How can I Get BackLinks From Edu / Gov site

37 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hey everyone, I'm interested an getting some backlinks from edu / gov sites but i don't know where to go.... any ideas?
#backlinks #gov #site
  • Profile picture of the author Richard Green
    Originally Posted by ThelemaqueTip View Post

    Hey everyone, I'm interested an getting some backlinks from edu / gov sites but i don't know where to go.... any ideas?
    Getting backlinks from a .gov site will prove to be difficult I think.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603250].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by ThelemaqueTip View Post

    I'm interested an getting some backlinks from edu
    Just in case you were unaware: don't assume that .edu backlinks are necessarily going to be valuable "just because they're .edu backlinks".

    That isn't how it works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Contrary to popular belief, it isn't the "being on a .edu site" aspect of it that gives any advantage.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603267].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Domain-extensions have no bearing, in themselves, either on SEO or the value of backlinks.
      Testing has shown otherwise in SEO. .com > .org > .net in ranking factors.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603278].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Search
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603446].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
        Originally Posted by Search View Post

        ... but there are other people in this thread who claim to have tested this and have arrived at a different conclusion.
        From what I can see, so far only one person in this thread (Mike) is claiming otherwise. That is against 3 others (Alexa, Jason and now myself) who are saying domain extensions have no bearing on rankings or backlink strength.

        Three against one, with the added bonus of basic logic, common sense, and the words of Google's own Matt Cutts being on our side, and you're still not convinced?

        Well, conspiracy theorists never are convinced they're wrong, I suppose, are they? There are people out there who think the controversial words of a few no-name scientists and engineers (or those who at least claim to be so), evaluating the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 11 September 2001, nullifies common sense and the scientific opinion of thousands of others ... "who are clearly part of the cover up".

        This is what happens when you've pre-formed a stance or opinion and have some unexplainable emotional investment in not wavering from it under any circumstances.

        You might consider conducting your own tests and reaching your own conclusions, in this case.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603587].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Search
          Banned
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603653].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Search View Post

            What motivation would someone have to say they have tested this theory and found out otherwise from what you are saying, if, in fact, it's not true?
            Someone selling .edu backlinks might have a motivation a little different from other discussion participants, don't you think? At the least, the possibility is legitimately raised, wouldn't you say? :p

            Like the people who post about "spinning" in forum threads here, and have websites selling spinning software which warn people about the so-called "duplicate content penalty".
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603690].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by Search View Post

            What motivation would someone have to say they have tested this theory and found out otherwise from what you are saying, if, in fact, it's not true?
            I'm not implying anyone has any motivation to lie.

            What I am implying is that some people don't really know how to - or aren't able to - accurately test these things. And that's not surprising, nor is it a "jab" at anyone's intelligence or abilities. Most of these things are hard to test, by their very nature.

            But in the same vein as the point you've just made, what motivation would Google's own employees (Matt Cutts, specifically) have for outright lying to everyone?

            And as far as common sense and logic go, do you really believe Google is oblivious to the fact that most university students have the ability to publish whatever they desire on their own .edu-based blogs? And what about the possibility of certain pieces of content being of a purely philosophical - rather than a factual - basis? Would it be a good idea for Google to make the assumption that all content on a .edu domain is more valuable, more accurate and more relevant, "just because", and that all backlinks from .edu domains must, for similar reasons, be more valuable, when it needn't be the case at all?

            But like I say: the best thing you can do, if you have the time, patience and inclination, is to test for yourself.

            I'm not encouraging you to take a stance one way or another. But from what I can see, you've just responded more favourably to a one-line post of a guy making a declaration with no evidence or logic to back it up, whilst simultaneously overlooking - and then challenging! - a longer, more in-depth and better backed-up post from someone else. So you cannot blame me for accusing you of having "pre-formed a conclusion", can you, surely?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603720].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
          Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

          From what I can see, so far only one person in this thread (Mike) is claiming otherwise. That is against 3 others (Alexa, Jason and now myself) who are saying domain extensions have no bearing on rankings or backlink strength.

          Three against one, with the added bonus of basic logic, common sense, and the words of Google's own Matt Cutts being on our side, and you're still not convinced?

          Well, conspiracy theorists never are convinced they're wrong, I suppose, are they? There are people out there who think the controversial words of a few no-name scientists and engineers (or those who at least claim to be so), evaluating the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 11 September 2001, nullifies common sense and the scientific opinion of thousands of others ... "who are clearly part of the cover up".

          This is what happens when you've pre-formed a stance or opinion and have some unexplainable emotional investment in not wavering from it under any circumstances.

          You might consider conducting your own tests and reaching your own conclusions, in this case.
          Why do you listen to what Cutts says?

          Do you honestly think the head of the search quality department for G is going to give you tips, hints, and tricks to game their algorithm? Lol, come on. He even recommends against article marketing, LOL.

          No offense to you guys, but I'm confident SEOMoz and their studies are more proof than your opinions.



          Google vs. Bing: Correlation Analysis of Ranking Elements | SEOmoz
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603673].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by Mike Grant View Post

            Do you honestly think the head of the search quality department for G is going to give you tips, hints, and tricks to game their algorithm? Lol, come on.

            Nope. I don't expect him to give clues as to how to go about gaming their SERPs, at all; but neither do I expect him to come out and propagate blatant lies. Especially not if they were so transparent and easy to disprove.

            Originally Posted by Mike Grant View Post

            He even recommends against article marketing, LOL.
            Not exactly. But then again, that depends on your definition of article marketing, also. Because as far as I could tell, he surely wasn't speaking out against the sort of article marketing that I do.

            Originally Posted by Mike Grant View Post

            No offense to you guys, but I'm confident SEOMoz and their studies are more proof than your opinions.
            Well ... good for you. You maintain that position, then. You're perfectly within your rights to do so. :p
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603882].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
              Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

              Nope. I don't expect him to give clues as to how to go about gaming their SERPs, at all; but neither do I expect him to come out and propagate blatant lies. Especially not if they were so transparent and easy to disprove.



              Not exactly. But then again, that depends on your definition of article marketing, also. Because as far as I could tell, he surely wasn't speaking out against the sort of article marketing that I do.



              Well ... good for you. You maintain that position, then. You're perfectly within your rights to do so. :p
              Video, if you were wondering, about him saying he wouldn't do article marketing. I don't know how you do it yourself, so I cannot comment.

              I'm of the position that if you don't believe a billion dollar corporation is going to lie to protect their secret to what makes them successful then you're being naive.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603969].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Search View Post

        What information or evidence do you use to arrive at this statement. Have you actually tested your hypothesis? It does seem to make some sense, your view, but there are other people in this thread who claim to have tested this and have arrived at a different conclusion.
        That will always be so. I've tested some aspects of it repeatedly, others not at all. I can't usefully add to the kind of things I've said in posts like this and in all the threads linked to in that post. I can name SEO experts widely acknowledged to be of high repute who say exactly the same (such as the author of the book "SEO For Dummies" - and you don't get to be a Wiley author for that series without being in very high repute) but at the end of the day it's still all opinion, of course. Internet Marketing is like that: however much you've tested something yourself, and however impeccable the credentials of the people you quote, there are always people who can say that their own testing results didn't bear it out, and it's quite right that they should, of course, if they didn't bear it out.

        The specific ".edu point" I was making in post #4 of this thread, however, I think is pretty indisputable: I'm certainly not aware of anyone having tested that and found anything different. And it would certainly be very bizarre indeed if it were not so.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603616].message }}
  • The above pretty much sums its up. The topic of the voting page if related to the site it targets could give its link more juice.

    Could be worth it for link diversity.. apart from that I can't think of any other benefits.

    Getting your link permanantly on a relating wordpress blog with high PR on most pages is a big WIN.

    Especially if your link is listed as a useful site within that niche in a blogroll list.

    because if the webmaster has the widget to show up on all its pages then you're getting linked to by several high PR pages.

    These aren't easy to get, but they're gold.

    Soz, Mike posted while I was typing.

    But on the subject, where are these testings? With over 200 ways of deciding how to rank a website you think it's as simple as ranking a .net, .org, .com according to what Google finds most trust-worthy and valuable?

    Cmon.. Google is very well aware that each extension has a certain meaning and that malicious intents can be achieved with any TLD. It isn't a simple case of one being better than the other, because I've seen cases where a .com has a lot more links but still gets beat out by a .org .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BenoitT
    You can use a software called Scrape Box to find .gov/.edu site where you can post comments. Don't spam with it, just find the websites and go send an interesting comment.

    You can pay someone to do it for you also. It's your choice.
    Signature

    Benoit Tremblay

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603348].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author EliteWealth
      Originally Posted by BenoitT View Post

      You can use a software called Scrape Box to find .gov/.edu site where you can post comments. Don't spam with it, just find the websites and go send an interesting comment.
      What or how many post to different .edu/.gov sites would you consider spam? Or to any site. And how many PR5 to PR9 links are enough for a good SEO ranking.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603693].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Every time I reply to a post in this thread, I come back a few minutes later and find that either the post to which I replied, or a sig-file has been amended after my reply. I'm not complaining about that, per se, or suggesting that members are not allowed to behave like that, but to me personally it makes the thread not conducive to pleasant discussion, so I'll just leave you to it, guys, if that's the sort of conversation you really want. For myself, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than try to score cheap points under circumstances which leave me with a funny taste in my mouth.

        My sole reason for posting here was to try to help the OP by alerting him to something of which I thought he might well be unaware, and I did that in post #4 above. Enjoy the rest of the thread.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603727].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Search
          Banned
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603829].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
            Originally Posted by Search View Post

            I haven't the slightest clue what you are referring to
            I'm not sure, either.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603844].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Search
              Banned
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603893].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                Originally Posted by Search View Post

                I was assuming your are the culprit. What's your problem? You got a girl to act like a girl.
                I thought the sig part was direct at me, too, but I posted before her, so I'm left confused. If it was directed at me, I also never once edited it. She only decided to back out of the conversation when asked to provide proof of her testing, so *shrug*.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603976].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Search
                  Banned
                  [DELETED]
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603994].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                    Originally Posted by Search View Post

                    Makes no difference to me.

                    While you're here, though, could you tell me how you have tested this stuff?
                    Sure.

                    Bought EMDs, of .com, .net, .org. for a super low competition keyword.

                    Same metas, articles, theme, plugins, hosting, backlinks, and anchor text. Let it run for 6 weeks, and bam.

                    edit - My findings weren't uncommon, either. Pretty inline with the SEOMoz results I posted and linked to above.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604011].message }}
                  • Originally Posted by Search View Post

                    Makes no difference to me.

                    While you're here, though, could you tell me how you have tested this stuff?
                    Keep in mind, any theories tossed about by anyone can neither be right nor wrong. None of us work at Google, so any discussion regarding SEO is just the theory that individual chooses to believe in.

                    I choose to believe that Google does not favour any TLD. Why would they?

                    Mike, chooses to think otherwise. Neither of us can be right nor wrong (obviously one of us are) amongst those who do not work at Google. They know which of us is right.... I think it's time for a warrior break-in?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604040].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                      Originally Posted by Jason Perez O'Connor View Post

                      Keep in mind, any theories tossed about by anyone can neither be right nor wrong. None of us work at Google, so any discussion regarding SEO is just the theory that individual chooses to believe in.

                      I choose to believe that Google does not favour any TLD. Why would they?

                      Mike, chooses to think otherwise. Neither of us can be right nor wrong (obviously one of us are) amongst those who do not work at Google. They know which of us is right.... I think it's time for a warrior break-in?
                      I'll be the lookout!
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604047].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Search
                      Banned
                      [DELETED]
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604055].message }}
                      • Originally Posted by Search View Post

                        I hear what you're saying, but Mike said he actually tested this personally and how. That, to me, lends credence to his position.
                        A test like this would cost as little as 20-30 dollars. Try it, and see what you get.

                        I've seen no difference.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604068].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Search
                          Banned
                          [DELETED]
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604087].message }}
                          • Originally Posted by Search View Post

                            Why did you test this? May I ask that?
                            This specifically? no, but I own all extensions and when going up against competition regardless of the TLD they all react the same for me.

                            Don't get hung up on this, it really isn't that important.

                            *edit* what I meant is all those TLDs cost like 10 dollars, and you can use free hosting for your test.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604112].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      Originally Posted by Jason Perez O'Connor View Post

                      Keep in mind, any theories tossed about by anyone can neither be right nor wrong. None of us work at Google, so any discussion regarding SEO is just the theory that individual chooses to believe in.

                      I choose to believe that Google does not favour any TLD. Why would they?

                      Mike, chooses to think otherwise. Neither of us can be right nor wrong (obviously one of us are) amongst those who do not work at Google. They know which of us is right.... I think it's time for a warrior break-in?
                      The reasoning is from exclusivity and the fact that not everyone can get .edu or .gov domain. Anyone with $10 can get a com, net, org and if you have $2 you can probably get a .info.

                      Be honest and aske yourself, if you were searching for real health info, which site would you click:
                      viagra.com
                      viagra.gov

                      But whether we know if it's true or not, it is reasonable from a logical point of view.

                      So why not include a few edu and gov links if you can? Even those that say they don't help haven't made a case that they hurt. So it really becomes a matter of time and effort.

                      Let me give a potential warning: I believe "balance" is important. I don't think that having 90% of your links from edu sites is "balanced". My opinion is that you want a mixture that simulates the percentages of "natural" linking.

                      There aren't that many edu and gov domains compared to the others. I like using a ratio of 40 "normal" links for every 1 .edu or .gov links. Although this 1:40 ratio is open for discussion, it's the one I try to target.

                      While edu and gov TLDs may not be of any benefit individually, it's possible they are part of a bigger pattern. And spending a day getting a few of these links isn't a big deal.

                      To answer the OP's question directly, here's a list for some potential footprints to find .edu and .gov links:
                      - Building a Linking Powerhouse: Link Footprints, URL Harvesting and Bulk PR Check

                      As posted above, please don't spam. Use these to find a few GOOD/RELEVANT edu and gov links. While I said edu and gov links may not hurt, a pattern of too many may potentially hurt. And there's no need to get tons of them.

                      But if you're looking for links, spending a few hours here and there getting a handful of edu and gov links is time well spend.
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604174].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Search
          Banned
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604180].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by Search View Post

            The only thing I have found that has changed within the last few hours is the mall "glamour shot" that accompanies yours posts. Is this what you are upset about? It wasn't noticed?
            Question: What in the world does Alexa's avatar have to do with the topic of this thread, or even any of the things we've touched on since it became slightly sidetracked?

            Answer: Nothing, unless you're just trolling.

            So you might want to stop the trolling, or take it elsewhere.

            By the way, I'm not here to answer questions on Alexa's behalf (and I'm sure she wouldn't take kindly to my trying to), but I could offer up a rebuttal to the results of Mike's "test". But since it's plain as day - and has been from the start, as a matter of fact - that you two aren't interested (you especially, Search) in entertaining possibilities other than those that tie in with your pre-formed beliefs on the subject, one will not try to convince you nor partake in any further discussion.

            But, I digress. The real point of this post is to say this: quit your trolling.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604366].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Chris Sorrell
              Just get hold of the 'footprints' of these sorts of links and you'll find absolutely loads of them.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604384].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author giovanni_carlo
                Originally Posted by sorrellaff View Post

                Just get hold of the 'footprints' of these sorts of links and you'll find absolutely loads of them.
                I tried the sites you gave but those sites will not approve comments
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606842].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Search
              Banned
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604433].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                Originally Posted by Search View Post

                Please do.
                I'm waiting as well.

                While he's at it, he may as well include a rebuttal for SEOMoz's findings that were inline with my findings. After all, it's plain as day and shouldn't be too difficult.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604660].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                  Originally Posted by Mike Grant View Post

                  I'm waiting as well.

                  While he's at it, he may as well include a rebuttal for SEOMoz's findings that were inline with my findings. After all, it's plain as day and shouldn't be too difficult.
                  Do not put words into my mouth please, Mike. I do not appreciate it.

                  Did I say it was "plain as day" that you're wrong? No, I didn't. On the contrary - I said, in an above post, that it was hard to accurately test these things and alluded to the fact one shouldn't form a decision off the potentially flawed conclusions of others.

                  What I did say was plain as day was the apparent fact that you two are so set on maintaining your stance, that it'd be a sorry waste of time to attempt to discuss this with you.

                  I think it's quite clear that you'd be resistent to see things any other way, anyway, because:

                  (1) You, Mike, quite clearly have a vested financial interest in the propagation of this stuff.

                  (2) You, Search, have clearly expressed a preference for Mike's viewpoint from the start, to the exclusion of all others. You only asked him for his testing methods, after I accused you of this, in the interest of not having it appear that you were siding with him from the very beginning.

                  Which, once again, is why I'm not going to try. And may I politely request that you don't bother to try coercing me into it. I've had enough experience with trolls recently to know that nothing positive can come from it.

                  Have a nice day.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605651].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                    Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                    Do not put words into my mouth please, Mike. I do not appreciate it.

                    Did I say it was "plain as day" that you're wrong? No, I didn't. On the contrary - I said, in an above post, that it was hard to accurately test these things and alluded to the fact one shouldn't form a decision off the potentially flawed conclusions of others.

                    What I did say was plain as day was the apparent fact that you two are so set on maintaining your stance, that it'd be a sorry waste of time to attempt to discuss this with you.

                    I think it's quite clear that you'd be resistent to see things any other way, anyway, because:

                    (1) You, Mike, quite clearly have a vested financial interest in the propagation of this stuff.

                    (2) You, Search, have clearly expressed a preference for Mike's viewpoint from the start, to the exclusion of all others. You only asked him for his testing methods, after I accused you of this, in the interest of not having it appear that you were siding with him from the very beginning.

                    Which, once again, is why I'm not going to try. And may I politely request that you don't bother to try coercing me into it. I've had enough experience with trolls recently to know that nothing positive can come from it.

                    Have a nice day.
                    If you search my posts, this has been brought up multiple times that I've covered. My stance on this has nothing to do with me having a backlink package that offers a small percentage of what's being discussed here.

                    Humor myself with your rebuttal on my "test" and SEOMoz's "test". The only trolls here are you and Alexa. You've both made unsubstantiated claims based on pure opinion. I have tested this, SEOMoz has tested this. Both our results are inline with one another's.

                    So far, your entire argument has been "3 vs 1 with a figurehead of a multi-billion dollar company supporting our opinion. It's common sense!" Yes, we all know the herd mentality is 100% correct, especially when trying to portray opinion as fact, despite clear evidence from an unbiased source disproving what you say. We all also know that there is no way a multi-billion dollar company would ever lie in order to protect its bread and butter!:rolleyes:
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606213].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                      Originally Posted by Mike Grant View Post

                      If you search my posts, this has been brought up multiple times that I've covered. My stance on this has nothing to do with me having a backlink package that offers a small percentage of what's being discussed here.

                      Humor myself with your rebuttal on my "test" and SEOMoz's "test". The only trolls here are you and Alexa. You've both made unsubstantiated claims based on pure opinion. I have tested this, SEOMoz has tested this. Both our results are inline with one another's.

                      So far, your entire argument has been "3 vs 1 with a figurehead of a multi-billion dollar company supporting our opinion. It's common sense!" Yes, we all know the herd mentality is 100% correct, especially when trying to portray opinion as fact, despite clear evidence from an unbiased source disproving what you say. We all also know that there is no way a multi-billion dollar company would ever lie in order to protect its bread and butter!:rolleyes:
                      Alright, Mike - I'll "humour you" with some words I've found on the very page you've linked to above, which are immediately below the graph you posted (which, incidentally, on first glance, doesn't seem to back up your claim that Google's order of preference goes (1) .com, (2) .org and (3) .net. Unless I'm blind? :confused:

                      This data gives us more reason to believe Google's webspam chief, Matt Cutts, when he says .gov, .info and .edu are not special cased and don't receive special bonuses or penalties to rankings.
                      It sounds to me like SEOMoz are on my side. Unless I've missed something, and they were talking sarcastically? :rolleyes:

                      In any case, Mike, those graphs and conclusions pertain to the rankings of certain TLDs - not to the stength of backlinks from sites using those TLDs (which - just to reiterate - aren't valued based on the preference of any paricular TLD, but on the authority of the site/pages in question, as a result of their incoming links and various other factors ... just as is the case for every other website).
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606376].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Search
                    Banned
                    [DELETED]
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606748].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                      Originally Posted by Search View Post

                      I have only asked questions in regard to reasons behind certain statements. If I want to know what you are thinking, I'll just ask Alexa Smith to make things easier. OK?
                      Hmmm ... okay; if you so wish. I'd have no objections to that in 99%+ of cases, anyway, given that we seem to disagree on very little in general, and apparently on nothing insofar as this particular topic is concerned (and others related to it).
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606799].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author giovanni_carlo
      hello, where can I download scrapebox software for free?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606805].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nunugenius
    use "footprint" in scrapebox

    but you spend too much time to searching edu and .gov backlink

    at one point, quantity is better than quality
    Signature

    nothing signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3604427].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seoservices1
    Hello

    No Idea for Your Question But I Give Suggestion Please Find Out Gov And Equ And check Black links. And Do You Submission.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tompatrick
    as most of these sites are authoritative sites these sites don't allow any sort of link on there website but some of the sites provide you to comment on the post all the link in there too will be no follow but at least you can get the link from those sites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606248].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author prismkuet
    Try to find out links this way....

    site:.edu inurl:forum "your keyword"
    site:.gov inurl:forum "your keyword"
    Signature

    check out the Pros and Cons of CPA

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
    Oh and Mike ... even if you were correct about SEOmoz's apparent conclusions (which you aren't) you'll notice these two quotes on SEOmoz, also:

    It's long been held in statistical analysis that even very high correlations do not necessarily mean one data set is the cause of the other. People holding umbrellas don't cause rain. Ice cream sales don't cause hot weather.
    [ ... ]

    It's critical to know that the data below, like data from other types of SEO tests, requires careful consideration and analysis. Parsing a bigger correlation as a direct sign that one should do X or Y more would be a fallacy.
    Have a nice day.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3606462].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author web4profit
    Here is a site I have tried with success where u can get 50 edu links (among other tasks) for $5.....fiverr com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3611028].message }}

Trending Topics