While private blog networks are gone..

53 replies
  • SEO
  • |
What should be the alternative backlinking for contextual backlinks?

Linkwheels, Article Submissions (AMR) and Press Releases?!

What else?

Thanks
#blog #networks #private
  • Profile picture of the author Yoyok179
    my favorite is senuke, get the massive backlink, not cheap but work well for me
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864359].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Link building is no longer safe. Must watch and observe carefully before taking further action.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864449].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AskJon
      I'm actually writing a full report on this exact issue as I feel like so many people are in the exact same situation as you mandos! If you were directly sending BMR/ALN/etc. links directly to your website(s), you were sadly doing it wrong as it was sure that they would eventually get hit.

      To shortly answer your question, when dealing with low quality links or potentially "dangerous" links (any trending links like forum profile, public high PR blog network, etc.), you absolutely MUST use buffer sites in case anything goes wrong. Of course the more control you have on these buffer sites the better, but I wouldn't recommend building your own private blog networks as their is just too much risk involved for most people. Instead, using properties like wordpress.com, blogger, squidoo, hubpages, etc. would just be perfect.

      Hope it answers your question and stay tune for my report!
      Signature
      Contact me on skype for any SEO related questions!
      SCALABLEINCOME.COM
      Step By Step Coaching to Wealth
      Join Our Community!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thomashoi
    Another solution could be buying expired domains which already have tons of natural backlinks that is immune to future Google updates.
    Signature
    FREE Ebook - Discover The Secrets Of Generating $260,957 Sales In 5 Days!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864658].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mosthost
      Originally Posted by thomashoi View Post

      Another solution could be buying expired domains which already have tons of natural backlinks that is immune to future Google updates.
      Great advice for people with extremely deep pockets.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864673].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author oogyboogawa
        Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

        Great advice for people with extremely deep pockets.

        Honestly if people took the amount of money they were putting into BMR each month and spent it on some of their own domains it wouldn't take all that long to start a small network that would have a decent impact.

        Like anything else in SEO/IM if you don't have a ton of money you have to start small and scale it up. Buy a couple of PR2-3 domains each month until you can rank for a low competition keyword and make some money (assuming you're not making any yet). Remember that your links get to stay on high PR pages because it's YOUR network. So it won't take as many links to see a difference. Then once you built up your earnings a little bit more, you can start moving to buying more and higher PR domains.

        Sure that takes a bit more patience than putting money directly into a service that already exists, but you have more control and if done right there is less concern of the whole thing getting nuked and you starting back at ground zero.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864779].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by oogyboogawa View Post


          Like anything else in SEO/IM if you don't have a ton of money you have to start small and scale it up. Buy a couple of PR2-3 domains each month until you can rank for a low competition keyword and make some money (assuming you're not making any yet). Remember that your links get to stay on high PR pages because it's YOUR network. So it won't take as many links to see a difference. Then once you built up your earnings a little bit more, you can start moving to buying more and higher PR domains.

          Sure that takes a bit more patience than putting money directly into a service that already exists, but you have more control and if done right there is less concern of the whole thing getting nuked and you starting back at ground zero.
          Excellent post. One of the number one total fallacies out there is if you can't go out and buy 40 PR4s you are out luck. NOT TRUE. I have helped a few people here rank just giving them two or three PR3s. Combine that with some other free link building and I have seen them hit front page and top 3 or 4

          I just had an email to thank me last week of a guy that just started out and bought just a few domains and his company hit number one. Of course you are not going to walk into "make money online" with that and with a small network you will want to mix some other links in but frankly the long tail people go after you will SMOKE with just a few high authority links.

          How is it possible? Principle of OBL (out bound links). A Pr4 divided by 100 links can end up being as weak as a PR3 link. A single PR5 link that rolls off the page will eventually end up being a PR0 link. SO A Pr3 link that sticks and has low OBL can end up being as powerful as some PR4 and PR5 links.

          One thing is going to have to change in peoples minds here at WF and that is that quantity trumps quality. Quantity is now just one of the red flags that if you are self backlinking you have to avoid because of the kinds of link you have to turn to in order to get that quanitity.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865048].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author jdooley13
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Excellent post. One of the number one total fallacies out there is if you can't go out and buy 40 PR4s you are out luck. NOT TRUE. I have helped a few people here rank just giving them two or three PR3s. Combine that with some other free link building and I have seen them hit front page and top 3 or 4

            How is it possible? Principle of OBL (out bound links). A Pr4 divided by 100 links can end up being as weak as a PR3 link. A single PR5 link that rolls off the page will eventually end up being a PR0 link. SO A Pr3 link that sticks and has low OBL can end up being as powerful as some PR4 and PR5 links.
            How do you disguise (handle, not sure of the proper way to ask this) your ownership of these other sites or am I wrong in thinking that google frowns upon you linking from one of your sites to another one of your sites. I have a couple of PR1 sites (I know not much there yet) but all of these sites are either with the same host or at least have the same registration information.
            Your advice would be appreciated.
            Signature

            High Quality Solo Ads.
            http://jadmarketing.net/solo-ads/

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866246].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5866839].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author trentonlaura
                Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

                Host them on different IPs and used privacy on every domain you have.

                Contrary to a bunch of naysayers who suggest Google can still see the registration info if you have privacy, this is not the case.
                How do you go about hosting your sites on different IPs? Wouldn't that require multiple hosting plans, meaning you're going from spending $5 a month for one plan and multiplying it by the number of sites which you have? Seems very pricey, especially coupled with privacy.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5873018].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by trentonlaura View Post

                  How do you go about hosting your sites on different IPs? Wouldn't that require multiple hosting plans, meaning you're going from spending $5 a month for one plan and multiplying it by the number of sites which you have? Seems very pricey, especially coupled with privacy.
                  If you are looking in the right spots you can find good hosting for $3 or less per month. IF you are paying for privacy you are doing it wrong or not using coupons available. Even godaddy notorious for trying to milk you in the checkout process will give you free or deeply discounted privacy if you buy five or more domains at a time.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5873104].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by jdooley13 View Post

              How do you disguise (handle, not sure of the proper way to ask this) your ownership of these other sites or am I wrong in thinking that google frowns upon you linking from one of your sites to another one of your sites. I have a couple of PR1 sites (I know not much there yet) but all of these sites are either with the same host or at least have the same registration information.
              Your advice would be appreciated.
              Think you already know the answer to this since you brought it up. You get separate hosting. You do NOT need to get SEO hosting either. A little known fact is that different hosting companies have separate Class c IPs anyway. You can get decent hosting companies for under $3 a month. Yes the headache is that you have several companies dealing with but set up by paypal subscription its not a big headache anyway once you already have your login details.

              Originally Posted by thomashoi View Post

              Rather than just buying high PR domains for backlinking purposes, why not turn them into money making website itself? If you put some adsense ads or even amazon affiliate links, you could get some cash in your pocket.
              IF you mean to not use them to link to any other site then I guess but its going to be a long long haul finding domains with the anchor text links that would help you get even non search engine traffic targeted for money keywords. IF you meant also using them as a network?

              Want to do affiliate on Amazon I give it a meh if you insist but adsense? UM no, no and um NOOOOO! For the obvious reason that you are linking them all together in your adsense account.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867808].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author GGpaul
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Think you already know the answer to this since you brought it up. You get separate hosting. You do NOT need to get SEO hosting either. A little known fact is that different hosting companies have separate Class c IPs anyway. You can get decent hosting companies for under $3 a month. Yes the headache is that you have several companies dealing with but set up by paypal subscription its not a big headache anyway once you already have your login details.


                IF you mean to not use them to link to any other site then I guess but its going to be a long long haul finding domains with the anchor text links that would help you get even non search engine traffic targeted for money keywords. IF you meant also using them as a network?

                Want to do affiliate on Amazon I give it a meh if you insist but adsense? UM no, no and um NOOOOO! For the obvious reason that you are linking them all together in your adsense account.

                I'm new to this. So if I were to buy an expired domain, I will need a separate host for each one? Or can I just buy all those expired high PR domains and put it all on that one hosting account?

                As far as log in name/paypal, would I have to use a different person/address etc. etc?
                Signature

                RIP Dad Oct 14 1954 - Mar 14 2015.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867875].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Architex
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Excellent post. One of the number one total fallacies out there is if you can't go out and buy 40 PR4s you are out luck. NOT TRUE. I have helped a few people here rank just giving them two or three PR3s. Combine that with some other free link building and I have seen them hit front page and top 3 or 4

            I just had an email to thank me last week of a guy that just started out and bought just a few domains and his company hit number one. Of course you are not going to walk into "make money online" with that and with a small network you will want to mix some other links in but frankly the long tail people go after you will SMOKE with just a few high authority links.

            How is it possible? Principle of OBL (out bound links). A Pr4 divided by 100 links can end up being as weak as a PR3 link. A single PR5 link that rolls off the page will eventually end up being a PR0 link. SO A Pr3 link that sticks and has low OBL can end up being as powerful as some PR4 and PR5 links.

            One thing is going to have to change in peoples minds here at WF and that is that quantity trumps quality. Quantity is now just one of the red flags that if you are self backlinking you have to avoid because of the kinds of link you have to turn to in order to get that quanitity.

            This this this. I just recently went out and bought some PR1's and PR2'2 that are highly related to my site. I have lots of time so I thought I would build up my own mini network and see what happens. I am also on the lookout for PR3-4 related to my site for the right price. I am amazed at the amount of sites for sale that have faked PR. It is just crazy.
            Signature
            Architex
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867752].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author discuss4u
      Originally Posted by thomashoi View Post

      Another solution could be buying expired domains which already have tons of natural backlinks that is immune to future Google updates.
      But even for that, we may still need to build some new backlinks with new anchor texts. It is just safer and make things a bit easier when purchasing a PR domain.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author oogyboogawa
    Private blog networks are about as gone as affiliate sites and Adsense sites - i.e. they're not gone. The only difference is that people are starting to figure out that there is a right way and a wrong way to do them.

    Networks like BMR were only ever quasi-private anyway.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864712].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author halfpoint
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mandos123
      Originally Posted by Pat Jackson View Post

      Private blog networks are not gone.

      A couple were hit, however many were not.

      Regardless, the strength of the "co-op" type networks is that they have constant growth. Domains get indexed and many more are added.
      You are right, but several ppl are getting notices from google webmaster tool for "unnatural links" - which most likely come from private networks.
      Signature

      None

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864822].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        Originally Posted by mandos123 View Post

        You are right, but several ppl are getting notices from google webmaster tool for "unnatural links" - which most likely come from private networks.
        Since there is probably a billion+ webmasters, what's that
        percentage like? Doesn't even register.

        Where do you get the fact, "most likely come from private networks."?
        How can you seriously make a statement like that?

        Seriously. People think because a handful of people complain
        here, then everybody with a website must be shaking...

        Not even close. The reality is that 99.9999999999999999999999%
        of sites are not being hit. Even that % is too low. Not
        enough space to put that many decimal places.

        Paul
        Signature

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868025].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bille
          Google Sent Over 700,000 Messages Via Webmaster Tools In Past Two Months

          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Since there is probably a billion+ webmasters, what's that
          percentage like? Doesn't even register.

          Where do you get the fact, "most likely come from private networks."?
          How can you seriously make a statement like that?

          Seriously. People think because a handful of people complain
          here, then everybody with a website must be shaking...

          Not even close. The reality is that 99.9999999999999999999999%
          of sites are not being hit. Even that % is too low. Not
          enough space to put that many decimal places.

          Paul
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868081].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GGpaul
            Where does it say that it was the cause of blog networks though?
            Signature

            RIP Dad Oct 14 1954 - Mar 14 2015.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868109].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author bille
              Originally Posted by GGpaul View Post

              Where does it say that it was the cause of blog networks though?
              The presenter, Tiffany Oberoi, is on the webspam team.

              Others have pointed out Matt Cutt's recent focus on blog networks, including some tweet's he's made, like this one:
              https://twitter.com/#!/mattcutts/sta...92083427823616

              There's other contextual clues I could share, but you seem determined to believe what you want to believe. There's credible evidence that this was a deliberate set of actions intended to be a shot across the bow, and specifically to get the attention of a large number of webmasters....
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868224].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by bille View Post


                There's other contextual clues I could share, but you seem determined to believe what you want to believe. There's credible evidence that this was a deliberate set of actions intended to be a shot across the bow, and specifically to get the attention of a large number of webmasters....
                Though thats certainly true you have not been paying close attention. The notices of unnatural links have been going out from July of last year

                Google's Sending Webmaster Notifications About Bad Links Pointing At Their Sites

                They do NOT just apply to networks or even primarily networks. People have got them for all kinds unnatural links. People who think they can now go back to SenukeX runs , article directories , bookmarks , forum spanning etc are sadly mistaken. No they are not likely to get those sites deindexed but those have both downgraded even further by the algo AND they can and are being manually penalized. SO we can't just jump to a conclusion that a site that gets that notice got so because of a network.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871365].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author JamieSEO
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Though thats certainly true you have not been paying close attention. The notices of unnatural links have been going out from July of last year

                  Google's Sending Webmaster Notifications About Bad Links Pointing At Their Sites

                  They do NOT just apply to networks or even primarily networks. People have got them for all kinds unnatural links. People who think they can now go back to SenukeX runs , article directories , bookmarks , forum spanning etc are sadly mistaken. No they are not likely to get those sites deindexed but those have both downgraded even further by the algo AND they can and are being manually penalized. SO we can't just jump to a conclusion that a site that gets that notice got so because of a network.
                  Mike is right. The change in Google that sparked this was actually the release of PANDA 2.2 at the end of June 2011. People started noticing penalties kicking in about 4-6 weeks after.

                  The recent enforcement kick meant that it has just been made more obvious.

                  Keeping up with all of the changes to SEO can be overwhelming (especially over the last 12 months), however anyone working in this industry should be either dedicating a chunk of their time to watching what is happening, or be using a service/consultant that does.

                  Last year I spent roughly 2 days per week, EVERY week purely on researching trends, upcoming SEO changes and testing out SEO campaigns.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871923].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
                    Originally Posted by JamieSEO View Post

                    Keeping up with all of the changes to SEO can be overwhelming (especially over the last 12 months), however anyone working in this industry should be either dedicating a chunk of their time to watching what is happening, or be using a service/consultant that does.
                    Stupid question 1o1 - if blog network links were devalued for manipulating rank per say then how is creating a private network any better, in that it is also being built to manipulate rank, and in a funny way how is paid seo services any different in that are also employed to manipulate rank ?

                    Is not not this whole seo thing just a load of cobblers ? at at the end of the day regardless of what google does people will find a way to manipulate rank and justify it in some way.

                    Its like a dog always chasing its tail in a endless circle spin and entering into any type of link building in some ways is like rolling the dice with the devil.
                    Signature
                    | > Choosing to go off the grid for a while to focus on family, work and life in general. Have a great 2020 < |
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872056].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post

                      Stupid question 1o1 - if blog network links were devalued for manipulating rank per say then how is creating a private network any better, in that it is also being built to manipulate rank, and in a funny way how is paid seo services any different in that are also employed to manipulate rank ?

                      Is not not this whole seo thing just a load of cobblers ? at at the end of the day regardless of what google does people will find a way to manipulate rank and justify it in some way.
                      Well define a network? I could take you to some Major companies and they utilize links from their partner sites (which means ultimately they are bought links). That list of partner sites IS a network. This is where Google is arguing the ridiculous. You can't tell any business they can't leverage their existing business to promote another venture of the company. ABC is Going to promote Disney and ESPN. Microsoft is going to promote bing and link to them the way they see fit with follow or nofollow.

                      So yes Google will cry that there is manipulation but not so long ago I found dofollow links from youtube (owned by Google) to partner sites. Regardless of any mantra of purity (like ANY company gets to define what that is) a huge portion of ranking companies and I'd say even the majority are BUYING links. No algo can determine intent and who bought links. The problem with rental networks is they are inherently clumsy, unnatural and obvious. You cannot have 30 different people writing about 30 different subjects promoting 30 different sites and it not look obvious but with your own network you can make it look so natural that some of you may have visited a network site and had zero clue and neither would google.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872590].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Well define a network? .
                        In context I suppose a group of sites put together with one purpose / to manipulate the serps, or as in context wit this discussion at hand with the recent demise of the blog networks.

                        More so the reference was in that a private network set up to enhance or manipulate the outcome of the results / serps is no better than what was currently shut down, as it just now duplicates what was already been shown to be not regarded as a level playing field by google.

                        We now have people saying thats fine lets just build covert under the radar networks to dodgy the outcome of the serps and some how this is seen as the new cool in the trendy things to do dept?

                        Really what people choose to do is up to them, but if we paint stripes on our leopard does it really change its spots.?
                        Signature
                        | > Choosing to go off the grid for a while to focus on family, work and life in general. Have a great 2020 < |
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872706].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          Originally Posted by tryinhere View Post


                          Really what people choose to do is up to them, but if we paint stripes on our leopard does it really change its spots.?

                          Stripes are for Zebras not Leopards but its fitting that you should confuse words and concepts because its illustrative of whats at the center of our differing viewpoint. You clearly believe in an ethic defined by google - I don't. I find the idea that any single company gets to define whats ethical as well.... shady at best and therefore an unethical stance to take. I know of no company that gets to define ethics "white" and "black" entirely by itself as you claim Google does.

                          SO google doesn't like it? So what? If google never did what they claim to not like then I might have more sympathy for them as the determiner of whats right and wrong. They don't.

                          A) They allow companies to link to their partner sites and pages and I have seen them do that THEMSELVES with followed links
                          B) They allow you to pay to have the number one top position in the serps. Regardless of whether they give it a pastel background or not they get many people thinking thats the top best site and they place their ads there for just that reason polluting their own results as they claim other people buying links pollutes it.

                          So they don't get to be the standard against what ethics are

                          As for the whole argument about networks being setup for one purpose -

                          wrong. You are just thinking of rental networks again. You can have networks that have dual purposes and some of the good ones are setup that way. They are utilized for the sites themselves and for the links they bring to other sites. If you think about it the sites that "go undergound" as you reference have to do just that. they have to provide real content, readable and on a subject that makes sense. the end result of that is that the site is both useful to the reader, the site owner who will get traffic and the secondary sties the domain helps rank.

                          Think of how ludicrous this argument is applied to an offline business. SO a guy goes ahead and buys a failing business or one that is closing and buys it just to utilize some of its assets to help his existing business. Unethical? on what planet? SO if someone buys an expiring domain puts quality on it and utlizes the link assets while providing something of value ON THE SITE its unethical? Really? so next time a business buys another one redirecting it to their own site along with the juice it provides they are being unethical too?

                          You can buy an aged domain set it up with even better information and content than the old site and provide great value AND utlilize the assets/links of the previous site WITHOUT RIPPING CONTENT. Offline that would be considered a smart business move.

                          Please. its far from simplistic as you are arguing it. It depends entirely on how the network sites are conducting business and your argument hinges entirely on your belief that Google gets to determine ethics while not adhering deeply to its own.

                          Incidentally the idea of Google maintaining a level playing field is laughable. Sites have gotten penalties and had to file reconsideration requests for what JCpenney got a 30 day slap on the hand for, Home Depot can run an ad campaign and get ton loads of links that Mom and POP hardware store can never get even though they give better service. the internet was a level playing feel maybe back in the 90s before big business moved in - not now.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872967].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Yet they are all innocent & didn't create any backlinks.
            Signature
            Hi
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868199].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 36burrows
    Best way to get contextual links now is from Web 2.0 sites/blogs.

    Put up a 500+ word high quality article linking back to your main site.

    Not as easy as lets say BMR but at least it works and won't get deindexed down the road.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mandos123
      Originally Posted by 36burrows View Post

      Best way to get contextual links now is from Web 2.0 sites/blogs.

      Put up a 500+ word high quality article linking back to your main site.

      Not as easy as lets say BMR but at least it works and won't get deindexed down the road.
      Is it worth to make 20 web 2.0 sites and then start backlinking them until they are PR4+ ? And then start to add articles to them which are pointing to your site?
      Signature

      None

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864854].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 36burrows
        Originally Posted by mandos123 View Post

        Is it worth to make 20 web 2.0 sites and then start backlinking them until they are PR4+ ? And then start to add articles to them which are pointing to your site?
        I would add at least 1-3 articles before backlinking them. But once they've got some PR those links will be very valuable and will never go away.

        But yeah, make as many as you can.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864891].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JSProjects
    If anything, I think private blog networks are going to get stronger in the future. The ones that do it right. But I'm guessing it's going to be a LOT more expensive.

    Alternatively, it's not terribly difficult to build your own small network. A little pricey, but if you're part of a blog network you're spending money anyways. May as well have full control.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864864].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by JSProjects View Post

      If anything, I think private blog networks are going to get stronger in the future. The ones that do it right. But I'm guessing it's going to be a LOT more expensive.
      Terribly true JS. Two things

      A) we should get out of calling BMR, ALN etc Private blog networks. I have yet to hear of a SINGLE private network getting hit. BMR etc were ALWAYS PUBLIC SEO networks. Anyone could walk off the street plop down some cash and get a link on them. Private only related to ownership not access or security.

      B) Unfortunately people actually picked their services based not on how they were setup to give good links.They picked them based on how easy they were to submit spun content to. Like we have seen already these networks have to change to survive and the only things that really help to protect the networks will be things that drive costs up because networks in order to be safer CAN NOT accept content form users but create the content themselves - there is no other way - or they will just be waiting to be the next to get dinged..
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5865114].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Green Moon
    If people would spend the same time, effort and money on building great content that they devote to getting questionable backlinks, they would build links naturally.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864914].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Defunct
      Originally Posted by Green Moon View Post

      If people would spend the same time, effort and money on building great content that they devote to getting questionable backlinks, they would build links naturally.
      So say you wanted to get a category on model on a retail site, you think great content is the way to do it?

      Enjoy trying to differentiate your Canon 60D description from 10000 other sites and I'll stick to anchor text links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
    The only thing that I can think of is to buy lots of quality content from high quality writers. I wouldn't be comfortable with any link building right now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5864959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thomashoi
    Rather than just buying high PR domains for backlinking purposes, why not turn them into money making website itself? If you put some adsense ads or even amazon affiliate links, you could get some cash in your pocket.
    Signature
    FREE Ebook - Discover The Secrets Of Generating $260,957 Sales In 5 Days!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mack Attack 77
    I'm on board with this concept Mike Anthony...I'm starting small with PR1-PR2 domains and keeping them to myself/selling small quantities of links to cover some costs. Quality will always rule, and its getting more and more apparent as the days move along.
    Signature
    Online Selling That Works - How I paid for College by Selling on Amazon

    How to Win on eBay: The Exact Strategy I use to Buy Product on eBay
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867696].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nekojin
    I think that blog networks "dying" is just like everything else they have said died out. Google may be a bit smarter, but you simply have to stay a step ahead of Google. Any type of SEO, including what most would consider "White Hat" is still trying to game Google's algorithm in order to get a better position for your desired keyword.

    One of the main reasons Google makes updates like Panda is to provide more relevant content, but also because people have systematically learned how to defeat their algorithm.

    The same thing has been said about link wheels, but to this day I still see powerful results from even the most basic link wheels made in something like SENuke. Personally I like to use link wheels to help protect my money site from possibly harmful links, and they give me a lot more control over what's pointing to my site and what I can take down. If I have 6 spokes of a link wheel pointing to my money site, and 500 links on one of the spokes, when Google smacks those types of links with a penalty, I just have to take down one site (the spoke) and I've gotten rid of a huge chunk of bad links.

    Regardless of the methods you use to SEO your site, they will eventually become less effective, which is why you just want to keep up to date on changes and take action accordingly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5867904].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamieSEO
    Variations of this topic come up every time Google sneezes and their algorithms change. (Think I'm exaggerating? They made over 13,000 changes last year!)

    Here is the one single thing that will stop you from getting penalized...

    Make your aim the same as Google's!

    Google does not just change their algorithms for the hell of it. Their changes are based on their overall aim which is "to provide high quality, relevant search results".

    If you change your focus so that instead of asking "how can I get high rank?", you ask yourself "how can I help Google provide high quality relevant search results that direct people to my site?" then you find that you change how you handle SEO campaigns.

    Build quality content for both your website and to be used in your promotion, then your strategy after that should be about ways to say to Google "Hey! I've got this great content over here totally relevant to this keyword - rank me and we both win!"

    Linking strategies come and go, the only constant with Google is their overall goal.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868147].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bille
      Originally Posted by JamieSEO View Post

      Variations of this topic come up every time Google sneezes and their algorithms change. (Think I'm exaggerating? They made over 13,000 changes last year!)

      Here is the one single thing that will stop you from getting penalized...

      Make your aim the same as Google's!

      Google does not just change their algorithms for the hell of it. Their changes are based on their overall aim which is "to provide high quality, relevant search results".

      If you change your focus so that instead of asking "how can I get high rank?", you ask yourself "how can I help Google provide high quality relevant search results that direct people to my site?" then you find that you change how you handle SEO campaigns.

      Build quality content for both your website and to be used in your promotion, then your strategy after that should be about ways to say to Google "Hey! I've got this great content over here totally relevant to this keyword - rank me and we both win!"

      Linking strategies come and go, the only constant with Google is their overall goal.
      It would be neat if this were the case. Do some research on the sites in the top SERP positions for anything that makes money. JC Penny wasn't the exception...that's the rule. Hell, even the Google Chrome team got caught buying links.

      I'm not the only person that thinks this way...

      http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-googl...od-guys-in-seo
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5868261].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by JamieSEO View Post

      Variations of this topic come up every time Google sneezes and their algorithms change. (Think I'm exaggerating? They made over 13,000 changes last year!)

      Here is the one single thing that will stop you from getting penalized...

      Make your aim the same as Google's!

      Google does not just change their algorithms for the hell of it. Their changes are based on their overall aim which is "to provide high quality, relevant search results".

      If you change your focus so that instead of asking "how can I get high rank?", you ask yourself "how can I help Google provide high quality relevant search results that direct people to my site?" then you find that you change how you handle SEO campaigns.

      Build quality content for both your website and to be used in your promotion, then your strategy after that should be about ways to say to Google "Hey! I've got this great content over here totally relevant to this keyword - rank me and we both win!"

      Linking strategies come and go, the only constant with Google is their overall goal.
      Hi JamieSEO,

      It's refreshing to see at least a few people on this board get what SEO is really about.

      Give Google what they want.

      What does Google want? They want what users want and is easily recognized as such.

      What do users want? Relevant content that is actually useful, or even vital, to their interests, and easily recognized as such.

      Those folks that spend their time and resources producing useless drivel will, at some point, look back and weep at the time they have wasted.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871311].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by dburk View Post


        Those folks that spend their time and resources producing useless drivel will, at some point, look back and weep at the time they have wasted.

        Agreed. However I think lots of people here understand that (smaller group among the adsense crew). Where there is disagreement perhaps is that there are those who believe in a "field of dream" content theory that if you build it they will come.

        That doesn't work in the real offline or online world. A great movie still has to promote itself. A fantastic restaurant still has to advertise. The aroma from the cooking does not waft in to the air and attract the whole neighborhood.

        Some aspect of what Google "wants" is just not realistic or even logical. Worse some aspects of what Google wants is hypocritical and frankly unethically hypocrital. In a sane moment without prejudice most people will concede that besides flashing animated Gifs nothing junks up the web more than adsense. ON every site that it resides it tells users to visit sites not on the quality of their content but because the mighty dollar has put the link there.

        You cannot rationally argue that user experience and giving the user quality that they are looking for applies to doing a search but that when the user clicks and visit another page the goal of giving the user quality changes based on how much someone bid on dollars for the page. Theres a disconnect there that is huge

        Furthermore Google "wants" webmasters to not used followed links for ads on a website because it will manipulate and pollute the integrity of the serp but do my eyes deceive me? At the top of every serp do people not BUY the top spots? So google attempts to dictate to webmasters that their ads should not pass pagerank and potentially pollute the serps but they sell the top spots to the highest bidders so that the guy that has great quality but no deep pockets never gets any better than number four?

        the defense that the top three advertising slots are presented witha soft pastel background :rolleyes: to signal that its an ad is thin. The purpose of putting the ads at the top like that is CLEARLY to capture the taffic from people searching and clicking the real first result at the very top of the page and to reward the advertiser that spends the most. So not only willgoogle pollute the search results for cash but they put the top spots up for auction to the absolute highest bidder so that rather than set on e fair price it is ever rising based on people competing for the spots.

        All of this is no rant against Google. they are a business and some of the cursing and complaining of those who knew they were gaming the system is ridiculous but on the other hand the idea that Google is pure as the driven snow and is on the "White hat" side is an equal extreme. they have done a good job at selling that to people and people have bought not on the quality of the argument but based on power and money which unfortunately in many societies equals respectability.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871490].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JamieSEO
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Where there is disagreement perhaps is that there are those who believe in a "field of dream" content theory that if you build it they will come.

          That doesn't work in the real offline or online world. A great movie still has to promote itself. A fantastic restaurant still has to advertise. The aroma from the cooking does not waft in to the air and attract the whole neighborhood.

          All of this is no rant against Google. they are a business and some of the cursing and complaining of those who knew they were gaming the system is ridiculous but on the other hand the idea that Google is pure as the driven snow and is on the "White hat" side is an equal extreme. they have done a good job at selling that to people and people have bought not on the quality of the argument but based on power and money which unfortunately in many societies equals respectability.
          LMAO

          I don't think even Mother Theresa could paint Google as 'pure'.

          They are not evil, not perfect - in fact they are just a business.

          People won't visit your website if you just build it, just like people would not visit your bricks and mortar business just because you start one.

          The combination you are looking for is to have a quality service/product and then PROMOTE IT.

          If you focus on using SEO as just another promotion tool then you get results. If you try and find 'loop holes', 'secrets', etc to blast rankings then (in general) eventually you will get busted and it will stop working.

          For those that comment about certain sites being treated differently by Google... sure they are there. There are exceptions to every rule, but overall you are still better off focusing on the Quality product/service + Promotion combo.

          If you are shocked by that way Google handles things... Dude, they are giants. Ever taken a look at what Microsoft does that is not exactly 'pure'...
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872020].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author moneymoguls
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Agreed. However I think lots of people here understand that (smaller group among the adsense crew). Where there is disagreement perhaps is that there are those who believe in a "field of dream" content theory that if you build it they will come.

          That doesn't work in the real offline or online world. A great movie still has to promote itself. A fantastic restaurant still has to advertise. The aroma from the cooking does not waft in to the air and attract the whole neighborhood.

          Some aspect of what Google "wants" is just not realistic or even logical. Worse some aspects of what Google wants is hypocritical and frankly unethically hypocrital. In a sane moment without prejudice most people will concede that besides flashing animated Gifs nothing junks up the web more than adsense. ON every site that it resides it tells users to visit sites not on the quality of their content but because the mighty dollar has put the link there.

          You cannot rationally argue that user experience and giving the user quality that they are looking for applies to doing a search but that when the user clicks and visit another page the goal of giving the user quality changes based on how much someone bid on dollars for the page. Theres a disconnect there that is huge

          Furthermore Google "wants" webmasters to not used followed links for ads on a website because it will manipulate and pollute the integrity of the serp but do my eyes deceive me? At the top of every serp do people not BUY the top spots? So google attempts to dictate to webmasters that their ads should not pass pagerank and potentially pollute the serps but they sell the top spots to the highest bidders so that the guy that has great quality but no deep pockets never gets any better than number four?

          the defense that the top three advertising slots are presented witha soft pastel background :rolleyes: to signal that its an ad is thin. The purpose of putting the ads at the top like that is CLEARLY to capture the taffic from people searching and clicking the real first result at the very top of the page and to reward the advertiser that spends the most. So not only willgoogle pollute the search results for cash but they put the top spots up for auction to the absolute highest bidder so that rather than set on e fair price it is ever rising based on people competing for the spots.

          All of this is no rant against Google. they are a business and some of the cursing and complaining of those who knew they were gaming the system is ridiculous but on the other hand the idea that Google is pure as the driven snow and is on the "White hat" side is an equal extreme. they have done a good job at selling that to people and people have bought not on the quality of the argument but based on power and money which unfortunately in many societies equals respectability.
          Well spoken!!!!!!!!!!
          Signature

          Money Moguls

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5882929].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AZMD
      Originally Posted by JamieSEO View Post

      Variations of this topic come up every time Google sneezes and their algorithms change. (Think I'm exaggerating? They made over 13,000 changes last year!)

      Here is the one single thing that will stop you from getting penalized...

      Make your aim the same as Google's!

      Google does not just change their algorithms for the hell of it. Their changes are based on their overall aim which is "to provide high quality, relevant search results".

      If you change your focus so that instead of asking "how can I get high rank?", you ask yourself "how can I help Google provide high quality relevant search results that direct people to my site?" then you find that you change how you handle SEO campaigns.

      Build quality content for both your website and to be used in your promotion, then your strategy after that should be about ways to say to Google "Hey! I've got this great content over here totally relevant to this keyword - rank me and we both win!"

      Linking strategies come and go, the only constant with Google is their overall goal.
      Great post. I totally agree. Quality will prevail - it's a "win-win" for both the owner of the content and the big G who serves it up to its audience.

      Does anyone like punching in a search term and winding up with a sea of garbage to sift through trying to find the relevant information they are looking for?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872130].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin McNally
    It's a shame for BMR and our own sites but the guys I feel for are the writers. I had a great writer doing BMR offering decent content , some of these guys were in tough conditions and the money would help them in their local economy.

    Getting any links is a risk of course, it's all part of the game. Unless you have a sepcial unique site building quality content and not obtaining links ( giving google what they want ) will only get you so far. SEO guys will outrank you using various tecnniques.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871488].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Green Moon
      Originally Posted by Kevin McNally View Post

      It's a shame for BMR and our own sites but the guys I feel for are the writers. I had a great writer doing BMR offering decent content , some of these guys were in tough conditions and the money would help them in their local economy.
      How about using them to create quality content for your own sites instead? Help them and help yourself.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5871974].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author grexley
    A link from a guest blog post, is a link to your site, placed by yourself. That's not what Google is looking for. Google wants a link to be an 'editorial vote'. They want that link to be placed independently of you.

    Good SEO, to me, appears to be making your links look like independent votes. Or even better, finding a way to get real independent votes (links).

    Guest blogging may not be what Google wants, but it is at least pretty close to looking like what they want. I don't think an algorithm could easily tell a guest blog link from a real editorial link. Though that fact may make it so that Google devalues any kind of link in syndicated content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5872182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lukemeister
    Since Google is killing blog networks, that tells me one thing - blog links work and Google wants them to continue to be a good indicator of good sites.

    So - what sort of blog links can you still get, without using a network? Guest blogging. I'm going to start focusing on guest blogging more than anything else because Google basically has admitted that links from blog posts work well by killing off networks that are abusing that.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5873175].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trentonlaura
    Where is a good place to look into buying mid range PR sites on the cheap while being sure that they're legit? I suppose it would help if they're related to my niche, too?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5882633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Converting Copy
    The fact that BMR toppled doesn't mean that private blog networks are gone by any stretch. BMR was a service where anyone could submit subpar content and they'd post it on a number of their thousands of sites to get you the link juice. It went against Googles guidelines and it got big enough to where it bothered them enough to do something about it.

    It's been documented that Google had their eye on BMR (among other similar services) for awhile. Whatever analytical technology they have aside, how difficult would it be for Google to sign up for BMR en masse, collect thousands of links, make note of the sites they received links from in the BMR network, and deindex them when the hammer finally came down the other day?

    You can still get a lot out of private blog networks if you know what you're doing and if you're actually developing your own PRIVATE blog network. The two don't have much to do with one another as far as I'm concerned.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5882681].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jsmith2482
    Seems to me, based off my reading, that even if G hits you hard you'll bounce back? May take 6 month but you will. That being if you are a legit site with tons of unique content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5882723].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dennis09
      Originally Posted by jsmith2482 View Post

      Seems to me, based off my reading, that even if G hits you hard you'll bounce back? May take 6 month but you will. That being if you are a legit site with tons of unique content.

      Depends on how hard you get hit. Could take anywhere from 2 weeks to a couple years to bounce back. You just have to know when to leave it alone and move on.

      Only you can make that judgement based on the severity of what you *think* you did wrong. Google is so obscure sometimes, well pretty much all the time really.
      Signature
      There is no elevator to success, you have to take the stairs
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5883909].message }}

Trending Topics