Why the Value of Massive Spam links is constantly declining in power

205 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I've been buckling down on research and teaching of SEO again and thought I would share a couple of very relevant SEO factors over the next few weeks that can really affect ranking of pages. One question that still comes up is whether massive backlinking works and whether it gets sites penalized.

Theres been enough debates on if that happens directly as a result of massive spam linking but there is another angle that hasn't been discussed often that pretty much guarantees that massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.

Here's how that works

Its a known fact that Google DOES penalize sites that link to spam and that the power of links from those sites deteriorates as a result. You may not be responsible for who links to you but you ARE responsible for who you link to . Sites that don't keep out tools like Xrummer (link spam bot but there are others) eventually get hammered by a good amount of clearly spam links. Google then identifies these links and if the number of spam links reaches an undisclosed level begins to lower the value of the links FOR EVERYONE using that site and the page in the search engine falls.

So the reality is that the more people use these tools the more likely the kind of sites that allow them will have less and less power for everyone else linking from that site . Thats why you may not see any big changes in the algorithm from Google. Eventually the links get less and less power the more over run a site is with spam links. This degrading power is already built into the algorithm.

This is one of the reasons why people who advocate using mass backlinks have to tell you to always keep building links. They don't realize that the more they build (as a group) the less effective the links become.

What can you do? Don't spend your entire SEO link building campaign focusing on the kind of links that are targeted by these mass spam links (forums are the most targeted). For one a lot of the links are removed by the forum masters and then those admins that allow their site to be slammed by spam over and over again will have less and less link authority to give.

Funny thing about it is the spammers are destroying the power of the links they live by and its all designed into the algorithm. Some will object. third party source needed? Fine

Here's a quick cases study from a third party source but its nothing that every real SEO professional doesn't know

Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

Build your links with balance not just for ease. Avoid alleged SEOs/backlink gurus that don't create balance in links and who are always pushing mass spam links no matter how popular they may be. Long term the strategy is on a deepening downward trend - by design.
#constantly #declining #links #massive #power #spam
  • Profile picture of the author shauryas
    Its a good article for power decline with massive backlinks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2746563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thebitbotdotcom
    The goal of all search engines is to provide us all with unique and relevant content. They will continue to pursue this until all B.H. tactics are rendered irrelevant.
    Signature
    Do Your Copywriting Skills Suck?

    Let Us Help You Develop Your Writing Skills!

    Submit Guest Posts With [ TheBitBot.Com ]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2746824].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by thebitbotdotcom View Post

      The goal of all search engines is to provide us all with unique and relevant content. They will continue to pursue this until all B.H. tactics are rendered irrelevant.
      Yup, just like blog comment spam not working, which has been around for how long:rolleyes: None of these link building techniques are new. Xrumer wasn't created last month.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2746874].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2746923].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
          You completely missed my point Mike. I was replying to thebitdotcom's's post. That is why I quoted him:rolleyes: I disagreed with his point (about a long-term algo shift), and still do. Your point was different (perhaps overlooked by thebitdotcom..I don't know).

          Tom




          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          No one said it didn't work and won't work in moderation. However the fact that google devalue sites that allow spam links is not anything a A REAL SEO guy would deny.

          He's merely pointing out the evolution and projecting a logical conclusion. On my part I am not even doing that. The realities I am talking about are in the algo here and now whether you like it or not.

          Does Google penalize sites for Spam links on your site? Fact. Yes.

          Do bots like Xrummer allow spam to be pasted on multiple forums over and over again by different users in great quantity? Fact. Yes.

          Does that then degrade the overall quality of all the links? FACT. Yes to anyone that really knows SEO beyond running a bunch of bots.

          As for blog comment spam we've all seems blog commenting sites so over ran that the sites are so weak as to nearly be useless. thats the entire point. ever heard about link farms?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2746956].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2747010].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Try and read better next time Tom. I know that. I said so right here.
              Then your reply to me was 100% useless as you just regurgitated stuff from your original post. You just had to chime in even if I wasn't talking to you.

              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


              he wasn't saying anything about now he was stating that its a natural aim of Google. You just get too excited (or as you might say hyped up)whenever anyone makes the logical point that google will eventually catch certain spam links. Ease up.
              No, I just get worked up when people post crap that doesn't make logical sense. Thinking that there will be a huge algo shift ranks (based on the history of Google's search engine) right up there with believing in Sasquatch or that the Detroit Lions will eventually have a good football team.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2747102].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


    Here's a quick cases study from a third party source but its nothing that every real SEO professional doesn't know

    Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop
    Something is just not right with this.

    Take a look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "before", and then look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "after".

    What do you notice? NONE of the top 4 results are the same.

    Not one single listing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

    It seems to me that perhaps Google underwent one of its infamous short-term Google ranking shuffles. I'm sure you've seen it, where all of the listings get shuffled around for a bit, and then come back to the way they were?

    You would think the #1 listing (which even had 2 listings on page 1 and appears to be the main virtualbox site) could manage to be in the top 4 a couple of weeks later. Again, one possible reason is simply a short-term shakeup by Google of ALL the listings.

    Now, of course, we both know that outgoing links can potentially hurt the power of a domain, although (1) I don't think it is as easy as saying when a site gets X % or X number of outgoing bad links or whatever from a domain then it will get penalized or devalued (at least when we are talking about authority domains, and (2) i'm not sure if this really is a good example of this case.

    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


    This is one of the reasons why people who advocate using mass backlinks have to tell you to always keep building links.
    Actually, that should be the standard advice for ALL types of backlinks. Backlinking should be a continual process for any page you wish to rank in Google. SEO 101 here.

    Tom
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2746900].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jbtooloo
      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

      Something is just not right with this.

      Take a look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "before", and then look at the top 4 listings for the keyword "after".

      What do you notice? NONE of the top 4 results are the same.

      Not one single listing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

      It seems to me that perhaps Google underwent one of its infamous short-term Google ranking shuffles. I'm sure you've seen it, where all of the listings get shuffled around for a bit, and then come back to the way they were?

      You would think the #1 listing (which even had 2 listings on page 1 and appears to be the main virtualbox site) could manage to be in the top 4 a couple of weeks later. Again, one possible reason is simply a short-term shakeup by Google of ALL the listings.

      Now, of course, we both know that outgoing links can potentially hurt the power of a domain, although (1) I don't think it is as easy as saying when a site gets X % or X number of outgoing bad links or whatever from a domain then it will get penalized or devalued (at least when we are talking about authority domains, and (2) i'm not sure if this really is a good example of this case.



      Actually, that should be the standard advice for ALL types of backlinks. Backlinking should be a continual process for any page you wish to rank in Google. SEO 101 here.

      Tom
      You are right Tom, backlinking is a continual process. Quick pumps/shots of backlinks are OBVIOUS to Google and they WILL shot any domain that are found guilty of doing so.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2750102].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
    I agree with the premise that sites that are essentially "free for alls" when it comes to linking will suffer in some way over time. I've seen several FFA .edu sites have their outgoing links totally devalued while the domain PR and ranking remains intact.

    This doesn't mean that all comment and profile links are bad. With proper use they can still be quite potent. On the flip side, mass automated backlinks from known unmoderated sites probably won't be counted or at least not counted long.

    I think Google grabs the low lying fruit here. All they have to do is buy those popular "link packets" and such incognito to get a list of FFA sites and devalue their link juice and put them in the visual inspection queue. They don't even have to search them out via special algorithms, they just follow the money, so to speak.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2747695].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Not helping does not mean hurting.

      I'd like to see the google algorithm that declares a blog reply
      as spam, and rates another one as not spam.

      Not liking blog comments overall is one thing. That I do think they
      are going to. They tried the nofollow. People abused that and used
      it in very inappropriate places.

      Too many people look at backlinks, spam or not, and come to some
      perception that google raises or lowers a site's SERPS on those links.
      I don't think you can ever make that assumption. There are so many
      other intangibles that go into the mix of why a site is #1 or #500.

      As I said, I "kinda" agree with the premise that blog comments,
      as far as helping rankings, are going the way of the 8-track.

      Do I do them? You betcha!

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2747741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adam Roy
    Back to the first, initial topic for a minute

    I read an article on Google's Webmasters Blog...I'll come back and post a link in a minute...just have to find it.

    They say, almost to a T, "There is almost nothing any webmaster can do, to harm another Webmaster's ranking in Google's search engine."

    Key word there, 'almost'.

    An incoming link to your site, will not devalue your site in any way. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't count for anything.

    Google did this because at one point, 1 webmaster could just build a bunch of spam links to their competitors and wipe them off the first page.

    Now, as mentioned on their official blog, EXTERNAL LINKS from your site, to a 'spam' site or site that violates Google's content guidelines, will devalue your site.

    So, notice before, how they said 'almost'...

    When you end up with a 'spammy' link pointing from your site, that can in fact devalue your site and rankings.

    So, when a site gets consistently bombarded with spammish, irrelevant backlinks, that site becomes devalued.

    Since that website becomes devalued, the outgoing links are also devalued.

    Therefore, following massive spam patterns using bots and otherwise, will decrease in value now, and the backlinking you've done in the past will also become devalued thus lowering your rankings.

    I have to go find those blog posts on the Google Webmasters Blogspot blog.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2747899].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      There has been a lot of debate on the use of the word "almost" in that referenced blog post.

      A lot of people, including myself, feel that in fact they were the word "almost" as a means of being an agnostic on the issue, as a competitor could, for instance, hack into your site, and install malware for instance. In such a circumstance, a competitor could actually hurt your site. Of course, such a circumstance is so far off the radar for most people and website owners that they need not be concerned with it. But, by using the word "almost" Google is in essence issuing a CYA for these freaky instances.



      Originally Posted by friend View Post

      Back to the first, initial topic for a minute

      I read an article on Google's Webmasters Blog...I'll come back and post a link in a minute...just have to find it.

      They say, almost to a T, "There is almost nothing any webmaster can do, to harm another Webmaster's ranking in Google's search engine."

      Key word there, 'almost'.

      An incoming link to your site, will not devalue your site in any way. Worst case scenario, it just doesn't count for anything.

      Google did this because at one point, 1 webmaster could just build a bunch of spam links to their competitors and wipe them off the first page.

      Now, as mentioned on their official blog, EXTERNAL LINKS from your site, to a 'spam' site or site that violates Google's content guidelines, will devalue your site.

      So, notice before, how they said 'almost'...

      When you end up with a 'spammy' link pointing from your site, that can in fact devalue your site and rankings.

      So, when a site gets consistently bombarded with spammish, irrelevant backlinks, that site becomes devalued.

      Since that website becomes devalued, the outgoing links are also devalued.

      Therefore, following massive spam patterns using bots and otherwise, will decrease in value now, and the backlinking you've done in the past will also become devalued thus lowering your rankings.

      I have to go find those blog posts on the Google Webmasters Blogspot blog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2747999].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adam Roy
        Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

        There has been a lot of debate on the use of the word "almost" in that referenced blog post.

        A lot of people, including myself, feel that in fact they were the word "almost" as a means of being an agnostic on the issue, as a competitor could, for instance, hack into your site, and install malware for instance. In such a circumstance, a competitor could actually hurt your site. Of course, such a circumstance is so far off the radar for most people and website owners that they need not be concerned with it. But, by using the word "almost" Google is in essence issuing a CYA for these freaky instances.
        I totally agree.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2748031].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chini
    HIGH QUALITY CONTENT BEATS ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN!!!!!!!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2748059].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
      Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

      Prove it.

      replicate those results similarly more than once in a controlled environ - else this guys blog post is just an anecdotal coincidence... similar to the "sandbox" penalty and duplicate content theory.

      Silly... Serious SEO's pffft ....
      Signature
      Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2748201].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Adam Roy
        Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

        Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam - Rankings and Traffic Drop

        Prove it.

        replicate those results similarly more than once in a controlled environ - else this guys blog post is just an anecdotal coincidence... similar to the "sandbox" penalty and duplicate content theory.

        Silly... Serious SEO's pffft ....
        I knew it! As I stated before regarding 'outbound' crappy links coming from your site.

        And the fact that this is in fact a method in which competition 'can' in a sense, hurt the competition.

        Thankfully, according to that post you shared, the problem can be fixed in such a situation! That's really cool, the proof is in the pudding on that one.

        Thanks for the share.

        Hey guys!!!! Attention....The link he just posted is ''''''LINKBAIT!!!''''''' Haha, just figured I'd throw that out there. 'natural link building'
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2748458].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Google.me
          know this is funny

          lets go spam twitter weeee
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2748527].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author paulgl
            Originally Posted by Google.me View Post

            know this is funny

            lets go spam twitter weeee
            Tweets for commercials are in effect, spam. But twitter
            is not backlinks. So yes, we should spam, ....er....tweet.

            Originally Posted by chini

            HIGH QUALITY CONTENT BEATS ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN!!!!!!!!
            No reason to scream something that is absolutely untrue.

            Paul
            Signature

            If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2750106].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2750209].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                If we are talking about written content then I might agree its not totally true but if you are talking about all content that can make up a site's web presence I'd still say he is right. It should be the goal of every web entrepreneur to reach a point in their niche where they get links naturally even if they can't achieve that right away
                Half, maybe.

                But you are never going to get links naturally without ______________.

                And even semi-decent content can get them.
                In fact, downright bad content can get them.
                Case in point: ezinearticles

                Paul
                Signature

                If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751412].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  [DELETED]
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751708].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    until someone - just like with email spam - decides to tuck backlinking into some anti defacement law and thats the end of that unless you want to live with the plug being pulled on your income at any moment.
                    That might stop some people but definitely not many. If it did, there would be a hell of a lot less email spam. Hell, just yesterday or the day before someone hacked Aweber and got a bunch of emails to spam.

                    The real hardcore spammers aren't going to let a law (that probably wouldn't be enforced very thoroughly or efficiently) stop them.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751763].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    The bots will get faster and more sophisticated and the more people who start feeding this the more sites will get slammed until someone - just like with email spam - decides to tuck backlinking into some anti defacement law
                    Cool! Now I can not only get my competitors sites deindexed but I can send them to jail too! Excellent!

                    But seriously, I do think more regulation is coming to the Internet although I think in the US it will have more to do with limiting and controlling political speech and protecting old mainstream media outlets than it does dumping 10000 links to your knitting needle site on unsuspecting forum and blog owners.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751793].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                      Originally Posted by bgmacaw View Post

                      Cool! Now I can not only get my competitors sites deindexed but I can send them to jail too! Excellent!
                      I better start on this now, as i'm sure this is just around the corner, along with the massive Google algo changes.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751834].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                        I better start on this now, as i'm sure this is just around the corner, along with the massive Google algo changes.
                        Doubt it which is why no one has said that it was around the corner. Don't start playing chicken little . What is already here and been proven is that a site can be penalized by having links to spam - right now. So the argument that hitting a site with a whole lot of spam bursts doesn't hurt the site is false and a lie. The guy was ticked at having to clean up the bot junk. I can see with him.

                        Now there are some people who don't give a rip about other people's property so they will just run it over as long as its legal but those are the people that can and should be reported to Google (the law on their own search engine). when your "values" or lack thereof don't stop you from doing that to sites then theres nothing to complain about when and if you get reported and Google acts on it.

                        Which is why for most mainline business terms where established businesses are operating you rarely see sites propped up by nothing but spam links taking top spot.

                        So the reporting factor is yet another reason why links placed by mass bots are eventually weakened.

                        Besides face it any site you see ranking on that kind of link building is basically screaming - "look you can beat us. Just run xrumer as well".
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752180].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      [DELETED]
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752098].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Wilson
                        has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752128].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          [DELETED]
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752216].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Wilson
                            That's fine but you were posting here every day when you had something to sell as soon as that was against the rules the posts stopped which i think says it all really. Anyway I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say I just think your timing is suspicious.

                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            talk of xrumer never stopped on this forum and recently there have been quite alot of pushing and defending mass baclinking in several threads. heres just two out of scores of threads

                            http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...-too-fast.html

                            http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...us-xrumer.html

                            The arguments only break out if you state there is a downside to such practices.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752246].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson View Post

                              That's fine but you were posting here every day when you had something to sell as soon as that was against the rules the posts stopped which i think says it all really. Anyway I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say I just think your timing is suspicious.
                              Suspicious of what? LOL. I'm about to rob a bank or something by posting? I think I remember you now and can understand why you have the issue. As I recall you never liked anyone bad mouthing backlinking spam bots either so your bias is obvious. But theres bias and then there is lying.

                              First almost everyone who sold link related products here reduced their level of posting. In a discussion with tom the other day he said as much. I could reel off the sellers and I rarely see them start a thread or participate as much anymore. Frankly the only ones that continued much were obviously doing signature link selling redirecting viewers to their own site so they coudl sell their stuff - which is perfectly in order and nada is wrong with that. I had other things doing.

                              Second Go look at my stats. I've been posting here. You don't know what you are talking about and the evidence is there that I have been posting. I did not stop. thats just plain lying to make a point you can't make. The stats show me with ton loads of pages upon pages of posts since The rules were changed. I think when someone makes up things to make a point - that says it all.

                              But you know what really says it all. With my pages and pages of posts over the last few months you can't even fill one page but you are chiding me for participating less. ROFL. Almost like you were sent to this thread.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752360].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


                                First almost everyone who sold link related products here reduced their level of posting. In a discussion with tom the other day he said as much.
                                I did say that, but not because of any "selling" here at WF. I've never had a backlink product (other than a link to my forum) in my WF signature, pre- or post- WSO shakeup. I participated here because there were good discussions here. In fact, I don't put any selling crap in my signature over at BF either.

                                The reasons for my comment was two fold. First, a large number of active posters have migrated over to backlinksforum where they are regular contributors. Obviously Terry, but also people Like Kok Choon, Pat Jackson, etc. are to be included. Second, the level of discourse here, IMHO, has degraded in the past year or so (which no doubt is compounded by the fact that many regular contributors either left, or just spend less time here). I can only handle so many "Oh my god...i'm banned from Google" threads before I need to close down the forum in my browser.

                                Call me crazy, but I would rather discuss the ins and outs of domain buying for SEO purposes than explain to 100 people each day that checking backlinks in Google using the "link:" command is useless.

                                I was here because my "friends" were here, so to speak. No, almost all of them have left the ship, so to speak...so... Not to mention there are only so many hours in the day.

                                Tom
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752390].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                  Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post


                                  The reasons for my comment was two fold. First, a large number .............
                                  That was a fine ad but its not part of this thread topic. This is about the third or fourth time some mass spammer has derailed the thread with personal attacks and innuendos. I was merely responding to it not opening the door for an ad for your link spam site .

                                  I have no qualms with you marketing for yourself and Terry as you always have. Its just not honest though to claim that because the product was never in your name you were not involved in selling it. I have seen it. Plus you have always had a signature link Tom. never seen you without one WHICH I want to make clear again is fine except for the pretending that you have never been deeply involved in selling on Warriors even as you are right now.

                                  Sheesh a little honesty goes a long way. At any rate this thread is about the subject of the opening post. Not whether someone who questions link spam is suspicious, what happens elsewhere or who or what goes on there when and if I build relationships online or offline or any other derailing strategy.
                                  Signature

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752456].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                    That was a fine ad but its not part of this thread topic. This is about the third or fourth time some mass spammer has derailed the thread with personal attacks and innuendos. I was merely responding to it not opening the door for an ad for your link spam site .
                                    You referenced our conversation, and my takeaway was that you were the one insinuating about the motives for posting or lack thereof (i.e., people weren't posting as they didn't have anything to sell). It was my right for explaining the reasoning behind my statement. You are the one making the personal attacks as always Mike. You are on some sort of vendetta, which seems to be your MO. Lots of people have rightfully pointed out that your original "example" in this thread is BS, yet you don't want to acknowledge the truth. In any event, I'll stop clicking on the "view post" thing and let the ignore user do its thing.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752516].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                      Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                                      . Lots of people have rightfully pointed out that your original "example" in this thread is BS, yet you don't want to acknowledge it.
                                      Finally back on topic. good . I'll take it and ignore the other off point stuff. I made an entire case and you have yet to refute it. The best you could do is quibble about the screenshots in one example. The underlying facts are quite clear and well known. I pointed to third part sources and even gave Referrals a whole search results worth of data to look at.

                                      So Tom if its BS all you have to do is present evidence to the contrary. I have laid out the case, given muliple examples and quoted FAR more respected SEOs than you , myself or anyone in this thread. I'd quote google as well but you would probably go to your claims that google always lies or some other conspiracy theory.

                                      So simple question - If a site links to a lot of spam will it not hurt the sites ranking? simple question should be easy to answer since what I posted is "BS". Time to answer it and stop dodging because I suspect you know the answer and you've been weaving in and out of having to admit I am right or proving to other SEOs that you are way off and have no clue about SEO outside of mass spam techniques.
                                      Signature

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752596].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                        Theres been enough debates on if that happens directly as a result of massive spam linking but there is another angle that hasn't been discussed often that pretty much guarantees that massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.

                                        Here's how that works

                                        Its a known fact that Google DOES penalize sites that link to spam and that the power of links from those sites deteriorates as a result. You may not be responsible for who links to you but you ARE responsible for who you link to . Sites that don't keep out tools like Xrummer (link spam bot but there are others) eventually get hammered by a good amount of clearly spam links. Google then identifies these links and if the number of spam links reaches an undisclosed level begins to lower the value of the links FOR EVERYONE using that site and the page in the search engine falls.
                                        Says the guy professing to know Advanced SEO, posting on one of the biggest LINK SPAM [ aka sig files ] forum on the internet, and this very FORUM - and how it operates is the poster child for the anti-thesis of his argument.

                                        Cant we all see Matt cutts and the boys at google sitting around the lab ...

                                        "Whooaaa thats some heavy moderation there over at Warrior Forum .... No affiliate links - and all to their own products. WF = Quality Links O'Plenty - Green Light Em boys! to the top with their content... Arc up the PR for WF while your at it!"

                                        Good thing nobody has any "spammy" links on their profiles here. I can see how the thousands of sig file links are traumatizing the rankings of the threads here too.

                                        Killing the rankings over on backlinksforum too ...

                                        Ohhh wait!!! All those sig links and profile page links are to "quality content filled" - authority pages - not spammy MFA and salespages for products google hates...

                                        LMFAO ...
                                        Signature
                                        Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752893].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                          Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                                          Says the guy professing to know Advanced SEO, posting on one of the biggest LINK SPAM [ aka sig files ] forum on the internet, and this very FORUM - and how it operates is the poster child for the anti-thesis of his argument.
                                          Nope. Links from this site have actually been devalued and try seeing if a link from DP gets you a big boost anymore .

                                          Try again. Eventually you must by the sheer odds come up with a good point to counter the evidence that is overwhelming against you.

                                          Still waiting how your Goldmine (lol) of SEO is so much better than all the SEOs in the world who recognize that linking to spam can hurt a site. Warriors is such a funny place.

                                          I think Warriors had a drop in PR this year as well but I maybe wrong about that. NO one said the sites would vanish just that the links would have less juice. Next I guess I will hear from you that the more out going links on a site doesn't decrease the link juice going out on the individual links (all things being equal). Do you even know how PR works? Thats pretty laughable. No wonder you think I push advanced SEO. You are in the stone age.
                                          Signature

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752937].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                            Nope. Links from this site have actually been devalued and try seeing if a link from DP gets you a big boost anymore .

                                            Try again. Eventually you must by the sheer odds come up with a good point to counter the evidence that is overwhelming against you.

                                            Still waiting how your Goldmine (lol) of SEO is so much better than all the SEOs in the world who recognize that linking to spam can hurt a site. Warriors is such a funny place.

                                            I think Warriors had a drop in PR this year as well but I maybe wrong about that. NO one said the sites would vanish just that the links would have less juice. Next I guess I will hear from you that the more out going links on a site doesn't decrease the link juice going out on the individual links (all things being equal). Do you even know how PR works? Thats pretty laughable. No wonder you think I push advanced SEO. You are in the stone age.
                                            PR? No I dont - perhaps you could explain it?

                                            On the subject of PR dropping and warrior - are we to infer from your veiled innuendo that PR is solely manipulated by outward links to sites of certain "caliber"? Again, your inference is like the voodoo seo used in the example blog post you initially cited as a credible 3rd party resource to backup your initial theory. If X happened after Y happened, then therefore Y is the causation of X. I walked by a black cat on friday and my page rocketed to #1 in hte serps - therefore I shall walk by black cats every friday - en masse ... LOL .... Mike you may have created Black Cat SeO!

                                            Perhaps you best not try and explain PR, and spend the time "in deep research" from more "real SEO's" < --- perfect example of inane condescending tone you take. Sorry - proclaiming authority - ever so repeatedly - only works on certain people.

                                            Seriously mike - u think you're the only one on this forum capable of reading the work of others and putting it into practice. You draw personal attacks like bees to flowers mate - because you're one condescending SOB - guised as "telling it like it is" on your quixotical Crusade Against Automated Backlinks systems.

                                            So warriors PR dropped - if that were true [ home page or some main forum pages are u referring to? ] or does the "site" have PR - lol ... Just say it did drop for sake of example ... why did it drop? in the context of this thread you are "insinuating" / inferring one thing - be specific .. outbound links TO a "bad" neighborhoods? [ btw - how the hell do you link TO spam? ] I see how a link is spam - but LINK TO SPAM ... r u making this crap up as you go?

                                            Are outbound links to bad places cause for pr drop or in your lame example anecdotal blog post ... errrrr .... case study ... page level 24 hr. de-indexation ... or serp dance or.... ???? make up the mind which is it?
                                            Signature
                                            Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753009].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                              Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                                              PR? No I dont - perhaps you could explain it?

                                              On the subject of PR dropping and warrior - are we to infer from your veiled innuendo that PR is solely manipulated by outward links to sites of certain "caliber"?
                                              Nope. You can assume that your referencing Warriors as an anti-thesis of my argument is poorly conceived as such. Thats all. Wasn't making a case study of warriors just pointing out that your argument is as hollow as it usually is. The rest of your post was all emotional rambling so I'll skip it. Maybe I was wrong and the odds that you will make a good point are so low you may never do so.

                                              Do you or do you not have any evidence to go against the MULTIPLE sources I have pointed to and have seen in my own experience that linking to spam sites can hurt a site.

                                              Never mind.

                                              I think its obvious by your veeering off into personal barbs that you are devoid of any substance on that issue. You have a good night though.
                                              Signature

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753043].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
                                              Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                                              [ btw - how the hell do you link TO spam? ] I see how a link is spam - but LINK TO SPAM ... r u making this crap up as you go?
                                              Google can programatically decide what they think is spam. They built their search engine around the idea of knowing what a good article is, I am sure there are some smart guys working there who can also define what makes up a 'bad' site; it could amost be the opposite.
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753045].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

                                                Google can programatically decide what they think is spam.
                                                He knows what the phrase means. I clarified it on the first page and the example link he is claiming to be able to counter specifies what the links were. He is just trying to save face because he can't produce any evidence that linking to bad neighborhoods doesn't hurt websites. Spam sites are sites within industries well known for spamming - Porn, gambling Viagra to name three. Google sees certain links on sites and they can tell that they are likely to be spam.

                                                But hey if he wants me to use another term thats fine. He and Tom have been arguing the whole thread as if no link pattern from a site can hurt rankings or link juice of the site holding the link. Its total, absolute and utter garbage on their parts. When asked point blank to say that its BS that the practice of mass link blasts by spammers can't hurt the sites that they leave their links on they scurry away like mad ants to some secondary issue without addressing the central premise that is undeniable by all that have studied this. they know the answer but they

                                                A) can't bear to admit that I am right
                                                B) Don't want to be seen in an open forum admitting that what they advocate is hurtful both to the sites they use and potentially damaging to the strength of the links placed over time.
                                                Signature

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753083].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                                                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                                  He knows what the phrase means. I clarified it on the first page and the example link he is claiming to be able to counter specifies what the links were. He is just trying to save face because he can't produce any evidence that linking to bad neighborhoods doesn't hurt websites. Spam sites are sites within industries well known for spamming - Porn, gambling Viagra to name three. Google sees certain links on sites and they can tell that they are likely to be spam.

                                                  But hey if he wants me to use another term thats fine. He and Tom have been arguing the whole thread as if no link pattern from a site can hurt rankings or link juice of the site holding the link. Its total, absolute and utter garbage on their parts. When asked point blank to say that its BS that the practice of mass link blasts by spammers can't hurt the sites that they leave their links on they scurry away like mad ants to some secondary issue without addressing the central premise that is undeniable by all that have studied this. they know the answer but they

                                                  A) can't bear to admit that I am right
                                                  B) Don't want to be seen in an open forum admitting that what they advocate is hurtful both to the sites they use and potentially damaging to the strength of the links placed over time.
                                                  Nice try Mike ...

                                                  Stay focused in the context - u do like to move in and out of different ones as it suits your needs.

                                                  One breath you talk about people here on this forum and BL forums spamming using x rumer and auto bots et al for their $$$ sites and affiliate and MFA's ... then the next breath you're talking about spamming forums and boards with the top 3 big taboo's - pharma - porn and gambling. Currently there is a difference in the "bad-ness" of these neighborhoods.

                                                  90% of the "profile" spammers reading your drivel and posting here are NOT spamming with porn/gambling/pharma links are they - and that is part of my point that totally flew over your head - or you cared to ignore intentionally. And no u did NOT specify and categorize outward links to sales pages/MFA sites vs. outward links to pharma/porn and gambling in your initial post. General consensus on this forum is that spam is spam - because they are so irritated by it. But is a outward link to a clickbank product or a innocent enough MFA site viewed by google the same as a link to a PORN site - in the context of bad neighborhoods?

                                                  Hence the point was and is that your theory that backlink spam will ultimately crush all sites that allow do-follow links - because they are ALL over run with spammers -and we should all just stop it because its self defeating folly cus these links are doomed to be devalued to google [ any day now ]- is just that - your theory.

                                                  This is the 3rd thread [ i think ], where youve tried to prove that your theory is fact. But the fact is - people are rapidly scaling up the serps using profile links via the tools and methods you claim dont work [ or are doomed to fail - any minute now ]

                                                  OMG!!! I have a profile link created with x rumer on a site that a moderator lost interest in and let go unchecked - its become over run!
                                                  The asian pharma spammers and russian porn kinds now own it! ... Ohhhh what shall I do! I better go delete that link from my over all link profile before google ever finds its! The sky is falling - the sky is falling ...

                                                  If spam'ish links unto themselves in forums and profile killed sites authority and rankings - then warrior would be a negative 10 PR and its pages would NOT rank page one on google near instantly with quadruple indent listings - as there more spammy outward links in hte SEO PPC forum per capita than probably any other forum ive seen [ that isnt over run by spammers - the definition of which is its own debate]

                                                  The vast majority of sites that most profile linkers are posting on are NOT over run by porn/pharma/gambling spam and likely wont be. For every 1 of those that happens theres 1500 more where it doesnt - and the internet is NOT a static or shrinking site end sum game here.
                                                  Signature
                                                  Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753369].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                    Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post


                                                    90% of the "profile" spammers reading your drivel and posting here are NOT spamming with porn/gambling/pharma links are they - and that is part of my point that totally flew over your head
                                                    No the part that flew over your head is that I never mentioned anyone in particular in the OP, You just started foaming at the mouth that I dare mention the reality at all. that s what always starts these arguments and the usual spam crew comes charging in Tom, You,Pat, Jeremy, Jazbo et al . You just don't want anyone posting negative about the misuse of mass spamming because thats what you push. So simple question

                                                    Does xrummer allow the mass propagation of spam links? Of course it does. You asked for a lesson in PR and I think you need it.

                                                    PR is not an unlimited resource. Every followed outbound link has juice that is directly tied to the PR on the page and thats a result of all the PR flowing though a site and directly to the page from outside sources. The more links coming out of a page and a site overall the less value the individual links have

                                                    THIS IS BASIC KINDERGARTEN LEVEL SEO.

                                                    Its embarassing that people who who hold themselves out as backlink and SEO gurus would argue against the premise that the more backlinks that can be dropped on a site the less power the links will have. Heres what you should state instead

                                                    That because this phenomenon is real it is best to find as many sites that are NOT targeted by mass link spammers because over time those links WILL retain more juice. that would make a smidgeon of sense instead of arguing against the obvious fact that the more spam on a site the less value the links have.

                                                    Before you confuse yourself more (if thats possible)the whole Porn, Gambling spa links etc is just an explanation to your nonsense about not understanding what linking to spam meant. Its not the whole scope of the OP. Quantity of links themselves can and are indicative of spam.

                                                    Good grief. If you are newbie or follow this nonsense advice of theirs skip this thread entirely and do some research on google and you will see how far these guys are off.
                                                    Signature

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754553].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                    Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post


                                                    Hence the point was and is that your theory that backlink spam will ultimately crush all sites that allow do-follow links - because they are ALL over run with spammers -and we should all just stop it because its self defeating folly cus these links are doomed to be devalued to google [ any day now ]- is just that - your theory.
                                                    No its not my theory at all. Its your strawman to slide out of being proven wrong. Nothing in the OP stated that all site would be crushed by backlink spams. Its pretty silly too. Most sites don't even allow you to leave links.

                                                    This is the 3rd thread [ i think ], where youve tried to prove that your theory is fact. But the fact is - people are rapidly scaling up the serps using profile links via the tools and methods you claim dont work [ or are doomed to fail - any minute now ]
                                                    Again your strawman. If they didn't work (however not by themselves in truly competitive serps) then people wouldn't be tempted to use them. My point is that over time they lose value both because the sites lose juice to give when they are over run and because they get deleted in mass quantity. You can fool people who don't examine backlinks but the facts are when you go through the backlinks of almost any serious spammer you can see that even links that are showing in the portfolio have already been deleted. You can argue all you want but it generally takes more forum backlinks now to rank than it did before. You argument again is flat.


                                                    If spam'ish links unto themselves in forums and profile killed sites authority and rankings - then warrior would be a negative 10 PR and its pages would NOT rank page one on google near instantly with quadruple indent listings - as there more spammy outward links in hte SEO PPC forum per capita than probably any other forum ive seen [ that isnt over run by spammers - the definition of which is its own debate]
                                                    Actually no it doesn't. you don't see porn post for example often if at all on Warriors. Talk about bogus case studies. You just proved you will put one up when it suits you and beg for it as long as it doesn't indict your mass spam captcha breaking ways. Warriors continues to rank because its achieved critical mass as an authority site among Internet marketers and routinely gets on page good Pr pages linking to it. Constantly. So the effects of having multiple links is offset by the incoming PR. Sheesh do better analysis. Now tell me how DP gives you a big boost int he serps. LOL
                                                    Signature

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754624].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                                                      That because this phenomenon is real it is best to find as many sites that are NOT targeted by mass link spammers because over time those links WILL retain more juice. that would make a smidgeon of sense instead of arguing against the obvious fact that the more spam on a site the less value the links have.
                                                      Because you are hell bent on proving that single sentence - which would make all your past efforts of link building - crusading - blathering etc ... and selling your half baked quasi automated link building app - all perhaps finally mean something - you are totally blinded by any other perspective than the one you have.

                                                      If I didnt know any better - Id say you just also tried to convince us that PR is a 1 way street - a function solely of outbound links.

                                                      But then you can seem to settle in a what a "link to SPAM" is - it moves - as you need it to, to assist your position.


                                                      PR is not an unlimited resource. Every followed outbound link has juice that is directly tied to the PR on the page and thats a result of all the PR flowing though a site and directly to the page from outside sources. The more links coming out of a page and a site overall the less value the individual links have
                                                      THIS IS BASIC KINDERGARTEN LEVEL SEO.
                                                      What you think people are arguing about ... what you want them to be arguing about with your position - isnt necessarily what they are arguing about. Because you can't see it - grasp it - doesnt make it so.

                                                      Your laughable authoritative declarations of superior seo skills and "knowledge" dont make it so either.


                                                      Actually no it doesn't. you don't see porn post for example often if at all on Warriors. Talk about bogus case studies. You just proved you will put one up when it suits you and beg for it as long as it doesn't idict your massspam ways.
                                                      Well - when you can come back to us with what you finally want to call or define as a spam link- link to spam or over run by spam is ... Sybil ... i think we might eventually get somewhere. It must be awesome to juxtapose your realities by the minute. Make up your mind.
                                                      Signature
                                                      Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754827].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author jazbo
                                    Mike, you took a pop at Tom by suggesting he posted less and had something to sell. You took your own thread off topic.

                                    Why do you have to create these train wrecks?

                                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                    That was a fine ad but its not part of this thread topic. This is about the third or fourth time some mass spammer has derailed the thread with personal attacks and innuendos. I was merely responding to it not opening the door for an ad for your link spam site .

                                    I have no qualms with you marketing for yourself and Terry as you always have. Its just not honest though to claim that because the product was never in your name you were not involved in selling it. I have seen it. Plus you have always had a signature link Tom. never seen you without one WHICH I want to make clear again is fine except for the pretending that you have never been deeply involved in selling on Warriors even as you are right now.

                                    Sheesh a little honesty goes a long way. At any rate this thread is about the subject of the opening post. Not whether someone who questions link spam is suspicious, what happens elsewhere or who or what goes on there when and if I build relationships online or offline or any other derailing strategy.
                                    Signature
                                    CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
                                    Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753537].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Google.me
                                    well mike I think people that like to keep certain things zipped should not be branding things in relation to what they preach.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757175].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                          Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson View Post

                          has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.
                          I don't know of any warrior rules....like that...

                          Whenever Mike Anthony starts a thread, he REALLY starts a thread!

                          Paul
                          Signature

                          If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752289].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                          Originally Posted by Dennis Wilson View Post

                          has something changed in the warrior rules again? I haven't seen this kind of argument since people had stuff to sell. co-ink-e-dink? doubt it, like watching infomercials at this stage.
                          Well....Allen did PM a regular (not me) WF member telling him that backlinking products were generally OK now, as they didn't want to be the "net nanny". Of course, i doubt they will broadcast that.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752317].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                            [DELETED]
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752681].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author adamv
                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                              Missed this before. I've gotten no such notification and haven't seen that announced anywhere. So if thats what Dennis was trying to imply add that to his list of errors of assumptions. Going off what one member said he got would be a great way to pick up a ban. I would think the WSO section would have quite a few backlink products if it were true.
                              The wso section does have some backlink products in it now. I've even seen Angela's packets back in there recently.
                              Signature

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

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752833].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author jazbo
                                The reason for that, as I and others predicted, is that if you take the link discussion out of WF, Allen loses money and traffic, I reckon his revenue is down a good 25% from WSO postings since the witchhunt on link products.

                                Money always speaks loudest in the end.


                                Originally Posted by adamv View Post

                                The wso section does have some backlink products in it now. I've even seen Angela's packets back in there recently.
                                Signature
                                CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
                                Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753540].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                              Missed this before. I've gotten no such notification and haven't seen that announced anywhere.
                              As I noted, I don't know why any powers that be would make that announcement, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to PM or otherwise notify people with backlink products about it.


                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                              Going off what one member said he got would be a great way to pick up a ban. I would think the WSO section would have quite a few backlink products if it were true.
                              Believe what you want, but I personally saw the PM from Allen. This isn't just some rumor that someone floated out to me. The reason for the PM was that the member noted a backlink product in the WSO section that appeared to violate the prohibition, and Allen replied back about the updated WF policy. It was not some sort of PM "blast" out to backlink people. Who knows, maybe they have again changed their policy, but this PM was from last week.

                              Again, believe what you want, I don't really care.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752849].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                                Believe what you want, but I personally saw the PM from Allen.

                                Relax Tom. I was just stating that if only one person said they got it then that wouldn't be enough to say everyone could. I have no opinion one way or the other and it would definitely not surprise me if it was changed. I don't see the rule applying to TOS of other sites in the WSO section anymore . I think I did see it there before.
                                Signature

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752914].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                              Missed this before. I've gotten no such notification and haven't seen that announced anywhere. So if thats what Dennis was trying to imply add that to his list of errors of assumptions. Going off what one member said he got would be a great way to pick up a ban. I would think the WSO section would have quite a few backlink products if it were true.

                              Well it is true - and you will soon see it. Stay tuned.
                              Signature
                              Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752871].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

        Been there done that. Its essentially the same metrics that affect link farms and links spam that everyone who knows even elementary SEO is aware of and has seen multiple times. Stop asking for more and more evidence when you can't present a single piece of evidence against the full weight of the existing proof.

        You dispute something so well established then go ahead. go to your site (make sure its one of your money sites) and fill your site with links to Porn, Viagra and gambling .

        EVERYONE knows that although you aren't responsible for who links to you you are responsible for what you link to. Trailblaze the way to a new understanding of SEO and put up your counter evidence to the massive evidence thats against your treasured practice.

        LOL. So far the only ones taking issue with the reality that spam links on a page en masse can hurt a site is those who are known to push massive link spam. Who woulda thunk?:rolleyes: They come out to any thread that suggests that Google has ANY penalty for ANY kind of spam.

        is it really that hard to accept that a little moderation might help everyone? Th evidence is clear and overwhelming. Asking for more and more when you don't have any to offer in rebuttal is just hand waving and distraction.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2749862].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Been there done that. Its essentially the same metrics that affect link farms and links spam that everyone who knows even elementary SEO is aware of and has seen multiple times. Stop asking for more and more evidence when you can't present a single piece of evidence against the full weight of the existing proof.

          You dispute something so well established then go ahead. go to your site (make sure its one of your money sites) and fill your site with links to Porn, Viagra and gambling .

          EVERYONE knows that although you aren't responsible for who links to you you are responsible for what you link to. Trailblaze the way to a new understanding of SEO and put up your counter evidence to the massive evidence thats against your treasured practice.

          LOL. So far the only ones taking issue with the reality that spam links on a page en masse can hurt a site is those who are known to push massive link spam. Who woulda thunk?:rolleyes: They come out to any thread that suggests that Google has ANY penalty for ANY kind of spam.

          is it really that hard to accept that a little moderation might help everyone? Th evidence is clear and overwhelming. Asking for more and more when you don't have any to offer in rebuttal is just hand waving and distraction.
          I dont really care what your objective is that you wish to try and push forward mike. the issue is the example used hardly proves it.

          the blog post referenced - Page Level rankings dropping and increased overnite for comment spam and removal of it - on a single page, that then rose the very next 24 hr period because he removed it.

          ... I walked by a black cat on friday and a certain page on my site went from slot #7 on page 5 to #4 on page one for 24 hrs. So now part of my seo strategy is to find asmany black cats as i can on Firdays - and pass on by.

          Whether your MAIN PREMISES is accurate or NOT [ remains to be seen ] The blog post used is poor example of proof ... how could the author have controlled :

          A. what google may have been doing for that slice of 24 hrs
          B. what competitors may have been doing to rank for that term

          Yes ... throwing around basic seo 101 principals as if they are advanced techniques and knowledge around here where no one else knows the difference - and then positing it all in such a way - with snyde remarks like "even the most sophmporic seo's know ..." is an interesting approach.

          I know youre not one to even try and win any friends or build relationships here or anywhere - but must you always be such a freakin know it all douche bag? Sorry you're not always going to be the smartest guy in the room/thread ...

          For example ... its pretty well accepted that if your site is purely a grotesque SPAM farm - with boatloads of "do follow" [ that is NOT rel=nofollow"] outbound juice - your site wont likely RANK well, and could become de-indexed. As such - its pretty well known as well - Google's hammer hits the whole site - they just come in and de-index the whole domain, not a single page - as the blog post example posted focus' on.

          You actually believe google "penalized" a single page on a large site like that for 24 hrs from comment spam?
          Signature
          Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2750055].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

            I dont really care what your objective is that you wish to try and push forward mike. the issue is the example used hardly proves it.
            On its own no - in connection with SEOs all over the world yes it does. Google is your friend . This isn't hard stuff to grasp. its basic SEO (thats right I said it again). We both know that your main objection is because you advocate mass backlinking. You and a few others jump on just about any thread that points out the possible downsides of such spam activity. I don't even call for the end of all such links just some moderation because of the effects of it.

            Want more evidence here - Google "linking to spam". Scroll through. Now its your turn to come with some proof to the contrary. I pointed to more than just one example and now you can sift through and find lots more.

            I know youre not one to even try and win any friends or build relationships here or anywhere
            Don't be silly. We both know nothing of each other to say when or where we build relationships. Granted I may be a little different in that when I state things I don't try to run with a pack and make recommendations just to get a JV. You get my honest opinion.

            I have many friends here and elsewhere - just not many mass spamming friends I give you that. You don't like what I have to say is all. In this thread I am probably not even the smartest. There have been only two posters in it that have objected to the BASIC SEO principle that outbound links to spam from your site can affect ranking. If I am smarter than the two then so are a lot of other people in this thread.

            Keep on the subject and stop trying to derail into personal attacks like you have so many times before. Last time I checked this wasn't the board to be defending massive link spam anyway.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2750176].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
            Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

            ... I walked by a black cat on friday and a certain page on my site went from slot #7 on page 5 to #4 on page one for 24 hrs. So now part of my seo strategy is to find asmany black cats as i can on Firdays - and pass on by.
            Stop being so primitive. :rolleyes:

            Instead, get these money, protection and good luck charms to really solve your SEO problems!


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jhonsean
    Why there are still using massive spam links, Is there anything that will benefits on this. Search Engine like google doesn't like this its more likely to deliver unique and quality content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2750230].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    What can you do? Don't spend your entire SEO link building campaign focusing on the kind of links that are targeted by these mass spam links (forums are the most targeted). For one a lot of the links are removed by the forum masters and then those admins that allow their site to be slammed by spam over and over again will have less and less link authority to give..
    i am not a seo's backside and do not make out i am one , but i do manage a forum for a mate who is slammed by these pest driven paid forum posters constantly.

    It is a relentless task cleaning up their rubbish, / can i ask you write those who allow this / how or what ways are there to prevent these and new spammers coming back ? it is not that we allow them / they just seem to breed like rabbits.

    That with also looking to start my own forum shortly what recommendations do people have to curb these clowns or is it a daily struggle and from reading what you said is it correct even if you keep cleaning these clowns / posts out your still penalized ?

    Appreciate any advice you may be able to share on the topic / one way i thought was paid membership before allowing a Sig link to cut the crap but i am unsure if vb allows that function ?

    Pete
    Signature

    .

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751431].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
      Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post

      i am not a seo's backside and do not make out i am one , but i do manage a forum for a mate who is slammed by these pest driven paid forum posters constantly.

      It is a relentless task cleaning up their rubbish, / can i ask you write those who allow this / how or what ways are there to prevent these and new spammers coming back ? it is not that we allow them / they just seem to breed like rabbits.

      That with also looking to start my own forum shortly what recommendations do people have to curb these clowns or is it a daily struggle and from reading what you said is it correct even if you keep cleaning these clowns / posts out your still penalized ?

      Appreciate any advice you may be able to share on the topic / one way i thought was paid membership before allowing a Sig link to cut the crap but i am unsure if vb allows that function ?

      Pete
      It all depends on what you want to do with your forum. Do you want your members to be able to have backlinks in their signatures? If so, you can set it up so that only after a certain amount of posts they are allowed to include links in their signature. If you don't mind taking signature links away from everyone, then just don't allow users to put links in their sig at all. People actively interested in your forum won't mind. For example, I don't have any links in my sig here. I come here solely to learn and teach what I can.

      Another thing you can do to prevent a lot of it is to make forum members profile pages not publicly viewable. As an example, our Warriorforum profile found here is publicly viewable, meaning everyone including search engine spiders can see it. If you make member profiles private then spiders won't be able to see it, making it useless for people to put links in.

      If you're having trouble with people making posts for their backlinks, you can institute the idea above. Make users have at least 50 posts before they are able to include links in their sig. It won't stop everyone, but I'd say at least 99% of people won't even bother if they have to make 50 posts to get links in their sigs.

      Also, if you've got a really healthy forum, like this one, people will do a lot of your job for you by using the report function on spam posts.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2751750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    Google Bowling has never happened in the past.

    Sites have never been removed from the Google index before, either.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author runescape1
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752396].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
      I have no interest in reading or responding to any of Mike's bull**** but I wanted to back up Tom and say that I was the one who received the PM from Allen himself stating that backlinking products are allowed again.

      As Tom suggested, I wouldn't imagine there to be an announcement about it at all, but to my knowledge they are fair game again and I will be starting some WSO's in the near future that wouldn't have been allowed previously.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753301].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seopackages
      I think that Google takes the low fruit here. All of them are their only link to buy a popular packages, and that undercover for a list of FFA sites and devalue the link juice, and put them in a visual array. They do not even need to search for them using special algorithms that just follow the money, so to speak.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753407].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
        Originally Posted by seopackages View Post

        I think that Google takes the low fruit here. All of them are their only link to buy a popular packages, and that undercover for a list of FFA sites and devalue the link juice, and put them in a visual array. They do not even need to search for them using special algorithms that just follow the money, so to speak.

        [quote=bgmacaw;2747695]
        I think Google grabs the low lying fruit here. All they have to do is buy those popular "link packets" and such incognito to get a list of FFA sites and devalue their link juice and put them in the visual inspection queue. They don't even have to search them out via special algorithms, they just follow the money, so to speak.
        is this not funny you have the same post as post number 13 ?

        the very crap some of us are talking about / here on our dinner plate / we all know what prime stunted growth marketing does now i suppose.

        i will add a pointers here for players that is getting more common / the user name is moving from fred1234789 to a key word

        / user name = seopackages
        / we have seeded keys in our sig = seo consultant seo companies
        / our good friend rattled off 5 posts in under a minute flat

        / love em
        Signature

        .

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753430].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
          [quote=tryinhere;2753430]
          Originally Posted by bgmacaw View Post



          is this not funny you have the same post as post number 13 ?

          the very crap some of us are talking about / here on our dinner plate / we all know what prime stunted growth marketing does now i suppose.

          i will add a pointers here for players that is getting more common / the user name is moving from fred1234789 to a key word

          / user name = seopackages
          / we have seeded keys in our sig = seo consultant seo companies
          / our good friend rattled off 5 posts in under a minute flat

          / love em

          OMG this forum is doomed!!! a spammer is about! Did this page become de indexed?
          Signature
          Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753544].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seolearner09

            OMG this forum is doomed!!! a spammer is about! Did this page become de indexed?
            LOL! I love this thread!!
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    It is a hard thing to get an accurate idea of - whether a spammed powerful site becomes less powerful due to it becoming a bad link neighbourhood. The problem is that people who spam the links are constantly spamming so as one site slowly fades away, the dozens or even hundreds of fresh links are still giving the target an upwards push.

    You can really only tell after leaving a page sit for a while without the fresh links and see if it falls down the SERPs.

    Link directories don't work like they use to and guest books are almost a waste of time. These both use to work really well for getting links but their power has faded. They were abused but is that the reason they are no longer that great?

    3 steps foward, and 2 steps back still keeps you heading in the right direction - it just isn't neccessarily the most efficient way to 'move'.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752549].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Open Cobra
    SPAM, it's not just for breakfast anymore.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752614].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    I've been buckling down on research and teaching of SEO again and thought I would share a couple of very relevant SEO factors over the next few weeks that can really affect ranking of pages. One question that still comes up is whether massive backlinking works and whether it gets sites penalized.

    Theres been enough debates on if that happens directly as a result of massive spam linking but there is another angle that hasn't been discussed often that pretty much guarantees that massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.

    Here's how that works

    Its a known fact that Google DOES penalize sites that link to spam and that the power of links from those sites deteriorates as a result. You may not be responsible for who links to you but you ARE responsible for who you link to . Sites that don't keep out tools like Xrummer (link spam bot but there are others) eventually get hammered by a good amount of clearly spam links. Google then identifies these links and if the number of spam links reaches an undisclosed level begins to lower the value of the links FOR EVERYONE using that site and the page in the search engine falls.

    So the reality is that the more people use these tools the more likely the kind of sites that allow them will have less and less power for everyone else linking from that site . Thats why you may not see any big changes in the algorithm from Google. Eventually the links get less and less power the more over run a site is with spam links. This degrading power is already built into the algorithm.

    This is one of the reasons why people who advocate using mass backlinks have to tell you to always keep building links. They don't realize that the more they build (as a group) the less effective the links become.

    What can you do? Don't spend your entire SEO link building campaign focusing on the kind of links that are targeted by these mass spam links (forums are the most targeted). For one a lot of the links are removed by the forum masters and then those admins that allow their site to be slammed by spam over and over again will have less and less link authority to give.

    Funny thing about it is the spammers are destroying the power of the links they live by and its all designed into the algorithm. Some will object. third party source needed? Fine

    Here's a quick cases study from a third party source but its nothing that every real SEO professional doesn't know [ EDIT BY 4Morereferrals - classic ... case study? ]

    Google Page Level Penalty for Comment Spam – Rankings and Traffic Drop

    Build your links with balance not just for ease. Avoid alleged SEOs/backlink gurus that don't create balance in links and who are always pushing mass spam links no matter how popular they may be. Long term the strategy is on a deepening downward trend - by design.
    Just so the entire bit o tripe is here in its entirety for future ref.
    Signature
    Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752938].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

      Just so the entire bit o tripe is here in its entirety for future ref.
      LOL. Why wouldn't it be? You are freaking hilarious. No I will revise that - ROFL. I give you that. You come up with nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence but think I would want to change it. You made my night man . Thats some funny stuff right there.

      Incidentally where in the world do you guys learn your SEO? Forget me. Seriously anyone that follows you guys because you can run a bot over respected research sources like SEOmoz needs their heads examined.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2752955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
    Its total, absolute and utter garbage on their parts. When asked point blank to say that its BS that the practice of mass link blasts by spammers can't hurt the sites that they leave their links on they scurry away like mad ants to some secondary issue without addressing the central premise that is undeniable by all that have studied this.
    Mike,

    What is your point? the above quote - or the title of your thread and this phrase?

    Why the Value of Massive Spam links is constantly declining in power

    Theres been enough debates on if that happens directly as a result of massive spam linking but there is another angle that hasn't been discussed often that pretty much guarantees that massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.
    Please explain then why Warrior forum and Backlinks forum are NOT De - Indexed

    The same links in the sigs and profiles here, are whats being posted on the other forums you claim are being killed.


    Interesting position that my several posts of multiple paragraphs are "scurrying away" like an ant - its just a little hard to respond to which "angle" - context - or REAL SEO [ LOL ] you wish to migrate to yourself - when you dont quite get the responses you desire.

    You posted a theory, and used a very odd blog post as a "case study" when it was nothing more than a voodoo ... this happened once to me for 24 hrs .... so it is a new SEO Law - anecdotal story. Sorry - that blog post source is just not a valid article proving anything to anyone ...but you.
    Signature
    Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jazbo
    Oh Mike. A lot of us remember that a few months ago you were selling "unique" links with a roboform submitter etc on one of your sites. You were peddling profile links.

    Now you appear to have re-invented yourself as a "real seo" and everyone else is wrong, again.

    If the value of user-generated links is diminishing, perhaps you could explain this blog post from Rand over at SEOMoz from August:

    SEOmoz | I'm Getting More Worried about the Effectiveness of Webspam

    I especially like this quote as an example:

    "On nearly every commercially lucrative search results I pull up these days, I see bad links pushing bad sites into the top rankings at Google."



    Now I would class him as knowing a bit more than most people about SEO (unless you disagree?).
    Signature
    CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
    Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753501].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

      Oh Mike. A lot of us remember that a few months ago you were selling "unique" links with a roboform submitter etc on one of your sites. You were peddling profile links.

      Now you appear to have re-invented yourself as a "real seo" and everyone else is wrong, again.
      Jazbo don't be so patently dishonest. You were in many debates I had WHILE I was selling a profile link package and you know perfectly well I was against MASS spam bots from then particularly ones that broke Captcha. You were right there with this same crew complaining against my position. Just like I have said often in this thread I said then - moderation. Anyone can go though my posts and see me making arguments against mass bots even then. You might disagree with my position but honesty should not have to suffer. Your re-invent nonsense is a plain lie.

      Profile links are a way for young sites to get links, traffic and then noticed. I'm all for it in moderation but I am for building real businesses with return traffic and that have something people want to link to. Going forward when people get trained by you guys in the ways of mass bots they can't really say they have any security. If you rank on running a bot so can the next guy. It takes no skill. Quite a few of you know this as well. thats why you can see you buying links, domains with PR and other things. To the credit of some you have begun to teach your customers more than profile links but some of you have nothing else to offer. When i teach I try to teach people ALL about link building not over emphasized easy, played out no skill solution for everything. Part of that process is showing people the downside of one or another approach which I will continue to do despite your protests.

      "On nearly every commercially lucrative search results I pull up these days, I see bad links pushing bad sites into the top rankings at Google."
      You're confusing the point. The OP had nothing to do with how well the site receiving the links does it was about what it does to the site that links out not in. Try again - this time by reading the OP. I've already quoted Rand 's studies on the premise of the OP. His research confirms it so you are stuck. Just not reading the thread is all.

      Mike, you took a pop at Tom by suggesting he posted less and had something to sell. You took your own thread off topic.
      Pure distortion. I never took a pop at Tom. Dennis took a pop at me and I said many sellers stopped frequenting Warriors. I referenced Tom as agreeing that many had stopped or reduced their posting.

      All your other points in this thread are off since you obviously haven't read whats in it but are just intent on distortion. Anecdotal nonsense about what Wicked Fire forum posters say against respected research companies? Thats pathetic and worse no one is talking about the benefit to the spammers. Its the detriment of the spammed that the OP is about and the overall trend of that site losing link juice in individual links.

      Constantly off point.

      Look it may be shocking to your group but there are people who want to build businesses by showing respect to sites and not being on lists all over the internet of being captcha breaking spammers. None of you could do SEO for real companies with your tactics and you can't compete in any niche where real businesses are truly competitive. Thats a fact and that says it all.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754833].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        None of you could do SEO for real companies with your tactics and you can't compete in any niche where real businesses are truly competitive. Thats a fact and that says it all.
        Perhaps comedy is more your thing Mikey? Dat was a GEM!

        May we all get up off our collective genuflected knee's now your excellency?
        Signature
        Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754867].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
          His excellency Mike - from on high - hath announced to all us mere SEO peasants ...

          You're confusing the point. The OP had nothing to do with how well the site receiving the links does it was about what it does to the site that links out not in. Try again - this time by reading the OP.
          Hence why I saved the OP - because even you can keep track of your freakin point!

          One of the main premises of His Excellency's First proclamation ...

          but there is another angle that hasn't been discussed often that pretty much guarantees that massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.
          there's for or 5 more sentences that make the reader of the initial proclamation - led to believe the focal point is NOT just the damage to the site getting spam links [ a still yet ot be defined term by His Excellency ] - but that the link builders efforts will be fruitless ultimately - and that Mikes ever so smart methods of quasi-automated link building on super special web sites and pages that will never get removed - never get de indexed or never do anything but increase in PR value via his super top secret inner circle guru seo power players method.

          If only we'd all juts listened to him months ago.

          - excuse me Im off to go get my "sky is falling" preparedness kit! It came up #2 in the serps - thanks to the quality link building and content creation guru's at Overstock.com - the buy it now button was surrounded by a ton of quality content! like ... just the sku # - the price - and 3 sentences not even containing the keyword[s].

          Next up ... gotta go convince the insurance industry they arent a REAL Business. They wont take that too well meethinks. Wonder if theyve hear his excellency's proclamations they arent a real biz or in a competitive niche?

          Hey Mikey/ Sybil - whatever your highness cares to be atm - good luck mate - its always fun in your classic trainwreck threads.
          Signature
          Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754889].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Referrals - Here let me help you out. thankfully the OP is there and untouched

            massive backlinking will eventually lose power across many sites.

            Here's how that works

            Its a known fact that Google DOES penalize sites that link to spam and that the power of links from those sites deteriorates as a result. You may not be responsible for who links to you but you ARE responsible for who you link to . Sites that don't keep out tools like Xrummer (link spam bot but there are others) eventually get hammered by a good amount of clearly spam links. Google then identifies these links and if the number of spam links reaches an undisclosed level begins to lower the value of the links FOR EVERYONE using that site and the page in the search engine falls.
            Crystal clear. Many sites would see the individual power of their links detiorate on a site by site basis. Not that you could not use additional links from other sites to counteract it but sites that get hammered will continue to decline in their links power site by site. that is that the constant use of bots to slam sites would make Those links less valuable and have in fact if you understand any metrics of how PR is divided and detiorates when passed through a link

            You've got nothing referrals. I continue to ask basic seo questions and you run away from them. I gave you studies by Rand , the study he referenced and reconfirmed, and then a whole slew of serps results that you can see SEOs talking about the same REAL and proven fact.

            Now you are reduced to insinuating I said out bound links determine a sites PR. LOL.

            SO here s how I am going to play it. I don't have more time to waste. I'll ask you the question again and if you run away and fail to answer it then any impartial person will see you are ducking from it.

            A) Does the amount of links on a site not deteriorate the power of the individual links as it increases?

            B) Are you willing to say flat out now that whatever a site links to CANNOT affect the ranking of a site?

            You've all dodged long enough. Let s see if you have another good dodge in you. Answer it. Its basic to this discussion.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2754997].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

            Next up ... gotta go convince the insurance industry they arent a REAL Business. They wont take that too well meethinks. Wonder if theyve hear his excellency's proclamations they arent a real biz or in a competitive niche?
            I love it. Puuuurfect.. Please show us the site you are ranking for the major term "insurance" with forum/profile links?

            insurance - Google Search

            is that you with State farm at #2? LOL

            no? auto insurance?

            http://www.google.com/search?q=home+...9faa430ac3503f

            So Geico I am guessing.
            So you work with Geico and they use spambots? I am impressed . LOL

            Or did you mean Home insurance?

            http://www.google.com/search?q=home+..._ENUS343&cad=h

            so thats you at number two with All state?

            Okay Life insurance then
            http://www.google.com/search?q=home+...9faa430ac3503f

            Prudential, metlife or...Wikipedia?

            Please don't show us some weaker long tail. Show us in one of these competitive serps in the industry you just made a claim for. We'd all love to see it. thats the other thing that would make a great thread but you would/will whine at. Just how effective are profile links . No doubt great in long tail and less than really competitive niches but you guys hype it up way beyond their true power. Truth is in most really competitive serps it is RARE to find a site ranking with just spam bot links.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755057].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Please don't show us some weaker long tail. Show us in one of these competitive serps in the industry you just made a claim for. We'd all love to see it. thats the other thing that would make a great thread but you would/will whine at. Just how effective are profile links . No doubt great in long tail and less than really competitive niches but you guys hype it up way beyond their true power. Truth is in most competitive serps it is RARE to find a site ranking with just spam bot links.
              Surely there are some competitive insurance keywords besides just the term insurance. I'm sure they are all quite competitive, even these 'weaker long tails'.

              I'm enjoying the thread, but I thought I would jump in there. That's all, return to battle.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jazbo
    Another point that counters this. If you read some of the better dark hat forums, you will read some pretty knowledgeable people TRYING to get sites sandboxed as experiments.

    I have read about people throwing thousands of xrumer, senuke and scrapebox links at new domains full of spun content and guess what - the sites still rank.

    I also read about experiments to knock competitors down with the same experiments. And guess what, those competitors in every single case study I have seen COME BACK STRONGER.

    Sorry but the premise of this thread it completely based on general theory that in reality is not true.
    Signature
    CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
    Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2753510].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    The search engines are picking up on massive links in a very short time, and when folks start to see their sites plummet in the search rankings they will realise doing that is the reason
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755013].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    So tell me Mike,

    Where do these superior SEO,s and "proper businesses" get there links from?

    Are you saying that we can only be serious and thus try and make some dollars if we are lucky enough to be in a position to pay top dollar for a serious and superior SEO?

    There are plenty big business out there who pay for links, this isnt your holy white hat seo that you are talking about.... is it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755402].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

      So tell me Mike,

      Where do these superior SEO,s and "proper businesses" get there links from?
      Partnerships (formal and otherwise). Sure really big companies get it from advertising but many small businesses develop partnerships/relationships that make their customers link to them and other related businesses.

      Are you saying that we can only be serious and thus try and make some dollars if we are lucky enough to be in a position to pay top dollar for a serious and superior SEO?
      Nope. I advocate using the links at your disposal to start out with including profile links. I just don't advise on running the sites over because

      A) Its not very nice of you and karma is a stinger
      B and more importantly) when you get into the mass run em over mentality you lose out in the long run.

      By the way great timing to answer both points raised. I just a few minutes ago got an email from a site. It was to inform me they were giving me a PR 4 link. Know why I got the opportunity? I didn't run the guys site over. I abided by his rules. I acted as a partner to what he was doing and trying to achieve. I've been on blogs where in a few minutes you could determine whether the owner/blogger is reasonable. Instead of trying to spam him and get my links deleted I joined in and struck up a relationship with him. I could do that because a bot wasn't doing everything. I saw the site and knew the opportunity that a bot wouldn't see. I got a link thats a nice addition to a link portfolio you could reverse engineer all you want you can't duplicate.

      I don't care what the niche is except it was something I/my customer had an interest in (in this case it will be relevant) because I didn't have to fake interest in a way that people can see through as spam attempts. as to how an unrelated wrong/neutral anchor text link can still be used effectively? Figure it out

      Works for forums too. I've build relationships with admins too. You can go ahead and spam them on your N/A profile page. that might help a bit but meanwhile I can post out in the open in a thread that has PR. I make sure its relevant and i don't abuse it. Look at warriors. Do you realize how influential Allen and Myers are? Many forum owners could send piles of traffic and sales to your site by recommendation but they won;t if you spam them. Again if a bot was doing everything I wouldnt see the opportunities. I can still use profile links AND I can get links on pages WITH actual PR because I am not setting a bot and walking away for hours at a time.

      There are plenty big business out there who pay for links, this isnt your holy white hat seo that you are talking about.... is it?
      Answer your own question because it seems pointed like you think you know the answer. I don't know anyone that considers buying links as White Hat as you are fully aware since you've been in these debates before. You can spit on white hat all you want. I believe in balance and not running over sites. I do things that some wouldn't call white hat but my commitment has never been to stay in a label but to respect peoples property and benefit from the relationships that builds.

      If an owner tells me he has a link spot and he wants me to pay for it I consider it. Its his site and his property. Do I rely on that kind of thing? No but I'll take it whether someone calls it white hat or black. I'm not violating the site.

      So often white hat is just black hat with common sense and respect. Broaden your horizons instead of having a knee jerk reaction to everything that isn't black hat/Spam.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755670].message }}
      • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755766].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


        Nope. I advocate using the links at your disposal to start out with including profile links. I just don't advise on running the sites over because

        A) Its not very nice of you and karma is a stinger
        B and more importantly) when you get into the mass run em over mentality you lose out in the long run.
        Mike,

        You're still running the sites over even if you place the links manually in your situation. You sell a software which helps people make profile links. So while someone using a bot is making tons of profiles, you are also making tons of profiles via you yourself, and your customers.

        There is really no difference. Some people use bots and build lots of profile links. You do them manually. The only difference is that your way takes more time. People using bots are no different than you selling a product that lets many many people make profile links.

        Hypothetical example:
        I use a bot and make 100 profile links a day.
        You sell a product that allows 10 people to build 10 profile links per day.

        In both examples, there are 100 links being built. The only difference is that one way is more acceptable because someone is behind the computer, clicking I agree and filling out a captcha, while the bot is doing that work for someone?

        There is really no difference. Just because you do things manually does not mean that the sites want you or your customers profiles. What's the difference really? The only difference I can see is that you think it's better to do profile links manually. I bet if you were to ask a forum owner which person they liked more, they would have an equal amount of anger at both groups; the ones who use bots, and the ones who still abuse the forum manually.

        I really don't have a bone to pick here. I don't use bots, and I very rarely use forum profiles anymore. I just don't see how doing things manually is any better than using a bot. They are both doing the same thing. And you selling a product that allows many people to make forum profiles is no different than 1 guy running a bot. Your customers may very well place more links than someone using a bot.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756268].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

          Mike,

          You're still running the sites over even if you place the links manually in your situation.
          Marcus that makes no sense whatsoever in the real world. I know you think it sounds right but

          A) it is way harder to over run a site with a person that say does 20 sites in a hour as opposed to 2,000. Undeniable. thats like saying the mass email bots that spammed tens of thousands of people had nothing to do with abuse that led to email spam being outlawed.
          B) secondly real users are not overrunning a site. By that rational as a site grows it is being over ran. far more of my users will interact and use the site than a bot ever will.
          C) I've always limited my membership so again the numbers are not on your side there either.

          I use a bot and make 100 profile links a day.
          You sell a product that allows 10 people to build 10 profile links per day.

          In both examples, there are 100 links being built. The only difference is that one way is more acceptable because someone is behind the computer, clicking I agree and filling out a captcha, while the bot is doing that work for someone?
          you mean actually using the site the way the owner would wants is a detriment? thats really bad of me to see the difference and your numbers are just slanted. You just used numbers that would get you to an equal result. Better comparison would be ten people use a program that uses a manual system versus ten using a bot system.

          Manual Ten would do a hundred
          spam bot would do 10 times a thousand.

          Which one would overrun a site - Case closed. Captain obvious.

          If there was one guy running xrummer you would be right. Since thats not the case and those selling the other packages are pushing the use of them then you are abysmally wrong and easily proven so.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756353].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            you mean actually using the site the way the owner would wants is a detriment? thats really bad of me to see the difference and your numbers are just slanted. You just used numbers that would get you to an equal result. Better comparison would be ten people use a program that uses a manual system versus ten using a bot system.
            Cause surely site owners want people signing up manually, leaving links in their profile and then never returning.

            Let me get this straight.
            I make profile links manually, no problem. Not running a site over.
            I use a bot to make my links in exactly the same format, not good.

            Ok I got it. It's ok because one of the methods makes me work harder.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756428].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

              Cause surely site owners want people signing up manually, leaving links in their profile and then never returning.
              Well if you have the mind of a spammer then yes you will never return. I've found great sites and I as i related been able to make connections that land me on page PR links. It would have never happened if I just sent a bot to them because I would have never been able to determine I had much greater opportunities and relate to the owner. I've even picked up business leads.


              Ok I got it. It's ok because one of the methods makes me work harder.
              Well God forbid that you would ever respect the site that is giving you a backlink if it makes YOUR life a few seconds difficult to actually fill out the Captcha and agree to terms as you are asked to rather than circumventing the wishes for the user to agree and confirm their status as a using human being. . I mean the world revolves around what you want.

              Just more push button IM nonsense that doesn't give you a good shot at on page PR opportunities but just a big pile of NAs.

              Bottom line is you can do SEO any way you wish and I can call it whatever I wish.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756763].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


                Well God forbid that you would ever respect the site that is giving you a backlink if it makes YOUR life a few seconds difficult to actually fill out the Captcha and agree to terms as you are asked to rather than circumventing the wishes for the user to agree and confirm their status as a using human being. . I mean the world revolves around what you want.

                Just more push button IM nonsense that doesn't give you a good shot at on page PR opportunities but just a big pile of NAs.

                Bottom line is you can do SEO any way you wish and I can call it whatever I wish.
                The bottom line is you can maually fill the form out or have a bot do it faster.... result for both methods is a link.

                I get what you are trying to say and if we could stop people abusing it by leaving dozens and dozens of links in one hit, then yeah, I agree ..... but someone can still leave dozens of links manually!

                It's not the software that is the problem, its the people using it and a very small minority of people abusing it.

                Wouldnt you agree?

                No one can stop these people from doing this and by the same token, most people using software are probably trying hard to not piss the forum owners off.

                I speak to people on forums using software and link packs and I can tell you most would rather be indiscreet and for their links to stand.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756832].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

                  It's not the software that is the problem, its the people using it and a very small minority of people abusing it.

                  Wouldnt you agree?
                  Wow now that is new. Thats a far more reasonable approach. Yes I would agree almost wholeheartedly ( captcha breaking is just abuse anyway you slice it though).

                  No one can stop these people from doing this and by the same token, most people using software are probably trying hard to not piss the forum owners off.
                  I'd disagree and agree. there are features in the tool that can be used wisely but the whole thing driving the use is set and forget blasts. Its sheer quantity with the calculation that some won't be removed.

                  I speak to people on forums using software and link packs and I can tell you most would rather be indiscreet and for their links to stand.
                  Fair enough but how can you do that with blasts? How many times are you going to change up what the bot leaves if you are so concerned about it being easy.

                  I'll throw a bone out to everyone. its a crying shame its come to this. Before the Internet became so commercialized you could write great content put together a solid site and admins WOULD actually link to you. There was a kind of democracy to the web. If you built it well links would come. it was part of what the web was. Web admins saw that as part of their responsibility to help the whole web.

                  Now you have people even taking and using user generated content and slapping everything with nofollow. But we are creating the scenario even more by having the mentality that we can and should slap a link anywhere and in any fashion that we can. All I have called for is moderation and an approach that routinely does open up much better links with on page PR.

                  Go into just about any forum software makers sites and you can see the forum admins requesting more and more ways to shut down links value. Taking the blast you wherever I can attitude is only locking down more and more avenues. People like Tom laughed when I said forum software makers would start locking down their software and sure enough toward the beginning of this year Vbulletin started doing just that and sites that upgraded by default turned all their backlinks nofollow.

                  came here and said that what I predicted was coming to pass and the same crew descended on that thread just like this to squelch it because it hurt their bottom line to point it out. cause lets face it composing and selling forum link only lists is probably the easiest laziest way of composing a list with a scraper.

                  If people want their links to stick how can they take positions that put them on a collision course with forum admins and make them the enemy to be infiltrated and blasted at all cost. Its a downright STUPID short sighted approach that hurts everyone in the long run.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757014].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
                    Yep, Back in the day when the web was young all you had to do was stick a page up and they would come :rolleyes:

                    Unfortunately, times move on and if you dont move with them and you aint got a ton of money then you will become a dinosaur, actually you will still be plankton.

                    How it was in 2000 doesnt bare any relevancy to how things work right now, like it or not.

                    Comparing how it worked back in the day to how it works now are totally different scenerios, you can't do that anymore unless you want to starve for a few years.

                    The ball is already rolling and most people (especially in this age of uncertanty) do want want to waste a few years of their lives HOPEING an article goes viral and gets a few sales.

                    Bottom line is for most sane people is :

                    1) GO white hat and hope I can make some dough to feed myself and my family while the grey hatters feed theirs.

                    2) Go join the grey hatters and make hay while I can.

                    If its a choice between feeding myself or upholding some holy linking grail, I,ll feed myself as I,m sure most people would.

                    Sure, I,ll do the white hat stuff too, but dont expect me to uphold some make believe moral law that will let me starve whilst I can feel all good about myself.

                    I live in the real world, not just some idealistic internet fairytale written 10 years ago.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757219].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

                      How it was in 2000 doesnt bare any relevancy to how things work right now, like it or not.
                      No one said it was which is why I said I was throwing a bone . Obviously you have no concept of the phrase.

                      Comparing how it worked back in the day to how it works now are totally different scenarios, you can't do that anymore unless you want to starve for a few years.
                      Alright you had a brief moment of sanity and are back to your usual nonsense distortion. People can do white hat just fine eventually (actually once you get over your spamming mentality it can be pretty fast as well). It may take longer but it beats running spam bots all day as your competitors turn there's up as well. How many Zero Pr pages will you have to get to match a PR 4 or five link that you can get by not abusing people sites as I have demonstrated I get in the here and now not ten years ago? the answer - Plenty.

                      Plus here's a tip for any newbie. ALERT - if you see any site that these guys are ranking for. take it as a green light once you confirm what their links are. If its based on forum link spam its a sure target that you can rank easily for them and knock them out of their spot - with enough spins of the old xrumer. quicker if you add some better links. Honestly in competitive analysis - one of the dead give aways that a term is competitive is if you see only forum backlinks propping the site up in its position. Easy pickings just fire up the bots and add a little something something to it.

                      Save us the old tired song about black hat saving people from starvation . LOL. Oh my goodness this thread is funny. There are plenty of people who slapped on tons of spam bot links and they are still not in the top spots getting good traffic. If doing black hat was the holy grail of making money in IM then so many people wouldn't be failing at it and you would go through old WSOs where the links were being offered and see a lot more success stories than you actually do.

                      and now there really is nothing new. there was the hope of a light but its gone dim forever.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757296].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        No one said it was which is why I said I was throwing a bone . Obviously you have no concept of the phrase.

                        Alright you had a brief moment of sanity and are back to your usual nonsense distortion. People can do white hat just fine eventually (actually once you get over your spamming mentality it can be pretty fast as well). It may take longer but it beats running spam bots all day as your competitors turn there's up as well. How many Zero Pr pages will you have to get to match a PR 4 or five link that you can get by not abusing people sites as I have demonstrated I get in the here and now not ten years ago? the answer - Plenty.

                        Plus here's a tip for any newbie. ALERT - if you see any site that these guys are ranking for. take it as a green light once you confirm what their links are. If its based on forum link spam its a sure target that you can rank easily for them and knock them out of their spot - with enough spins of the old xrumer. quicker if you add some better links. Honestly in competitive analysis - one of the dead give aways that a term is competitive is if you see only forum backlinks propping the site up in its position. Easy pickings just fire up the bots and add a little something something to it.

                        Save us the old tired song about black hat saving people from starvation . LOL. Oh my goodness this thread is funny. There are plenty of people who slapped on tons of spam bot links and they are still not in the top spots getting good traffic. If doing black hat was the holy grail of making money in IM then so many people wouldn't be failing at it and you would go through old WSOs where the links were being offered and see a lot more success stories than you actually do.

                        and now there really is nothing new. there was the hope of a light but its gone dim forever.


                        Poor folks trying to make some money isnt a laughing matter.. I find it strange that you do find it funny... if you would like to make them believe that your white hat ways is the ONLY way, then this is very misleading .. or would you rather they paid a super(ior) seo for the privalage.

                        I have many pages ranking number 1 using grey hat.

                        I also suspect you have too but you wont admit that ... will you.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757371].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

                          Poor folks trying to make some money isnt a laughing matter, if you would like to make them believe that your white hat ways is the ONLY way, then this is very misleading .. or would you rather they paid a super(ior) seo for the privalage.
                          Oh stop with the constant nonsense now. You are the only one that keeps bringing up white hat. I've laid out in an earlier answer to you that I could care less about meeting a white hat or grey hat label. I just think its stupid to tick the people off who would still give you a link by slamming their sites with bots.

                          You go from one fabrication to the next. You have more guesses than a riddle and they are all wrong but you keep making up more. Check around I have never taken an SEO customer at Warriors so your implication that I am wanting people to hire a SEO like myself is as far left field as your earlier lie that I sold a bot.

                          I have and might again sell a product here but I have no interest in taking on any client from warriors. Its not the place that you look for such gigs if you want to be paid well. I don't laugh at poor people trying to make money. I laughed at YOUR assertion that if you don't go black hat you starve.

                          You hang out here and another almost totally spam driven forum (stay tuned another ad might be coming now) so you think thats all that you could possibly do to rank. Heres my tip. Fire up a good backlink checker and do a couple of searches randomly and tell me that all you see are sites ranking with forum blasts. what a joke. Its a good bet you won't find one in a few random runs at all. Wake up. SEO is bigger than what you think it is.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757444].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Well if you have the mind of a spammer then yes you will never return. I've found great sites and I as i related been able to make connections that land me on page PR links. It would have never happened if I just sent a bot to them because I would have never been able to determine I had much greater opportunities and relate to the owner. I've even picked up business leads.
                How many forums have you built a relationship at in comparison with how many that you haven't? I'm going to venture a guess that the number of forums that you haven't continued to participate in is higher than the number that you have...which if that is the case, then all of the forums that you didn't make connections at were just run over by your links.

                Surely you haven't built connections at every forum you've made profiles on? And surely, the majority of your customers haven't either. So, you have done your fair share of running sites over manually. By your standards, if you don't return or establish some repoire then you have the mind of a spammer. You see, I do believe that you have made some good connections at forums which were originally intended for building profile links. But I also believe that there are plenty of forums which you haven't built connections.

                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Well God forbid that you would ever respect the site that is giving you a backlink if it makes YOUR life a few seconds difficult to actually fill out the Captcha and agree to terms as you are asked to rather than circumventing the wishes for the user to agree and confirm their status as a using human being. . I mean the world revolves around what you want.

                Just more push button IM nonsense that doesn't give you a good shot at on page PR opportunities but just a big pile of NAs.

                Bottom line is you can do SEO any way you wish and I can call it whatever I wish.
                Like I said, I don't rely on forum profiles much anymore and I don't own any bots for building them. I use to rely on them heavily but have since been making use of link networks, syndicated content, and building relationships with similar sites.

                The only reason I got involved in this thread was to point out how no matter whether you're using a bot or you're not, you're still there for the same reason. And just because you physically agree to the TOS and fill out a captcha doesn't really make you any less guilty of someone who has a bot do it for them.

                Just like you have your opinion on this, I have mine which is that you are exactly the same because you advocate using forum profiles and sell a product which helps many other people use forum profiles. Whether done manually or not really makes no difference. Both groups of people are using other sites resources for one purpose: links.

                The only judgement I'm making is that people who build forum profile links manually are no better than those who make use of a bot. I build profiles manually but I'm not in a better position than those who use a bot. We are both the same.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757005].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

                  How many forums have you built a relationship at in comparison with how many that you haven't? I'm going to venture a guess that the number of forums that you haven't continued to participate in is higher than the number that you have
                  You should be careful with your guesses based on what happened before in this thread but I am going to admit that honestly less would be right. But you know what? I have had less sites I stick with even when I signed up and didn't leave or intend to leave a link. I give the sites a shot at holding my attention. No one can promise anything more. I invest more especially because I see past that N/a link the bot gets and runs off to the next N/a zero link it can get.

                  Frankly I have cut down even further on my forum links. I much prefer sites where I can post in content links and there are tons that tell you openly you can post a blog about anything you want. But really I am going less and less with all those links. I think they are only good to start and fill in while the better links that take time to get fall into place.

                  Surely you haven't built connections at every forum you've made profiles on? And surely, the majority of your customers haven't either. So, you have done your fair share of running sites over manually
                  Nope you are just trying to redefine what over run means to suit your point. Seriously the links my customers have left on forums probably wouldn't even show up as blip compared to the bots slamming through multiple times a day especially since I have never gone all into forums AT ANY TIME .

                  By your standards, if you don't return or establish some repoire then you have the mind of a spammer.
                  Wrong again. If you have no mind to even give the site a shot at interesting you or being useful beyond the links thats where you have the mind of a spammer. Look lets cut to the chase - You don't even give the site a shot at your participation because using a bot you don't even see the pages or even know what the site is about because you just fed in a long list. and walked away. Every now and again I do go back to some sites that i didn't continue to partipate on - no not all - because I remember hey here was this site I recall. How could I? I saw the site. I knew what it was about.

                  And just because you physically agree to the TOS and fill out a captcha doesn't really make you any less guilty of someone who has a bot do it for them.
                  let me fix that for you -

                  Just because you follow the rules of a site rather than abusing the sites wishes when leaving a link they are kind enough to allow - ,because you actually read their terms of service to know you can - doesn't make you any better than the sites that slam it , don't follow the rules, don't read their TOS and abuse it by deliberately breaking their captcha
                  To which my response will be - Uh- huh.....sure.

                  But you know what call it all spam if you want. this thread isn't even about what you me or anyone else considers spam. It about what Bots have the power to do in weakening any site with mass linking. Bots make it easy to even wreck a site that says come and leave a link. despite Referrals nonsense even the admins on this site don't take kindly to be tagged by bots.

                  It makes it easier to tax a site and you can swing high , low do a jig wind yourself/ your logic up in a pretzel that s not good for forum owners and because its easier it weakens links and the prospects of keeping any on that site long term. fact and obvious.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757178].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kflex
          Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

          Mike,

          You're still running the sites over even if you place the links manually in your situation. You sell a software which helps people make profile links. So while someone using a bot is making tons of profiles, you are also making tons of profiles via you yourself, and your customers.

          There is really no difference. Some people use bots and build lots of profile links. You do them manually. The only difference is that your way takes more time. People using bots are no different than you selling a product that lets many many people make profile links.

          Hypothetical example:
          I use a bot and make 100 profile links a day.
          You sell a product that allows 10 people to build 10 profile links per day.

          In both examples, there are 100 links being built. The only difference is that one way is more acceptable because someone is behind the computer, clicking I agree and filling out a captcha, while the bot is doing that work for someone?

          There is really no difference. Just because you do things manually does not mean that the sites want you or your customers profiles. What's the difference really? The only difference I can see is that you think it's better to do profile links manually. I bet if you were to ask a forum owner which person they liked more, they would have an equal amount of anger at both groups; the ones who use bots, and the ones who still abuse the forum manually.

          I really don't have a bone to pick here. I don't use bots, and I very rarely use forum profiles anymore. I just don't see how doing things manually is any better than using a bot. They are both doing the same thing. And you selling a product that allows many people to make forum profiles is no different than 1 guy running a bot. Your customers may very well place more links than someone using a bot.
          Hell of a post ^^^.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2780200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    Mike,

    I pretty much use blogs like you have stated, creating thoughtfull coments that add to the debate and also using forums just like you. I also pay outsourcers to create spam profile links too, so you can see I,m not averse to either method.

    The problem is though, you yourself have just stated you will use forum profiles to get a site going, this is no different to what you are arguing against ... even if you only left a link on ten of those forums .. is this not spam?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755765].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

      Mike,

      I pretty much use blogs like you have stated, creating thoughtfull coments that add to the debate and also using forums just like you.

      The problem is though, you yourself have just stated you will use forum profiles to get a site going, this is no different to what you are arguing against ... even if you only left a link on ten of those forums .. is this not spam?
      Where in the Op did I state to avoid all definition that people have for spam? Point it out to me. I could have sworn it was about hammering sites with bots not a post about all things that people consider spam.

      I don't agree that all profile/forum links are spam. So the problem is yours not mine. I've seen too many forums where its quite allowed - including the one you are on right now (as long as its in your sig.). Are you arguing that signature links here are spam?

      Angela had a great post about a year ago of what she considered abuse. Even though the site allowed backlinks she showed a screenshot of someone who had left like fifty or so backlinks on a profile page.

      Point is just because a site is good enough to let you leave a link doesn't mean that you have to abuse it, circumvent their rules, break their captchas and send bots to post links. or leave so many links it degrades their site.

      If a site allows you to leave a link or two and you use it to drop a thousand its abuse and closer to the point if a site says hey we'll allow you a link but just fill out the captcha as a real person looking and interacting with our site its still abuse not to do it just to leave your link.

      the whole - you leave a link while showing respect for the sites wishes so it gives me the right to leave a link while not abiding by the sites wishes - is a lame excuse. Not saying you are necessarily saying so but watch if you don't see people seizing upon that old and tired argument as a justification for mass bot link spamming.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2755988].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    Same question again Mike,

    How is your link NOT spam?

    I think everyone would agree that leaving 50 links IS spam, how do you police that? No one can be accountable for everybody yet you are trying to differentiate by saying your links are ok but everyone else,s are garbage.

    Your link isnt surrounded by some magical halo, what makes you think YOUR link is so special and anyone else's isnt worthy?

    Made by software or not, its still a link.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756015].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

      Same question again Mike,

      How is your link NOT spam?
      You got your answer. Now you try answering before demanding more then I'll answer again if you didn't get it.

      Do you consider signature links here spam even though they are clearly allowed for?
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756020].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        You got your answer. Now you try answering before demanding more.

        Do you consider signature links here spam?
        No I do not, the forum allows signatures.

        Now answer me this, when you sold your link software, did you consider it would be used for spam ..... just maybe??

        You owned up to dropping link profiles, did you ever consider it could be called spam .... just maybe ?

        My guess is it didnt matter one iota what it was used for while you were making some dollars, so less of the preaching please.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756062].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
          Ohhh boy ... you've really trapped me into a really complicated corner - you really should consider playing more poker! LOL ...

          A) Does the amount of links on a site not deteriorate the power of the individual links as it increases?

          B) Are you willing to say flat out now that whatever a site links to CANNOT affect the ranking of a site?
          A. No [ because, whats the mystery element you want to conveniently leave out of this equation? SEO 101 that you elect to neglect ]

          B. No - because that would be just as asinine as your initial premise and blanket statement.


          One of the reasons why i find your intial assertions to be such utter self aggrandizing rubbish [ to help you feel better about your petty little SEO mantra / crusade and wanna be application ] is that - what you've either purposefully neglected to consider or discuss in your new SEO Law's and Proclamations is ... new and frequent inbound links to said over - run forums/sites.

          I was hesitant to bring it up because, well - my app does it ... and before we got to that I was hoping you'd create the trainwreck before it got to that point - and it has become yet another oh so predictable one - so there's really not much harm or bias in mentioning it now.

          There's 1,000's now and growing "profile link spammers" whom you assert are killing their golden geese by over running forums with outbound link spam, who are doing actually just the opposite of your idiotic proclamation - had you not been so busy frothing at the mouth - you'd of realized it Mike with mere minutes of "reasearch".

          I and my customers [ now over 1000 of them ] are actually pointing links BACK to the poor helpless victimized forums "profile pages" you allege we are suffocating with outbound leakage. [ my link on a profile page is just slaughtering the internet ... LOL - laughable really ]

          Actually my inward link ratio is 20 x 12 x 2 : 1 links in for every one profile outbound.

          20 energizers x 12 sites x 2 passes = 480 links pointing AT the forum profile pages for every 1 outbound I / we place [ approx ]

          There's 10 other applications on the web now doing the exact same thing for even more 1,000's of people ... errrr ... correction ... Evil Forum Spammers.

          I'm going home to tell the missus I just killed the internet... still rolling LMAO
          Signature
          Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756156].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
            Good then a link on a site that allows it is not spam even by your definition. Claiming that a link is spam by virtue of it being a link is bogus.

            So you are chasing your tail. Case closed.
            You do like your big bold proclamations and absurd blanket statements - gotta give ya that.

            So then a link on a profile page is spam? LOL if they didnt "allow it" - how could it get there? bot or wanna be bot ... or manual labor?

            Is there some new magical profile link making bot I havent seen yet that changes the forum owners/moderators settings to turn ON profile page links and set them to the opposite of "rel=nofollow"

            Send me the link to it - even if its an affiliate link ...

            me thinks you Mike are the one offended - cuz well you too are a profile link spammer ... just a closet type ...
            Signature
            Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756229].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

              .

              So then a link on a profile page is spam? LOL if they didnt "allow it" - how could it get there? bot or wanna be bot ... or manual labor?
              They allowed you to place it if you the user agreed to their TOS and you the user filled out the captcha. If you circumvented that with a bot then you really were not given permission you tricked your way in. Kinda like a wedding crasher sitting at a table claiming that if they weren't allowed they couldn't be there.:rolleyes:

              Thats why so many of your links are thrown to the curb just like the sorry excuse wedding crasher
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2760352].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MB Ninja
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              People can do white hat just fine eventually (actually once you get over your spamming mentality it can be pretty fast as well). It may take longer but it beats running spam bots all day as your competitors turn there's up as well.
              Anyone that uses forced linking is NOT white hat. If you want to be white hat, put your angel wings on and hit up your favorite social networks to promote your site just by talking about it. If you have good stuff, people will eventually link to you on their own. So, unless this is how you do things, you're either grey hat or black hat.

              Originally Posted by dagaul101 View Post

              The search engines are picking up on massive links in a very short time, and when folks start to see their sites plummet in the search rankings they will realise doing that is the reason
              What would happen if someone made some really awesome content that went viral? Will Google penalize a site that gets 10,000 links in just a few days as a direct result of their really awesome content? I don't think so.

              Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

              me thinks you Mike are the one offended - cuz well you too are a profile link spammer ... just a closet type ...
              LOL, that's the best part of this entire thread.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767280].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by MB Ninja View Post

                What would happen if someone made some really awesome content that went viral? Will Google penalize a site that gets 10,000 links in just a few days as a direct result of their really awesome content? I don't think so.
                Weak point. the quantity is not the thing. its how you get the quantity. IF something goes viral then it gets all kinds of links not just links with the same footprints. it will get in content links which Google often identifies as editorial. So its not the issue of how many links its the quality of the links that people have to use to get them.



                Anyone that uses forced linking is NOT white hat.
                A) no one in this thread identified themselves as White hat. Read the thread before making off points.
                B) There is no force in using comments and profiles . Thats nonsense. they were put there to be used by people who are willing to participate and find value in the site by the owner. Did you force Warriors to put your last post up? So is using these things white hat if you use them the way the owner set them up to be used. YES and thus you have no point.

                Meanwhile .......

                Received notification that I picked up some more high Pr on page links Friday and Saturday for the site mentioned before. Yeah I guess my clients will be starving because I didn't abuse the sites and the owners of the site decided to give me high on page links instead of N/A and zero PR profile links.

                ROFL.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767333].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MB Ninja
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Weak point. the quantity is not the thing. its how you get the quantity. IF something goes viral then it gets all kinds of links not just links with the same footprints. it will get in content links which Google often identifies as editorial. So its not the issue of how many links its the quality of the links that people have to use to get them.
                  What makes you believe I think you shouldn't build links too fast? I never said that. All I did was make a comment to someone who appears to believe that rapid and massive link building should be avoided.

                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  A) no one in this thread identified themselves as White hat. Read the thread before making off points.
                  B) There is no force in using comments and profiles . Thats nonsense. they were put there to be used by people who are willing to participate and find value in the site by the owner. Did you force Warriors to put your last post up? So is using these things white hat if you use them the way the owner set them up to be used. YES and thus you have no point.
                  A) No one had to. Can you handle a comment that's relevant to the discussion?
                  B) Oh yeah, no point. So, you're telling me that if you do a link run with your favorite bot and blast the interwebz with links on sites that don't want them, that's not forced link spam? Pfffff.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767392].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by MB Ninja View Post

                    B) Oh yeah, no point. So, you're telling me that if you do a link run with your favorite bot and blast the interwebz with links on sites that don't want them, that's not forced link spam? Pfffff.
                    MB why don't you bother to read? This entire thread is about me NOT doing runs with bots. The earlier point your responded to pointly indicated that. so your charge that I am either grey or black hat was just you not reading.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767588].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

            ... new and frequent inbound links to said over - run forums/sites.

            I was hesitant to bring it up because, well - my app does it ..
            LOl there we go - a product ad. and ad to solve the problem created by the problem that mass spam creates to boot. the famous backlink your weak backlinks technique. Wow thats new.


            You havent answered the question at all. You've just danced around it. obviously if you pour more PR juice into the sites they will hold up until they are blasted by more and weakened again. I said as much in answering your nonsense about WF being the anti-thesis of my argument - that providing additional Pr counteracts the decay effect.

            So point number one stands. You are right I boxed you into a corner to display your ignorance. the fact that you don' know you are is hardly a surprise. No matter how much pr you want to flow into a site it still and forever will be weaker than it would be without the excess backlinks on it.

            Further more if you use bots to backlinks your bots submission then even the PR you think you are pouring back in is being weakened because PR isn't infinite my would be SEO. But of course we all know that you are only pouring in mostly zeros and N/As to most of the sites. Sucking from Mary to give Paul - empty air.. Go peddle that nonsense to those who can't see how weak the links are that they can't even get indexed. Meanwhile I'll just cry in my blanket with my on page PR4 link from not running a bot on that site.

            As for two , yes I wanted you say that linking to bad neighborhood sites and porn and viagra and all the likes wouldn't hurt your site because I wanted it out of your own mouth so that when someone who does know seo stumbles on this thread they will see it and the nonsense advice given. In fact ill use your technique so it doesn't disappear.

            Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

            Ohhh boy ... you've really trapped me into a really complicated corner - you really should consider playing more poker! LOL ...



            A. No [ because, whats the mystery element you want to conveniently leave out of this equation? SEO 101 that you elect to neglect ]

            B. No - because that would be just as asinine as your initial premise and blanket statement.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756279].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    It makes not one slightest bit of difference how you try to dress it up Mike.

    You sold software that enabled people to leave profile links in forums and you profited from that, yet you are here now condeming nasty evil software users as killing the link.

    Here's a profound message, the software doesnt kill the link, the user might derail some efforts but who can control what the user does?

    The world is moving on and you with your rants aint going to stop that, just like me whinging about yet more job cuts aint going to do nothing but get myself all wound up.

    Adapt.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    I dont wish to keep getting on your case Mike but if anyone has been boxed in a corner here it is you Im afraid.

    Let me just say "Double standards" when it suits your agenda, whatever that may be.

    Afterall, selling a profile bot and then admitting to creating profile links and then purposefully creating a thread deliberately to antagonize anyone using profile links ... need I go on.

    Infact, Im off to the backlinks forum, cant listen to this crap any longer.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756357].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

      Afterall, selling a profile bot and then admitting to creating profile links and then purposefully creating a thread deliberately to antagonize anyone using profile links ... need I go on.

      Infact, Im off to the backlinks forum, cant listen to this crap any longer.
      please do take that lying to another forum where it will be taken with open arms. I never sold a bot. thats your invention. plus I never antagonized ANYONE using profile backlinks. in fact my OP never named any names. 33% right is a failing grade in any subject.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Okays Guys . Its been Fun. Almost like old times

    Nothing new seems to be on the table . Look forward to interacting with you many times in the near future.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2756786].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    ROFL,

    Ok, you just confirmided you didnt read anything previously posted.

    I use forum profiles to get a initial boost: check.
    I use blog comments, some outsourced: check.
    I use forums and make contributions: check.
    I use blog comments and can spend upto 1/2 hour writing those comments: check.
    I use other networks too.

    Sure, the forum I participate in allows linking products, this in no way means that is all is advocated there and if you did your research correct you would know this.

    Only shows you are on a crusade of some sorts, god knows why ... maybe just bored ??







    Still doesnt answer your double standards though ... does it !!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757490].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw

      Is this a 5 minute argument or the full half hour.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757501].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757543].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Oh shut up! Thats some classic comedy there. LOL. We should have a best of Bgmacaw's videos thread.
          Now your talkin sense!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757560].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
            Honestly in competitive analysis - one of the dead give aways that a term is competitive is if you see only forum backlinks propping the site up in its position. Easy pickings just fire up the bots and add a little something something to it.
            Sybil rides again ...


            Of course you've had to move on to the offline marketplace Mike - thats where the uninformed - uninitiated - newbie lambs are by the score - who will buy into your nonsense hook line and sinker.
            Signature
            Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2760010].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

              ..


              Of course you've had to move on to the offline marketplace Mike - thats where the uninformed - uninitiated - newbie lambs are by the score - who will buy into your nonsense hook line and sinker.
              Wrong again (this must be approaching a forum record for a single poster making so many plain wrong statements). I don't have any clients that are not already online before i deal with them. You are just digging your hole deeper and deeper with every post.

              Its just common sense. Any intelligent person reading this will know that if you prop up a site by running xrummer and scraped forums its not rocket science to compete with them

              For those who don't know forum lists are easily created by looking for footprints in forum software packages like "powered by vbulletin" etc ( SMF, PHPBB, Expression engine and a host of others). You can do it even in Google and find hundreds of them for free. Software will generally tell you what is follow and nofollow and you can even hire a virtual worker to sort the list. If you use a simple tool then you can find thousands upon thousands. They are the EASIEST links to find. Many people use scrapebox but if you find that too expensive you can use Urlscraper. Costs like ten bucks last time I saw it. obviously won't have all the features of scrapebox but it can get the job done.

              Then all you need to do is run off submission software just like what Our good friend is defending. If you can catch his numbers then you will outrank him if thats all he's got. if not then you will both have fun keeping up. If he's mixed it up a little then you can do the same. easy peasy

              P.S. you can even backlink your backlinks using the same easy process.

              AGAIN outranking a site propped up solely or mainly by forum backlinks is downright flat out easy to do and should be a green light for you to go after the niche. Using bots it only comes down to how fast, how many threads and how many computers/servers/vps you want to use.

              Oh and some proxies will come in handy too.

              Denying that is like denying the sky is blue on a clear day. Freaking hilarious stuff.

              Oh but if the niche is juicy enough then all bets are off some other guy may come along and laugh at both of you or report your spam ways and assume your position after reporting you to google. Then you can all go back to zero backlinks. Just for full disclosure.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2760293].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

      ROFL,
      .. maybe just bored ??
      Funny you should ask. I became bored half way through that last post of yours. At least when you were lying about me selling a bot it was more interesting . Now your just rambling making no point at all. have a good night man. See you soon.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757519].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by Spot the Ball View Post

      Sure, the forum I participate in allows linking products, this in no way means that is all is advocated there and if you did your research correct you would know this.
      Just like warriorforum and w!ckedfire (which incidentally is at the top of google for a lot of IM and IM forum related keywords..had to add the "!" cuz it is a banned keyword here I believe), i might add. Seems like a bit of a crusade to me. Hell, lots of the best products started at w!ckedfire. See: http://www.wicked fire.com/links-seo/ (space added so the keyword police won't nab it). 6 ads with Xrumer in the title on just page 1. Pretty sweet.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757520].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Spot the Ball
    Good night Mike,

    You left with no alternative other than to bow down to what was staring you in the face all along.










    You were talking gibberish.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2757538].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
    Oh but if the niche is juicy enough then all bets are off some other guy may come along and laugh at both of you or report your spam ways and assume your position after reporting you to google. Then you can all go back to zero backlinks. Just for full disclosure.
    Yet another classic

    Mike - ever considered decaf ?
    Signature
    Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2760500].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

      Mike - ever considered decaf ?
      weak. Terribly weak.

      I can almost predict what the next retort will be
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2761598].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    Does anyone create mass profile linking or blog comments to their *clients sites, or is it purely for personal use? (*Offline businesses, not other internet marketing clients).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2761644].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Crew Chief
    Mike Anthony, I said this last year at some point and I'll say it again...

    ...you are the zippin SEO Crusader bar none!!!

    Whatever it is you are eating, you need to start selling it!

    Whatever it is that you are drinking, you need to bottle it up and start marketing it.

    That said, I'm off to schedule some MPRs Massive Profile Runs.


    Giles, the Crew Chief
    Signature
    Tools, Strategies and Tactics Used By Savvy Internet Marketers and SEO Pros:

    SEO G.O.L.D. = Genuine Overall Link Diversity
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2761873].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Crew Chief View Post

      Mike Anthony, I said this last year at some point and I'll say it again...

      ...you are the zippin SEO Crusader bar none!!!

      You have some nerve showing your face in here and Not using some military lingo soldier! I thought for sure I would get some and you let me down. and then you drop this civilian video. Shame (I assure you I don't talk so fast but I do like the accent. lol)

      Hey if you must check out KKchoon's product. Thats right if you are going to do it at least do it with someone who knows something. I Like the guy. knows his stuff and doesn't stick his head in the sand like an ostrich and make nonsensical SEO statements like some wannabe SEOs on here. Sure he and you do what I won't but he's not the dishonest kind to tell you you don't have a point when you have one but then he actually knows when you do and they don't.

      Anyway more power to you man. Wish you the best.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2761967].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
    one of the most enttertaining threads / on all parts.

    for me i am tired of these spammers / i have placed a big red sign at the top telling spammers they are not welcome / ? not that the bots will read that anyway i suppose.

    but my new trick today is i grab one of the spam post (they usually post dozens) and add a great new header on the page telling visitors to the page not to visit the site as they are supporting posting spam on the forum. ( in big red letters ) i then remove the hyper links, lock the post and make it a sticky. (delete the other posts)

    now the fun start where i then get the contact email from the site being spammed and sent them an email with a link to the page / telling them to get a new seo service or to stop spamming.

    i could even think about collecting a paypal payment to remove these clowns when they post back complaining ? for wasting my time ?

    maybe a new way to make money ? who knows but for now, i will see how many scalps i can collect / up to my back teeth with these clowns now.
    Signature

    .

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2762979].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post


      but my new trick today is i grab one of the spam post (they usually post dozens) and add a great new header on the page telling visitors to the page not to visit the site as they are supporting posting spam on the forum. ( in big red letters ) i then remove the hyper links, lock the post and make it a sticky. (delete the other posts)

      now the fun start where i then get the contact email from the site being spammed and sent them an email with a link to the page / telling them to get a new seo service or to stop spamming.

      i could even think about collecting a paypal payment to remove these clowns when they post back complaining ? for wasting my time ?
      I guess I don't follow your thought process after the "now the fun" introduction.

      Why would they/we care? It is just work for you with no added value for you. I should start doing this to all my competitors sites and then you can start emailing them asking for payment It actually seems like a fun way to mess with my competitors. Thanks much. In any event, they were likely looking for the link only, not the pass through traffic from your site. Having the big red sign isn't going to do anything, but have fun with your side business.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2764234].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
        Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

        I guess I don't follow your thought process after the "now the fun" introduction.

        Why would they/we care? It is just work for you with no added value for you. I should start doing this to all my competitors sites and then you can start emailing them asking for payment It actually seems like a fun way to mess with my competitors. Thanks much. In any event, they were likely looking for the link only, not the pass through traffic from your site. Having the big red sign isn't going to do anything, but have fun with your side business.
        edit / deleted that reply / you know what Tom you are correct / why bother

        IS this forum not a gathering point for Spammers?
        that is the sort of reply i get back / dealing with a never ending barrage of rubbish / it seems the only option will be to shut down the sigs for now.
        Signature

        .

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2764328].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
          Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post


          it seems the only option will be to shut down the sigs for now.
          Possible other things:

          (1) add captcha if you don't have it already (i'm assuming you do)
          (2) add an extra security question at registration. It doesn't have to be hard, just something so automated tools can't get past that question.
          (3) don't allow any email addresses ending in .ru (particularly mail.ru, but all the other .ru's as well).
          (4) if you really want to, ban gmail and force people to signup with non-free email accounts.

          that should eliminate the vast majority of it. Everything left over will likely just be a handful of manual signups.

          Tom
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2764615].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2764570].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        Sounds like a lot of wasted time, IMO.

        .
        yukon, yes i agree with you / Tom , it took a good slap n tickle for me to wake up i was wasting my time with that fanciful dream, i have shut down new Sig's until a set number of posts / Thanks Tom for the extra tips / yes captcha is on but i wil also add out out extra as you have suggested.

        Pete

        edit

        for the record forums are not what i am used to, the owner walked out ( he did give me full mod access and passes so that was nice of him ) / have no idea where he is / and i only stepped into help after i was barraged with post reports by the regulars as the spammers moved into to town.

        Just doing my best in my spare time to keep it clean for them / learn quick how to peddle the cart / but in a blessing of disguise / i now love them and having the chance to build and work in the forum has now made me look at setting my own up.

        this i suppose is lifes funny way of showing me how forums work ? / thanks again for the help.
        Signature

        .

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2764651].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post

          yukon, yes i agree with you / Tom , it took a good slap n tickle for me to wake up i was wasting my time with that fanciful dream, i have shut down new Sig's until a set number of posts /
          There you go. If your forum software allows it you can also go semi invisible by removing foot prints like "powered by" its how people use bots to find your site in the first place. Doing that will DRAMATICALLY lower even attempts at spam (and you will still get signups from bots that can't detect your permission set up).

          HOWEVER there is a way to leave your signatures and footprints open and get next to no spam. that way your users get to have the privileges you want them to have from day one. If you are interested I can PM the solution to you.

          Your previous idea is not all that bad if you sell advertising. If not it would be a waste of time. I don't know about the trouble of putting up notices but if you are going to be hit by spammers then you can use their contacts.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767306].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            HOWEVER there is a way to leave your signatures and footprints open and get next to no spam. that way your users get to have the privileges you want them to have from day one. If you are interested I can PM the solution to you..
            I would be appreciative of any help / so yes thank you Mike that would be good, the guys above have also helped greatly with the information, almost overnight i have culled most of the incoming spam / with the suggestions.

            I feel had the site been set up a little better at the start a lot of the troubles would not have been there.

            rather than the big stick i will also now roll out free ads on the forum for those doing the right thing.

            / thanks again to all
            Signature

            .

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767416].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post

              I would be appreciative of any help / so yes thank you Mike that would be good
              Done. Just another way of doing it that allows real new users a bit more freedom.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767662].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HugoLand
    I`m agree with Tom last comment...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2764613].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MB Ninja
    Again, I didn't say that. My comments about the shade of your hat weren't even directed to you. They were general statements.

    You're not understanding what I said about forced links. If you go out and create links to promote your site, that's forced link building. Natural links don't happen that way. Can you see the difference between white and grey now?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767611].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MB Ninja View Post

      Again, I didn't say that. My comments about the shade of your hat weren't directed to you. They were general statements.
      If you are clarifying that now I have no problem accepting that but in post 141 you did quote me and responded directly to my quote. thas why I responded but its cool.

      You're not understanding what I said about forced links. If you go out and create links to promote your site, that's forced link building. Natural links don't happen that way
      Thats not THE definition of white hat. For example a common white hat tactic is to contact a owner and ask for a link. Thats not natural. You are asking for it. Same goes for commenting If you go to a blog and add legitimate content, place your link and the owner approves it that is clean white hat. In that case you are going out and creating links promoting your site and its still whitehat
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2767655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TomBond
    Great debate guys!
    Signature

    Read my IM/Offline consulting blog - The King of IM

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2768697].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ImDoingIt
    Spot on man, I have been thinking that the major search engines will eventually be able to almost completely devalue massive automated link building efforts. I see a lot of scripted spam on blogs and forums and it gets quite annoying.

    I think that in the big picture those websites that have a diverse range of links over time that are clearly not bot generated will stand out from the pack. Lets face it, the search engines are getting smarter and it really isn't hard to detect these spammers.

    A site having hundreds or thousands of links with the same spam text, anchor text, etc, especially within a short period of time should throw up some red flags. vs more unique natural looking links etc
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2768938].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Originally Posted by ImDoingIt View Post

      Spot on man, I have been thinking that the major search engines will eventually be able to almost completely devalue massive automated link building efforts. I see a lot of scripted spam on blogs and forums and it gets quite annoying.
      How long has blog comment spam been around? Probably since the very first blog allowed comments.

      How long has Google known about blog comment spam? Probably since Google started its search engine. (1997)

      Does blog comment spam still work? Yep.

      So, Google has had 13 YEARS to account for it (like you wish they would at least), yet it hasn't. If by "eventually" you mean 2050, perhaps. But, Google seems more interested in teaching its computers how to drive cars around California on autopilot (sidebar: How the hell is that legal?) or coming up with that brilliant:rolleyes: Google Instant.


      Originally Posted by ImDoingIt View Post

      A site having hundreds or thousands of links with the same spam text, anchor text, etc, especially within a short period of time should throw up some red flags. vs more unique natural looking links etc
      Google has never rewarded "natural" link building. They just haven't. Matt can preach whatever he wants about how he would get links, but at the end of the day, doing "unnatural" linking, like for instance using the same anchor text, works wonders. Getting links from "irrelevant" (whatever that means..i'm not sure where you draw the lines) works wonders., etc. In any event, Google won't penalize a site for incoming links as any competitor could simply send whatever links it wanted to, to competitors' sites and be #1 by default. At most, the big G would devalue or not count certain links (see note above on likelihood of that). I've got tons of sites that will happily take your spamming link love.

      In any event, even if Google changes its algo, there will *always* be a way to game Google SERPs.

      Tom
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2768987].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CatherineC
    Banned
    Tom is right on as usual.

    Popular thoughts from WF doom-and-gloomers lately about backlinking:

    "Social bookmarking no longer works"
    "Blog commenting no longer works"
    "Forum profiles no longer work"
    "Backlinks from non-relevant sources no longer work"
    "Backlinks from PR0 or - sources no longer work"
    "NoFollow doesn't work"
    "Using the same anchor link doesn't work"

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And....wrong.

    But I like how this is becomming the standard thinking for masses of IMers, leaving the rest of us to enjoy these easy backlinks while they toil with time-consuming alternatives.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769276].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
      Thanks Catherine. Of course, i'm not really sure why I care. I really shouldn't. The more people believe in the myths the less competition I have. It is in my best interests to not fight it as much I guess

      Tom

      Originally Posted by CatherineC View Post

      Tom is right on as usual.

      Popular thoughts from WF doom-and-gloomers lately about backlinking:

      "Social bookmarking no longer works"
      "Blog commenting no longer works"
      "Forum profiles no longer work"
      "Backlinks from non-relevant sources no longer work"
      "Backlinks from PR0 or - sources no longer work"
      "NoFollow doesn't work"
      "Using the same anchor link doesn't work"

      Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And....wrong.

      But I like how this is becomming the standard thinking for masses of IMers, leaving the rest of us to enjoy these easy backlinks while they toil with time-consuming alternatives.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769320].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by CatherineC View Post


      But I like how this is becomming the standard thinking for masses of IMers, leaving the rest of us to enjoy these easy backlinks while they toil with time-consuming alternatives.
      Lol. Yeah right. The "standard thinking of the masses" in Im is that if you push a button on a few bots you will dominate any niche and have ton loads of traffic so whats up Catherine ? Why does the average Imer throw in the towel in a few months because he can't get the traffic? And why do we find people every week who ran a whole ton of profilelinks that can't get to the top three? You are creating a strawman argument that almost no one embodies in this entire forum. No one says all those things don't work. You just made it all up to slant the table.

      What your trainers won't be honest enough to tell you in this thread is you do need backlinks ON high Pr pages going forward and spambots can't give you that. Time consuming alternatives? Not needed? then ask your trainers why they BUY domains that have high PR just so they can put links on High PR PAGES to help them to rank their own sites? No? learn to run a backlink checker on your trainers OWN sites. they openly admit that elsewhere but in this thread they will act like Forum backlinks are all powerful and are not comparatively weak.

      Time to cut the lying and fabrication in this thread and forum coming up with bogus nonsense like you only get backlinks on High pr domains you bought for backup. LOL. what a joke when you know perfectly well that its a "time consuming alternative" (of searching for domains from sellers that hasn't dropped, researching its background , verifying the numbers are real and BUYING the domain ) that has much huger payoffs than amassing a bunch of N/As.

      So sure you can and should start out with links you can get easily but be prepared to do long tail and/or stayout of the way of well established business with plenty of natural backlinks. YOu CANNOT despite the hype of the backlink gurus rank in every niche with just profile links.

      they've had three pages to say - you know what Mike I hate your guts but I got to admit getting on page High Pr backlinks from the site owners that you get is a great thing. Instead they fool people like you Catherine that its a time consuming alternative that will have your competitors leaving the market open for you. Good night this thread is awesome. LOL
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
    Put your money where your mouth is Mark.

    I want to rank for the keyword weight loss. I have a brand new site, brand new domain.

    Tell me what to do, exactly, and tell me, based on your PhD-level seo understanding, how long it will take me to do it.

    Thanks,

    Brandi
    Signature
    My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
    http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
    Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769610].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post


      I want to rank for the keyword weight loss. I have a brand new site, brand new domain.
      Yo Diiig why ask me? You are a major proponent of spam bots. You know the drill. Fire up xrummer and let er rippp!

      or could it be thats your backhanded way of saying that it doesn't work for that term? really strange isn't it? You would think that "Weight loss" would be an IMers dream to rank for. I mean theres got to be hundreds of Imers running xrummer round the clock on that one. but low and behold you can't find anyone ranking high on the first page of google for that term on the power of forum links.

      Pssst

      Lets talk soft so no one can hear. Try this - if you do random searches for all kinds of terms (not the ones in the gurus screenshots) most serps are ranked without relying heavily on profile links but don't tell anyone else in this thread. its just our secret. Apparently for some strange reason they use " time-consuming alternatives" . But wait a minute wasn't doing that supposed to leave the market wide open for you guys?

      So rant about about poor little Mike and tell him how he's full of nonsense. See, enough people are going to agree with you but then when your way doesn't work for their niche and dreams (as is related CONSTANTLY in these forums) they'll say " you know what maybe that guy had a point after all". Mission accomplished not now but then

      Meanwhile Mike A will continue to have and use profile backlinks merrily AND teach his customers the pros AND cons of them and how to use them to move on to bigger and better things instead of thinking of getting on page HIGH PR pages from webmasters as time wasting alternatives to blasting them for N/As. Bad little time wasting boy that he is.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769920].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Yo Diiig why ask me? You are a major proponent of spam bots. You know the drill. Fire up xrummer and let er rippp!

        or could it be thats your backhanded way of saying that it doesn't work for that term? really strange isn't it? You would think that "Weight loss" would be an IMers dream to rank for. I mean theres got to be hundreds of Imers running xrummer round the clock on that one. but low and behold you can't find anyone ranking high on the first page of google for that term on the power of forum links.

        Pssst

        Lets talk soft so no one can hear. Try this - if you do random searches for all kinds of terms (not the ones in the gurus screenshots) most serps are ranked without relying heavily on profile links but don't tell anyone else in this thread. its just our secret. Apparently for some strange reason they use " time-consuming alternatives" . But wait a minute wasn't doing that supposed to leave the market wide open for you guys?

        So rant about about poor little Mike and tell him how he's full of nonsense. See, enough people are going to agree with you but then when your way doesn't work for their niche and dreams (as is related CONSTANTLY in these forums) they'll say " you know what maybe that guy had a point after all". Mission accomplished not now but then

        Meanwhile Mike A will continue to have and use profile backlinks merrily AND teach his customers the pros AND cons of them and how to use them to move on to bigger and better things instead of thinking of getting on page HIGH PR pages from webmasters as time wasting alternatives to blasting them for N/As. Bad little time wasting boy that he is.
        I must have missed your answer?

        I'm giving you a chance to prove yourself and you're being a smartelic.

        Exactly as I suspected. You have no clue.

        Onward and upward!

        Warmly,

        Brandi
        Signature
        My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
        http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
        Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2771496].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post


          Exactly as I suspected. You have no clue.
          Too smart for ya Digi. Why in the world should I help you rank especially when I know you won't follow the advice anyway (its tooo hard I tell you) But I tell you what I'll throw you a bone. heres a tip - You might want to do some on page Seo for your signature link page.

          Unless of course you are tryng to rank for the word "Hi"

          having a backlink to that page while calling me clueless is pretty funny stuff.

          Warmly Mike
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2772233].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Too smart for ya Digi. Why in the world should I help you rank especially when I know you won't follow the advice anyway (its tooo hard I tell you) But I tell you what I'll throw you a bone. heres a tip - You might want to do some on page Seo for your signature link page.

            Unless of course you are tryng to rank for the word "Hi"

            having a backlink to that page while calling me clueless is pretty funny stuff.

            Warmly Mike
            Uhh.. Mike. Hint: I'm not trying to rank for anything in my signature

            Of course, with all of your SEO prowess, you should have figured that out.

            I mean, seriously. It's just a domain name with nothing there.

            And, also, I'm not trying to rank for the term "weight loss". It was a fictional case study and I wanted you to share your wisdom with the masses.

            I'm not sure that I've ever seen you give one bit of helpful advice in terms of what to do to rank. Your advice is always what NOT to do, in your opinion.

            I guess us bottom feeders can't handle your real seo stuff. It's too hard and we're not smart enuff.

            Oh to be like thee.

            Warmly,

            Brandi
            Signature
            My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
            http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
            Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774648].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post

              I'm not sure that I've ever seen you give one bit of helpful advice in terms of what to do to rank. Your advice is always what NOT to do, in your opinion.
              then you need to fix the glasses and finally get someone to fix your site and then you will be ready to make a good point on SEO. Missed the sticky at the top of the forum that has links to some of my stuff and countless other threads exist as well? Fine but the number of thanks should instruct even someone with intermittent eye trouble. Digi you offer nothing to this thread in light of the things I commented on and it would be unfair for me to keep hammering your bad points so have the last in our exchange.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774737].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Too smart for ya Digi. Why in the world should I help you rank especially when I know you won't follow the advice anyway (its tooo hard I tell you) But I tell you what I'll throw you a bone. heres a tip - You might want to do some on page Seo for your signature link page.

                Unless of course you are tryng to rank for the word "Hi"

                having a backlink to that page while calling me clueless is pretty funny stuff.

                Warmly Mike
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                then you need to fix the glasses and finally get someone to fix your site and then you will be ready to make a good point on SEO. Missed the sticky at the top of the forum that has links to some of my stuff and countless other threads exist as well? Fine but the number of thanks should instruct even someone with intermittent eye trouble. Digi you offer nothing to this thread in light of the things I commented on and it would be unfair for me to keep hammering your bad points so have the last in our exchange.
                You keep hammering away at the site in my signature, MA, attempting to prove a point that doesn't exist.

                What part of: 'there's nothing there and I'm not trying to rank for anything' don't you understand?

                Yes, I did miss your helpful posts. Because they don't exist.

                Epic fail.

                Warmly,

                Brandi

                P.S. Please don't tell me you buy into the 'thanks is a measure of the worth of an online persona'? If so, you are far more naive than I suspected.
                Signature
                My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
                http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
                Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774781].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
                  Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post


                  P.S. Please don't tell me you buy into the 'thanks is a measure of the worth of an online persona'? If so, you are far more naive than I suspected.
                  Well, if it did...then since I have 50% more thanks with fewer posts (and joined 1 month later), I should win that "Thanks" battle in any event, eh? Plus, hanging one's hat on one's SEO "guruness" by the fact that Andy or whoever decided to refer to one of his posts is pretty lame. I know that both Terry and Gary (who are also both linked to in said FAQ) would disagree with most of this flimflam, so does that mean that he loses out 2 to 1? ;-)

                  I wonder if anyone noticed the weekly "SEO advice from a SEO guru" thread on Friday that quietly disappeared into oblivion with zero replies:rolleyes: http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ch-dinner.html
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2775507].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

                    Plus, hanging one's hat on one's SEO "guruness" by the fact that Andy or whoever decided to refer to one of his posts is pretty lame.

                    Puuuure desperation. I made no claim at being a guru. You do FAR more of that in various places and we both know it. Digi lied that I had never posted ANYTHING to help people and I rebutted her as I have you and your crew this entire thread with the facts. Now you are in here with another round of lies that I made any claim to any status based on thanks or posts (which you rightfully point out does not indicate guru status since some people have gotten quite a bit from spammers and even more on the basis of association with their partner not their own expertise).

                    Anyone with half a brain can see that it was in reply to the nonsense that I never had contributed anything to this forum.

                    then in classic hypocritical and nonsensical fashion you try to float that though thanks doesn't matter to expertise replies to a thread made on friday night that few saw does. LOL. Have you taken a class on Logic yet? I suggest Purtill as a good start.

                    Consider the number of lies in one thread you and your pack have floated, that I changed my tune since selling a packet, that I sold a bot, that my only evidence was one case study, that I never contribute anything to the forums, that I attacked you for not posting often when it was me who was attacked, for not doing so. that I was up to selling something in this thread and should be looked at suspiciously even though for this entire time I have no Sig link. Now its the lie that I float expertise based on thanks. Pitiful. this is why people question the character of mass bot spammers and are ENTIRELY justified for so doing as well as laughing off their chair when one of them refers to their "values".

                    Who creates all this stuff that is easily proven false if they don't have something to protect and their own suspicious agenda to squelch any opinion that may hurt their bottom line?

                    Meanwhile the sum total of your rebuttal to any facts in the thread are weak,and easily answered. So like I indicated form the start - What else can you do besides trying to derail the thread as some of your own has done every page. Its your MO. You have done it in any and every thread that has to do with blasting sites to kingdom come and tried to hide it by claiming that the thread was inflammatory or projecting doom of some algorithm change.

                    there is no projection in this thread. this is about the here and now and how links in the algorithm decay as they are split by links. Its why right now some sites are less advantageous than others to place links on because they have been over run. Simple......wait for it........Kindergarten Level SEO facts

                    Now with the five or six dollars go out and buy a sub and have a great day Tom.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2776713].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      So, Google has had 13 YEARS to account for it (like you wish they would at least), yet it hasn't. If by "eventually" you mean 2050, perhaps....... But, Google seems more interested in teaching its computers how to drive cars around California on autopilot
                      missed this before. Terribly misleading. The nofollow tag has cut off the value of comment spam on most blogs. the fact that it hasn't done so for all sites is hardly google sitting on their hands as that observation implies.
                      Every year the tag is used and put into software releases that shut down links in great quantity. the fact that it doesn't reach 100% and never will becaue webmasters can use what they want hardly means they are not as concerned with it than "driving cars on autopilto".
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2776831].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                      Puuuure desperation. I made no claim at being a guru. You do FAR more of that in various places and we both know it. Digi lied that I had never posted ANYTHING to help people and I rebutted her as I have you and your crew this entire thread with the facts.
                      No, I did not LIE, Mark. It's called an OPINION. You certainly have PLENTY of those.

                      *I* do NOT believe that you have helped anyone with your self-proclaimed White Hat Highness. That is my O P I N I O N, not a lie.

                      You can disagree. That doesn't mean you're lying.
                      Signature
                      My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
                      http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
                      Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785315].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kflex
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Yo Diiig why ask me? You are a major proponent of spam bots. You know the drill. Fire up xrummer and let er rippp!

        or could it be thats your backhanded way of saying that it doesn't work for that term? really strange isn't it? You would think that "Weight loss" would be an IMers dream to rank for. I mean theres got to be hundreds of Imers running xrummer round the clock on that one. but low and behold you can't find anyone ranking high on the first page of google for that term on the power of forum links.
        Spammers have ranked for very competitive niches time and time again, including weight loss. So, you're not giving a good example of why spamming is ineffective.

        If you're going to argue against spamming, at least argue that it's immoral... it's pretty obvious that spamming works :rolleyes:.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2780125].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by kflex View Post

          Spammers have ranked for very competitive niches time and time again, including weight loss. .

          Talk is cheap - Be my guess and show me where it has any of the money spots for weight loss


          Weight loss - Google Search


          You are confused by all the Imers that post number one positions for less competitive terms. I don't deny that profile links are good for some niches and i recommend them to start out or for supplemental use but they are over hyped. They rarely are found as the major links in truly competitive niches where there are sites that have established themselves well.

          Truth be told the more you do backlink analysis outside of the IM circle circle the rarer it becomes to see a page rank number one with just profile links. Its usually other links that are the real lifters.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2780193].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author kflex
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Talk is cheap - Be my guess and show me where it has any of the money spots for weight loss



            You are confused by all the Imers that post number one positions for less competitive terms. I don't deny that profile links are good for some niches and i recommend them to start out or for supplemental use but they are over hyped. They rarely are found as the major links in truly competitive niches where there are sites that have established themselves well.

            Truth be told the more you do backlink analysis outside of the IM circle circle the rarer it becomes to see a page rank number one with just profile links. Its usually other links that are the real lifters.
            They definitely aren't the end all be all of link building, I'll agree with that.

            To me at least, you came across as very anti-profile links and anti-automated software at the beginning of this thread. Have you changed your stance?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2780231].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BishopMartin
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Talk is cheap - Be my guess and show me where it has any of the money spots for weight loss


            Weight loss - Google Search


            You are confused by all the Imers that post number one positions for less competitive terms. I don't deny that profile links are good for some niches and i recommend them to start out or for supplemental use but they are over hyped. They rarely are found as the major links in truly competitive niches where there are sites that have established themselves well.

            Truth be told the more you do backlink analysis outside of the IM circle circle the rarer it becomes to see a page rank number one with just profile links. Its usually other links that are the real lifters.
            Number 9 - www weightlosswand com is using template sponsorship along with other automated techniques:

            ditchfatfast com
            totalcleanseblog com
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2783394].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by BishopMartin View Post

              Number 9 - www weightlosswand com is using template sponsorship along with other automated techniques:

              ditchfatfast com
              totalcleanseblog com

              Nope template sponsorship is not an automated technique. I am well aware of it since I have used sponsored wordpress themes quite abit. I actually have that in my link from the sticky section as a linkbait technique as well (goes hand in hand). The bloggers choose to use the templates. Nothing is forced about it either.

              As I said

              Truth be told the more you do backlink analysis outside of the IM circle circle the rarer it becomes to see a page rank number one with just profile links. Its usually other links that are the real lifters.
              even in that case the real lifters are TOTALLY obvious when you look at the backlinks.

              It has several High PR links, High PR in content page links , A yahoo directory link and on and on.

              You just didn't look close enough. You would have to drop down lower - which even at 9 is not a money spot - to even take a good shot. So why hasn't anyone cracked into making some good money with some xrumer runs people?
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2783595].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                So why hasn't anyone cracked into making some good money with some xrumer runs people?
                SEOmoz disagrees with your assessment that spammy links won't get you good rankings for valuable and competitive terms. Here's the quote directly:

                "On nearly every commercially lucrative search results I pull up these days, I see bad links pushing bad sites into the top rankings at Google"

                SEOmoz | I'm Getting More Worried about the Effectiveness of Webspam

                SEOmoz said it so it must be true.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2783921].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

                  SEOmoz disagrees with your assessment that spammy links won't get you good rankings for valuable and competitive terms. Here's the quote directly:
                  As usual you don't read very well (or at all in some cases).

                  A) Seomoz lists a whole range of lower competition keywords not the top tier of competition (just as I have REPEATEDLY said) nothing like even weight loss (which I have proven no one ranks top for on the power of mass bots)

                  I'll come back to that later to completely destroy your point

                  B) Seomoz is talking about a wide range of practices including

                  Popular paid link services that Google's search quality folks are clearly aware of have worked for months on end (some have done so for years)
                  Nothing to do with massive spam bots. Let me know when I say that buying links can't work will ya?


                  Crummy, low quality directories and link exchanges have made a comeback
                  Link exchanges have again Nothing to do with what we have been talking about. I


                  Horrifyingly bad sites are ranking atop the results using little more than exact match domain names and a few poor quality links.
                  We've all seen in lesser competition keywords that have domain match and links will do well. good grief I've done that and teach that. it simple doesn't work the hgher you go up the competition ladder

                  There's even a return of the link farms of the early 2000s, with operators creating (or buying old domains and converting them into) junky, one-page sites to boost their own link popularity.
                  Possible related but more likely a reference to buying high Pr domains and linking to other sites - You know that drill - Again which has little to do with link spam bots.

                  So despite complaining about linkbait headlines in another thread all you have done is take the headlines without reading the article. Just like you rebut video content you admit to not watching. touche!

                  lets really look at this and send your point packing in the next post.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2784467].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    MORE PROOF MASS LINKS SPAM DOESN'T RANK COMPETITIVE TERMS VERY OFTEN

                    Continued Response to Marcus

                    You've assumed that everything you are talking about is an exact match to what Seomoz is talking about. Now look at the list of keywords he points to. Most are classic low level IM stuff and lets prove it and show that Rand is talking about the same low competition I have said will sometimes work but seldom for truly competitive terms. Heres his list

                    I'm going to bet you didn't even bother to checking some of those sites to find out what Rand was referring to. of the entire list only five have searches over 2,000 exact local matches and NONE have searches of over 10,000 local per month exact match (uh-huh your counter point just died). For reference weight loss has over 60,000 local exact.

                    Better yet

                    home espresso machine ratings has 16 per month - thats how Low Rand was going.

                    So lets concentrate on the five over 2,000

                    [birthday party supplies]
                    [seo software]
                    [french doors]
                    [home business ideas]
                    [starcraft 2 strategies]

                    to save myself some time I am going to skip starcraft 2 strategies and go with the top three in terms of local search. Why? Over half of those are just information seekers knowing gamers. In fact I'll jsut do the top three of these - its time consuming


                    So birthday party 9,000 exact - um sorry searched the top five spots (and we know thats who makes the money) no sign of mas bot spam. solid links with high PR - yaho and dmoz links to boot.

                    Seo software 8,000 local exact
                    With the niche I'd expect to find just spam but guess what - lots of natural links - even the number two position had links from dmoz and Yahoo. No sign of mass spam bots all the way down to five.

                    This aint looking good for your side Marcus. but lets go one more down the list and I'll end proving your point wrong there because of time

                    French doors 8,000 local exact
                    these results are heavy in links from related companies. builders, etc
                    its another fail for mass profile backlinks

                    So there we have it even the top searched terms in Seomoz list of low competition keywords proves that Not using mass spam bots does NOT leave the competition wide open for you if you do. My condolences to Catherine

                    Time to pack up that lie and stop telling people that they can aim their xrummer at a competitive term and they will rank. It ONLY works in some niches and in serps after serps after serps natural links and on page PR links whether bought, exchanged or however acquired still heavily dominate the serps.

                    You mass spam bot Evangelists do the whole community a disservice. People need to learn how to get natural high on page links. Stop pushing the garbage that you are and getting all upset when people point out the negatives. Sure people can and should start out with profile links and rank for some terms with great research but they should also learn how to work with sites that they are using so they can pick up some high on page PR links because eventually they will need some and your push button approach to everything sucks their future success dry without giving them real world success they can actually meet their goals with.

                    NOTE : there is no denial that you can rank for terms with more search results but again the competition will usually be low. Thats where good Keyword research comes in
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2784523].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                      Jacob,

                      You must be corresponding wit the ghost of "closet spammer"? Thought that entity left the room 22 posts ago?

                      Its rather pointless continued to banter back n forth about all this kindergarten seo ... especially since the notion of what a "SPAM Link" -" link to SPAM", hell ... "SPAM" itself is. It changes like Sybil's personalities.

                      TechSmith | Screencast.com, online video sharing, 2010-10-27_1520

                      Ahh yes - party supplies #2 = propped on up there with those foreign language splog post comments. Of course - those are quality links - NOT SPAM :-) [ the 650 word reply to this paragraph alone will likely be worth a bag o redenbacher's ... guess the FREE teaching gig has hit the skids - so free time to ramble ]

                      Then again - the links in your sig file to a sales page on warrior are not spam, but the same url on a profile of another forum IS spam ????

                      Sybil's so twisted around it doesnt know right from left - just that ... well it's ... CASE CLOSED! [ freakin epic ... ]
                      Signature
                      Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785040].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                        Ahh yes - party supplies #2 = propped on up there with those foreign language splog post comments. Of course - those are quality links - NOT SPAM :-) [ the 650 word reply to this paragraph alone will likely be worth a
                        far less than that to deal with your posts Steve. I've already gone through that backlink check. they have far more than splog comments and thats what blows your point up. first I heard that dmoz was a splog comment. Read it and weep

                        Open Directory - Shopping: Children: Parties

                        Oh and calm down man. you're going to give yourself a heart attack. :rolleyes:
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785264].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                          far less than that to deal with your posts Steve. I've already gone through that backlink check. they have far more than splog comments and thats what blows your point up. first I heard that dmoz was a splog comment. Read it and weep

                          Open Directory - Shopping: Children: Parties

                          Oh and calm down man. you're going to give yourself a heart attack. :rolleyes:
                          What? No CASE CLOSED?

                          Surely if you repeat it a certain arbitrary number of times [ kinda like the arbitrary # of spammy OBL links googles algo has plugged into before the forum impolodes ] the whole world will canonize it as gospel - according to Sybil. Or did we already reach the arbitrary threshold?
                          Signature
                          Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785407].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    As usual you don't read very well (or at all in some cases).

                    A) Seomoz lists a whole range of lower competition keywords not the top tier of competition (just as I have REPEATEDLY said) nothing like even weight loss (which I have proven no one ranks top for on the power of mass bots)
                    Malcom,

                    Maybe it's you who doesn't read very well. Notice the part where he says:

                    "On nearly every commercially lucrative search results I pull up these days, I see bad links pushing bad sites into the top rankings at Google"
                    Emphasis being placed on commercially lucrative. In most cases, commercially lucrative and competition come hand in hand. ****, that is probably something I missed because I didn't pass my kindergarten SEO class.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785094].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

                      "On nearly every commercially lucrative ..............In most cases, commercially lucrative and competition come hand in hand.
                      I feel for you bro. Thats really weak . I have found a lot of commercially lucrative keywords that were not competitive. You can't? Thats the whole reason I will still sell a profile package and teach people to use it first. Then as they make some money and not blast all the possible relationships they could have built to pieces with spam bots they can learn to build on page High PR links going forward.

                      Reading is STILL a problem. I've said that like what ten times already. But you know what can I say ....if thats the best you can do in response to the raw data given.

                      Just spare me the whining about calling you guys out on SEO with stating things about "Basic SEo etc. You guys come out in every thread you don't like an d blast away. Now you complain because you got back more than you can handle. . You just finished descending on another guy in a post calling his point illogical/stupid so please jif you don't want it don;tgive it.

                      I didn''t call anyone by name into this thread to bad mouth their SEO. The same crew always shows up to try to bad mouth mine. Dont expect a backdown. Call me Sybil. malcolm whatever you want. that most definitely is kindergarten
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785202].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author SaleemY
                  Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post


                  "On nearly every commercially lucrative search results I pull up these days, I see bad links pushing bad sites into the top rankings at Google"
                  Totally true, I've analysed lots of different top ranking sites in a range of markets and a very large % of them have links lots of low quality links such as profiles. Despite what Google says some of these strategies do work and I've seen a tonne of evidence to support this!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2789410].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by WebTrafficControl View Post

                    Totally true, I've analysed lots of different top ranking sites in a range of markets and a very large % of them have links lots of low quality links such as profiles. Despite what Google says some of these strategies do work and I've seen a tonne of evidence to support this!
                    The mere existence of profile links in a search result backlinks is really immaterial to this debate. You could have a link from your grandma's blog it wouldn't prove that her blog was the driving force behind a ranking if there were several other higher PR pages linking in.. They can be there but not be THE reason the site is ranking. My challenge was simple and has not been contradicted. Very seldom in a really compeitive niche is there a site that ranks JUST on profile links. As you stated there are niches but that does nt translate to highly competitive terms or to all niches.

                    The issue is are these links powerful enough to rank in serps that are really competitive. Post 205 has debunked that these were very competitive terms and even in those results time and time and time again the stronger links in their portfolios were not profile links they were high on page PR pages even Yahoo and Dmoz listings.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2789533].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            I don't deny that profile links are good for some niches and i recommend them to start out or for supplemental use but they are over hyped. They rarely are found as the major links in truly competitive niches where there are sites that have established themselves well.
            A true White Hat Purist, as you elevate yourself to, would never, ever, ever use a forum profile link as an effective means of SEO.

            It's not natural.

            Are you sure you weren't a politician in another life?
            Signature
            My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
            http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
            Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MB Ninja
    Why are you so hung up on PageRank? I've seen sites that have a pile of high PR backlinks and they rank lower than sites with a lot less high PR backlinks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769880].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MB Ninja View Post

      Why are you so hung up on PageRank? I've seen sites that have a pile of high PR backlinks and they rank lower than sites with a lot less high PR backlinks.
      You haven't seen me even once refer to my sites PR so lets not start another round of your distortions. I'm talking about getting backlinks FROM high PR pages and if you don't know that those are more powerful than zero what can I say?

      Now as to your observation - true - in the serps you will see high Pr pages and pages with HIGH PR backlinks outranked for certain keyword phrases obviously because of relevance. No page can be relevant in all searches but don't get confused by the clap trap you read on these forums (or since you seem to choose to then be confused).

      If a site has the same optimization on page and in incoming anchor text for the same keyword term a high Pr page will outrank a lower one all the time for THAT term and yes PR is the cumulative measurement of the quality of incoming links.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769935].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MB Ninja
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        You haven't seen me even once refer to my sites PR so lets not start another round of your distortions. I'm talking about getting backlinks FROM high PR pages and if you don't know that those are more powerful than zero what can I say?
        Wow, buddy. Distortions? It was you that didn't realize I wasn't even talking to you on the previous page.

        Second, I know you're not talking about domain PR. My point is that you can look at a top 10 site's backlink profile and see deep link URLs with high PR everywhere, and then look at another site that has a lot less of the same thing but still ranks higher in the same top 10 SERPs.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769962].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by MB Ninja View Post

          Wow, buddy. Distortions? It was you that didn't realize I wasn't even talking to you on the previous page.
          You were . its right there on the last page where you quoted me and used the word "you" responding directly to my quote. thats on you not me.

          Second, I know you're not talking about domain PR. My point is that you can look at a top 10 site's backlink profile and see deep link URLs with high PR everywhere, and then look at another site that has a lot less of the same thing but still ranks higher in the same top 10 SERPs.
          Not a point. Like I said theres also on page factors which is why I specifically stated if they are both optimized ON PAGE AND OFF PAGE (anchor text) then the site with the overall stronger links will win every time.

          So my point stands and there is no fixation on just PR as you distorted . I clearly said that on page factors must be optimized as well.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2769981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MB Ninja
    Yeah, I quoted you, but I could've quoted anyone. It wouldn't make a difference. Nobody said they use white hat tactics, so I randomly chose your post. You understood this, so I don't know why you're bringing it up again.

    As for on-page seo, sure. I can agree with you there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2770073].message }}
  • I wonder how google looks at the WF referral links I get from people clicking the link in my signature then? I guess the more clicks I get, WF becomes less and less important? Also, whats the threshold for a link being considered spam? Because I know there are legitimate situations where a site really does backlink a significant amount, and your telling me they are punished because of that? ....smh
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2771880].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by theleathercollection View Post

      I wonder how google looks at the WF referral links I get from people clicking the link in my signature then? I guess the more clicks I get, WF becomes less and less important?

      Click throughs in my OP? where? It would have to be the ghost of Wf that typed that there. Nope. Not there. Well bust that pesky ghost some other time though just make sure the streams don't cross. That really ticks Dan, Bill and Harold off.

      Also, whats the threshold for a link being considered spam? Because I know there are legitimate situations where a site really does backlink a significant amount, and your telling me they are punished because of that? ....smh
      I stated the links in general all things being equal would individually lose juice. and yes if sites become known to be link farms there can be penalties. its not just links but where the links go. Go ahead and follow Steve's nonsense that who you link to cannot affect you

      This has nothing to do with what Mike Anthony is saying. Read

      http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356

      Google Declares Jihad On Blog Link Farms

      SEOmoz | More on Nofollow at SEOmoz and How Bad Outbounds Can Impact Websites

      Want more? google is your friend. Want to believe forum gurus over top research SEO groups and Google? Be my guest. but it has nothing to do with me saying it. its just standard kindergarten SEO.

      Mike smh
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2772429].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


        Want more? google is your friend. Want to believe forum gurus over top research SEO groups and Google? Be my guest. but it has nothing to do with me saying it. its just standard kindergarten SEO.

        Mike smh
        Finally a snippet of truth ... Yup Google is your friend... if you watch what Google does - NOT what [ it ] Matt Cutts says.
        Signature
        Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774222].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        its just standard kindergarten SEO.
        If I had a dollar for every time MA uses the phrase "standard kindergarten SEO" to infer that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't know the first thing about SEO, and that those who do disagree must therefor be idiots, I would be on Forbes list of the richest Americans.

        In any event, note that I never said a site could never be penalized for outgoing links (as I believe it can), but the issues are:

        (1) your example in the first post of this thread is BS (as I've (and others) have noted). First, it doesn't show any sort of causal link. Second, the top 4 listings don't line up AT ALL with the previous top 4 listings. It wasn't just this guys site. The previous #1 site was no longer in the top 4 even, only a couple of weeks later. That seems more like some Google dance or generic reshifting than anything.

        (2) it isn't as simple as saying that a site will get hit with some sort of negative penalty when X number of bad neighborhood links or X% of bad neighborhood links on a given domain occur;

        (3) as far as I know, no one who has replied in this thread actually has sites that would be considered bad neighborhood sites by google (pharma, porn, etc.). The issue isn't with putting up profile links, its people who post links to horse sex and cheap cialis. Who are those people? Those are the people who have Xrumer running it from Amsterdam or Moscow, and aren't the people buying so-and-so's packet of sites to place links. As for an increase in overall outbound linking, I just don't see that as a significant issue so long as the links aren't going to bad neighborhood sites. Unless you own the domain and getting links that way, you will never control the OBLs, and any site worth linking from will increase their OBLs. How many links are coming out of EZA do you think? In addition, I know that a lot of us send a majority of our links through some sort of boosting mechanism, so I actually send more links to a given profile than I get coming back.


        Tom
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774287].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

          If I had a dollar for every time MA uses the phrase "standard kindergarten SEO" to infer that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't know the first thing about SEO, and that those who do disagree must therefor be idiots, I would be on Forbes list of the richest Americans.
          oh brother :rolleyes: You descend on any thread that contradicts your practices with great gusto as if its all nonsense and then you whine when I point out your nonsense. Suck it up man not whine. It IS basic Kindergarten SEO. I believe you woud now have four dollars. fire up xrumer if you want to get on the forbes list.

          In any event, note that I never said a site could never be penalized for outgoing links (as I believe it can)
          So you know some SEO more than Steve. thats good. maybe you can get him to stop trying to lead newbies astray with the nonsense that it can't .

          your example in the first post of this thread is BS (as I've (and others) have noted).
          Which one. i have cited several. All BS? Seomoz confirmed the same study. You are like a broken record. Same objection same rebuttal. Several examples and sources have been mentioned and you still want to pretend like there was only one example and one source. Not an intellectually honest way to rebut a point made on several sources but if its all you got its all you got .

          it isn't as simple as saying that a site will get hit with some sort of negative penalty when X number of bad neighborhood links or X% of bad neighborhood links on a given domain occur;
          Neither you nor I know the algorithm so stop pretending like you do. I never mentioned any magical number and you know it. No one knows it. PR however is not infinite. That is known. You divide the overall strength with more and more links so again - basic Elementary SEO states that all other things being equal the more you hammer a site with outgoing links the less link juice PER link it has to give.

          as far as I know, no one who has replied in this thread actually has sites that would be considered bad neighborhood sites by google (pharma, porn, etc.). The issue isn't with putting up profile links, its people who post links to horse sex and cheap cialis.
          The issue is stated in the Op and it addresses itself both to the number of links and to where the links point. You don't get to redefine the issue stated in the OP. Too many links on a site tends to degrade the individual power of those links and give me a break that you don't teach people who do pharma, gambling and sex related spam how to do it more effectively with bots so it is relevant. If you want to pretend that 1500 links on a comment page is not spammy then fine thats your error but it IS both a quantity and a neighborhood issue.


          In addition, I know that a lot of us send a majority of our links through some sort of boosting mechanism, so I actually send more links to a given profile than I get coming back.


          Tom
          oh please spare me the garbage. Most "boosting" systems do nothing to add real PR back. Save that 10-100 times more powerful garbage for sales copy. if you send 10,000 links to back up 2,000 then you are just sending Pr pretty close to zero in each link becaue you are diluting whatever source of PR you use. its mostly good for indexing not Pr and thats why they can sell people the garbage that it makes the links more powerful. All it really does is cover for the problem that the links are so deeply embedded (and therefore lacking in pr) that they can't even be found by the spider.

          But thanks for the extra point that the more links you put on a site the less likely it becomes that they get crawled because the spider does not spend unlimited time going through every single link on a site.

          You've opened the door for yet another example of how the Op is right and you are wrong.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774690].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
    I must have missed the memo where it says that SEOmoz, et al, is the final authority on SEO and everything that comes from the site is completely altruistic and that true professionals are to buy everything SEOmoz says hook, line, and sinker.

    Guess that memo didn't make it through my spam filter

    Warmly,

    Brandi
    Signature
    My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
    http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
    Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774765].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Articles4Sale
    It may or may not, but one cannot argue that xrumer is still effective
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774793].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author amaracray
    I really like this thread, it has some good info, but is it possible for some of you to keep it focussed and less personal as we are going off topic. I reckon most of us are just interested in good info and a proper discussion.
    Signature

    Add a awesome slideshow to your website made with Amara Web Animation Software

    Australian Web Designer

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2774879].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
      Originally Posted by amaracray View Post

      I really like this thread, it has some good info, but is it possible for some of you to keep it focussed and less personal as we are going off topic. I reckon most of us are just interested in good info and a proper discussion.
      We are certainly interested in good info.

      Hence the dissidence re: OP.
      Signature
      My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
      http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
      Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2775291].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
      Originally Posted by amaracray View Post

      I really like this thread, it has some good info, but is it possible for some of you to keep it focussed and less personal as we are going off topic. I reckon most of us are just interested in good info and a proper discussion.
      There's plenty of good info - sadly it doesnt come from the OP... errrr.... scuze me - His Royal Highness of SEO
      Signature
      Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2779207].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PaulSmith1
    Today, technology got effective, a little spam is also detected.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2775329].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
      Originally Posted by PaulSmith1 View Post

      Today, technology got effective, a little spam is also detected.
      You don't say?
      Signature
      My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
      http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
      Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2775470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author agorimorgan
    Many people, myself included, believe they have actually had the word almost as a way to be an agnostic on the matter that a competitor could, for example, hack your site and install malicious software such. In such cases, a competitor hurt your site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2775686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jazbo
    Mike I have to say, you throw a great party. I love your threads. truly I do, they are like a firework display, one you have carefully planned but that just as it gets underway, some sparks set off all the fireworks and it goes to hell in a handcart.

    Thank you for entertaining us, if adding nothing else of value.

    The bottom line Mike, which everyone can see, is that you re-invented yourself from "unique" link spam seller, to "legit" SEO "guru" and expect people to lap it up like good kittens.

    Sorry, it hasn't worked.

    Perhaps you could try again. How about an automation expert? SENuke, Xrumer, Scrapebox. Set of viedo tutorials and some services could make you a fortune.
    Signature
    CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
    Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2776996].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by jazbo View Post


      he bottom line Mike, which everyone can see, is that you re-invented yourself from "unique" link spam seller, to "legit" SEO "guru" and expect people to lap it up like good kittens.

      Sorry, it hasn't worked.
      No Jaz your lying hasn't worked and its about to crash and burn . thanks for the opportunity to now prove it after you have insisted on the lie

      http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...warrriors.html

      post no 36 - Dated before the ban on links - 03-06-2010, 09:40 PM - and while I was selling and in response to - Shocker! 4referrals (hmm same crew in every thread I rebut spam bots - wonder why)

      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

      Ignore him guys. Just a seller that doesn't want to see free stuff given away and is upset because I alerted people in another thread that Vbulletin 4 forums are being made nofollow. I'm guessing this truth affects him adversely so he's running around to every thread of mine. That and the fact that he knows I don't endorse people using totally automated mass spam tools that get their links removed and give their business a sure reputation as spammers. Truth hurts some people more than others

      I suspect truth still hurts. There in back and white is none other but me opposing spam bots even when I was selling a link package contrary to your lie. I guess because Its IM some people think that everybody will continue to buy from them even when the facts expose them fabricating on an open forum. I wouldn't trust in that though Jaz. People are generally smarter than you think they are. If you can't tell the truth on a forum then why should anyone believe you will tell the truth with anything much less SEO advice or services.

      People see how this works. they are so desperate to squelch any one that criticizes their practice that they can't stay on the facts. Their desperation at being unable to counter the truth has them making up easily provable lies.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2777112].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
        If you don't think this is the best SEO technique ever.....I will fight you

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2777253].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jazbo
        Oh Mike, give it a rest.

        What is the difference between a "spam bot" as you call it, and your profile link packet service? Both are spammy links in the true sense of the word, but one is using complete automation to achieve it while yours still uses partial automation.

        You are using a strawman.

        This is your service I am referring to:

        http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...on-closed.html

        In that service you supply the links (spammy profile links) and people submitted them through your site using roboform.

        automation, a spam bot.

        You were still telling people this service was open (about to have a major upgrade no less) as late as April this year!

        So simple yes or no question Mike, are you still running that site, that allows people to do profile linking using roboform automation?

        YES / NO



        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        No Jaz your lying hasn't worked and its about to crash and burn . thanks for the opportunity to now prove it after you have insisted on the lie

        http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...warrriors.html

        post no 36 - Dated before the ban on links - 03-06-2010, 09:40 PM - and while I was selling and in response to - Shocker! 4referrals (hmm same crew in every thread I rebut spam bots - wonder why)




        I suspect truth still hurts. There in back and white is none other but me opposing spam bots even when I was selling a link package contrary to your lie. I guess because Its IM some people think that everybody will continue to buy from them even when the facts expose them fabricating on an open forum. I wouldn't trust in that though Jaz. People are generally smarter than you think they are. If you can't tell the truth on a forum then why should anyone believe you will tell the truth with anything much less SEO advice or services.

        People see how this works. they are so desperate to squelch any one that criticizes their practice that they can't stay on the facts. Their desperation at being unable to counter the truth has them making up easily provable lies.
        Signature
        CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
        Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2779293].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by jazbo View Post

          This is your service I am referring to:
          Refer a way Jazbo. nowhere in this thread did I say I did not use or sell profile links. IF you hadn't noticed the OP says Massive spam links. Profile links in moderation are great. They provide immediate backlinks and if done right they can lead to even better linking opportunities - thats been discussed in this very thread SEVERAL TIMES.

          Look having been caught RED HANDED in the bare faced lie that I changed my position I can understand you would want to run away into another debate thats already been covered but I won't oblige. Now if you want to apologize for lying then thats another matter. I'm a very forgiving guy under those circumstances.

          But if you want to start out with another piece of dishonesty that a form filler is the same as a bot you can have at it. Dishonest once then dishonest twice. I really don't give a rip what you or any of the other blasters think especially after the collective lying that your side has done in this thread.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2779363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stacyk
    I've always talked about this to my clients who tend to sway to BH techniques. You need a definitely good balance with all links in general. Without a good balance you will never see results longterm. SEO is longterm not shortterm. If you are after shortterm look towards SEM and PPC
    Signature
    EMDVault find all your EXACT MATCH DOMAIN
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2777557].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by stacyk View Post

      I've always talked about this to my clients who tend to sway to BH techniques. ............... SEO is longterm not shortterm. If you are after shortterm look towards SEM and PPC
      Yes you are of course right about long term and not just short term strategies. the amusing thing is you could post this on any respected SEo forum and it wouldn't raise any fluster. Professional SEOs know all this stuff . You have to go on wicked fire or an IM SEO board to hear people talk such utter nonsense.

      I don't know that I would avoid all BH techniques because that definition is very wide but long term a legit business isn't served by having their corporate identity associated with massive spam to the point where their site is posted on listing for businesses that support spam.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2779436].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Goodwin
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Professional SEOs know all this stuff
        Here we go again. It is the same thing as you saying this is "kindergarten SEO" every 2nd post. Instead of debating facts and logical arguments, you simply revert back to making these statements implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be a moron. Give it a rest already.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2779575].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin View Post

          Instead of debating facts and logical arguments,
          Give me one of either. I've been waiting four pages the best you could do was the faulty logic of attempting the invalidation of multi sourced research results based on your inability to grasp one example - and Tom worry about things you can change. the terms I choose to use in my posts isn't one of them. There is nothing you are going to do to make me stop referring to professional SEOs. It violates no rules to point to what well respected SEOS have researched and proven. Live with it and stop whining.

          Meanwhile let me go work on my backlink package . Got to give people something besides forum backlinks. Might even fire up scrapebox - to find not place.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2779663].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by digidoodles

    I'm not sure that I've ever seen you give one bit of helpful advice in terms of what to do to rank. Your advice is always what NOT to do, in your opinion.
    Nice try but thats you there and it says nothing about whether my advice helped it represents that I never posted anything to help. I called it what it was. I pointed to one example in the sticky and in that thread people said they were helped so you are wrong on every count. If you were even mistaken you now had the opportunity to in fairness change that stand based on the facts that were presented to you. You still decline which has nothing to do with being honest. Sorry Not looking to upset you but my point stands as to the honesty of that statement.

    and how many times do you have to try the same old dishonest technique of claiming I am only white hat when I've said multiple times I don't care about hats. I just won't slam sites mercilessly because they allow me to leave links . I am quite aware that in many circles leaving any link is black or grey hat so you have no point.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785379].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    the case was closed in post 205. thats what has you so enraged. every proof posted gets you angrier and angrier. thats why I said to calm down. You can bust an artery it won't change that none of those sites rank on profile backlinks alone but on high Pr pages.

    You don't know anything about it me nor I you. Your entire animosity stretches back months because of the positions I hold on SEo but they are not going to change and frankly the more you come charging in to try and squelch opposing viewpoints of mine the more I will share those.

    All you have done and will do in future posts is to give them more replies and bumps. haven't you seen that?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2785441].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author digidoodles
    What constitutes spamming?

    Are 300 links ok? How about 450? Are 999 ok, but 1,000 spammy?

    Actually, the defining point of "spam" is "unwanted and unsolicited". By that definition, if permission is not requested prior to placing the link, one link could be spam.

    Food for thought.

    Warmly,

    Brandi
    Signature
    My niche is feeding my family... What's yours?
    http://www.DoOrDieMarketing.com
    Watch Us as We Do It Or D.IE... Are you Along For The Ride
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2789429].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by digidoodles View Post


      Actually, the defining point of "spam" is "unwanted and unsolicited". By that definition, if permission is not requested prior to placing the link, one link could be spam.
      Agreed so if you do not read the terms of service to even know whether the site you are linking in allows it or not and if you circumvent their captcha which is definitely unwanted then you are a spammer. thanks Digi. you've summarized my point.


      Once however their is no prohibition about leaving the link in the terms and you follow the rules of the site and they present a place for you to leave your link BY PROGRAMMING DESIGN then by your own definition such activities cannot always be considered spam.

      So it has little to do with how many links. You are right. what it has to do with is reading their rules, agreeing to their terms and not breaking their captcha. Your bots cannot do that for you.

      Your definition proves my point.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2789552].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author adamv
        If a site has a place for you to put your link that tells me that they want people to put links up or that they don't have a problem with it. If they did have a problem with it they could remove the ability to post links.

        About captchas, what difference does it make if I enter the captcha myself or if I have someone from the Philippines do it for $.002?

        I use profile linking and if someone wants to call me a spammer because of it, I don't really care. But to suggest that entering a captcha myself is okay but having someone else do it for me is wrong doesn't make any sense.
        Signature

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2789646].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Well you can disagree with it but theres no rational under which it doesn't make perfect sense. Is there any difference between a person signing up for your list or having someone in the phillipines do it for the person you are sending the freebie to?


          Besides thats about where you agree to the terms of service. makes no sense for you that someone in the phillipines can't agree to terms for you?

          Bottom line for me is that if a webmaster is good enough in this nofollow world to let me leave a link the least I can do is at least see his site and give him a shot at converting me to a regular member. Thats why he has the forum. He really doesn't have it just so I can send a bot in to leave a link on his site and never give him the time of day and we all know that.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2789687].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Wilson
            Mike, I gotta say your powers to turn any argument around are very impressive. I see it every night on tv, politicians turning questions around and never actually answering anything. I don't have time to write 500 word posts on here as I actually have work to do as I don't sell IM products so unlike you it is not in my interests to be on here arguing with people all the time.

            I don't follow you or tom goodwin or 4referalls or anyone else on this thread (never bought a product of any of you) , I just test and go with what works. I don't like to see people manipulated as many people on here are trying to make a living and are down to the bare bones. This is my last comment on this thread regardless of what essay you choose to reply to this with as I have no reason to be here and should never have got involved with this thread in the first place.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2790401].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Dennis seeing as how your last post contained absolutely nothing to do with the topic but just another one of your typical personal attacks (you have been in multiple similar thread with the same general defense of mass spam) You could have been consistent with your claim that you should not have gotten involved in the thread.

    It would have saved the time you said you needed. Pretend if you like that ample evidence has not been presented. I've yet to see a mass spam bot proponent claim otherwise but appealing to not selling IM product makes no difference to anything in relationship to spam bots. People from all niches do it and if talking about the downsides of it stopped people from making money then people would be far more successfull than the stats before this post indicate they are.

    So your point to the extent there was any is pointless. For my part I see a good bit of politician in your part as well. Most politicians are willing to do whatever suits them and their purposes as well as give no satisfactory answer for their actions - similar to how people ignore the site and site owners that they blast.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2790969].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fannyballard
    The objective of all search engines provide us all with unique content and relevant. They will continue to pursue until all the tactics BH irrelevant.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142785].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author princeambrose12
    Banned
    The objective of all search engines provide us all with unique content and relevant. They will continue to pursue until all the tactics BH irrelevant.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3290408].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Soulofinfamy
    Yup, just like blog comment spam not working, None of these link building techniques are new. Xrumer wasn't created last month.
    Signature
    _______________________________________


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3422270].message }}

Trending Topics