. All my efforts went in vain.
      How do you know what google sees? Does google use link checker?

      It's pretty well-known that google doesn't give you the entire picture on what is linking back to you.
      Signature

      Bill Davis
      Chief Marketing Officer, SoMoLo Marketing

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author OrganicSeoGuru
    Link Wheels are often the problem if not utilized effectively, The more random the better, but you need to create a siloed link pyramid in combination with other more elaborate frameworks. They do work if done properly, if done in a blatent spammy fashion your asking for problems....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rypher21
    web 2.0 sites helps me much...im looking for more of em
    Signature
    Business Consulting Services - Kittelson & Carpo Consulting
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2625873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ernestcobb26
    plentiful people are relying upon Web 2.0 sites in order to create more incoming links. They think that Google gets startled with this practice.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2642623].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author calhounevans
    If you ask my point BTW do you be familiar with what measure they use for the top web2.0? I notice the first one in the articles fragment is 365articles a PR0 with just a few thousand links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2770063].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialbookmark
    Firstly you should make link wheels from known websites to be sure that they are getting indexed. And secondly, by doing link wheel, you are making only some direct backlinks for your website and many of other backlinks are not pointing to your website directly. So consider it too. How many of your backlinks pointing to your website directly?
    Signature

    I love warriorforum.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2770146].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sulabh
      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2771581].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NetWorth
    Do people feel that you need to create these web 2.0 sites using unique accounts and that you should use a proxy when creating all of these accounts? How different accounts for 1 web 2.0 site do many of you have?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2771714].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author disolmodo78
    Web 2.0 sites are quite reliable for getting backlinks. It is a good source in order to gain more incoming links attached to your website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2892374].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    I think it depends on the web 2.0 platform if the links are no follow, then chances are they will not show up
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2895364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aldovacano
    every source of backlink that you could use is important, remember this, we need to look that our link building system looks normal so for that we need to get links from different type of websites, forum, web 2.0 , bookmarking rssfeed.

    Also we need to have backlinks from different Page rank Website, Lots of backlinks from page rank 0 and a few high rank is the best way because is easier to find backlinks from low rank website.
    even the nofollow backlinks count , a link is a link, ok they add different value to our backlink system but for me the first goal it to try that my linkbuilding looks normal.
    Signature

    No affiliate links in sig files

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2897612].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTallerNiche
    With blog commenting or forum profiles, you don't know if those links are going to stick around. With Web 2.0 they probably will stick around. And you can build backlinks to those sites without risk of having your efforts go down the toilet when some forum owner decides to delete you from the forum.

    The advantage of Web 2.0 is the keyword authority. You are not ranking for a hubpage related long tail on any site other than hubpages. You also get a bonus for any keywords in the web 2.0 url or any of the categories(this is great for niches like games which have long tails featuring the category name not so good for the health niche where the long tails don't feature the category keyword: how do I get better health?).

    If you can find new c-class ip's or are willing to buy several new domains that can work as well. But you might as well sign up for some just to get an easy do-follow backlink on the profile page.
    Signature
    Affiliate Bum Marketing Friendly Article Directory

    Use as affiliate landing link for Ezine Articles and less clutter for your articles than squidoo. Totally free and more features to come!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2897873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marksmandweller
    Web 2.0 sites are reliable enough to get backlinks. It is a good source to get more inbound links to your site online.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marco005
    Hy

    Newbie question:

    Can I set a link to my own website in hubpage and how I do it?
    Is there an sidebar or so in hubpage where I can set the link to my site similiar like squidoo or blogger.com?

    best wishes
    marco005
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5706942].message }}

Trending Topics