$30 out of $1000 penguin proves 2.0 works

12 years ago

Dracoboar,

That is very interesting, thank you for sharing that and I will be interested to know what happens with that one site. Thanks for taking the time to post your experience. Very helpful.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143258].message }}

tylerherman 12 years ago

Yup it seems 2.0s are still a great way to go for link building.
- Thanks
Signature
Real Theme Co. Real Simple. Real Clean. WordPress Blog Themes.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143435].message }}

Seobizz

12 years ago

This strategy seems awesome!

When you link those garbage links to your web 2.0 links, do you use the anchor text of your main keyword or do you diversify the anchor text of those garbage links as well?

Also do you only post 1 article per web 2.0 account? or do you create an account on most web 2.0 sites and then just post articles once you want to create backlinks?

How many links to the money site do you recommend to have per article?

How often do you build links like this? or is it better just to make it completely random?

Looking forward to hearing your response. Thanks for the help

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143466].message }}

ttomp13

12 years ago

Originally Posted by thawebman

This strategy seems awesome!

When you link those garbage links to your web 2.0 links, do you use the anchor text of your main keyword or do you diversify the anchor text of those garbage links as well?

Also do you only post 1 article per web 2.0 account? or do you create an account on most web 2.0 sites and then just post articles once you want to create backlinks?

How many links to the money site do you recommend to have per article?

How often do you build links like this? or is it better just to make it completely random?

Looking forward to hearing your response. Thanks for the help

I just wanted to say that I have these same questions as well. Although I haven't been doing link building (since Panda), I would like to try the strategy that the OP has recommended. If the OP could answer these questions, I would appreciate that, big time!

Thank you,
TT

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143516].message }}

ttomp13

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Of my 50 or so sites panda had no effect, penguin hammered 1 site which is now costing me about $30 a month. I am certain this is due to an over optimized link anchor text and on page seo.

For starters, I wanted to thank you for posting your link building strategy.

I wanted to ask you though, what do you think the "over optimized link anchor text and on page seo" is specifically? Do you have a keyword density that is too high? Do you have too many links on a single page? Why, specifically, do you think on page SEO is the culprit?

Could you explain with further detail?

Thank you,
TT

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143507].message }}

Ashera

12 years ago

Why would you post the exact same article from your site on a Web 2.0? It completely devalues your Web 2.0 article. And then by syndicating it across Web 2.0's it continues to lose its value every time...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143536].message }}

ttomp13

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ashera

Why would you post the exact same article from your site on a Web 2.0? It completely devalues your Web 2.0 article. And then by syndicating it across Web 2.0's it continues to lose its value every time...

What frustrates me is when people try to play "expert." Unless you're Matt Cutts himself, you really don't know what goes on behind closed doors. The OP took the time to share his strategy with us, and subsequently, gets attacked for it?

The OP was simply giving us an opportunity to look into a backlink building strategy that, for him, has been pretty much penguin-proof.

That being said, it's definitely okay to question the OP's strategy, but there is a proper and improper way of doing so. Had you said, "Does posting the same article on multiple sites devalue the Web 2.0 article?" Alternatively, you could have said, "I have heard that posting the same article on multiple sites can devalue the Web 2.0 articles. Is this true?"

Instead, you attacked the OP's intelligence, and essentially, called him an idiot. Next time, be more appreciative and thoughtful when making a response to a beneficial thread like this.

Of course, it's just advice.

At the end of the day, you can do whatever the **** you wanna do.

[ 7 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143582].message }}

Ashera

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ttomp13

What frustrates me is when people try to play "expert." Unless you're Matt Cutts himself, you really don't know what goes on behind closed doors. The OP took the time to share his strategy with us, and subsequently, gets attacked for it?

The OP was simply giving us an opportunity to look into a backlink building strategy that, for him, has been pretty much penguin-proof.

That being said, it's definitely okay to question the OP's strategy, but there is a proper and improper way of doing so. Had you said, "Does posting the same article on multiple sites devalue the Web 2.0 article?" Alternatively, you could have said, "I have heard that posting the same article on multiple sites can devalue the Web 2.0 articles. Is this true?"

Instead, you attacked the OP's intelligence, and essentially, called him an idiot. Next time, be more appreciative and thoughtful when making a response to a beneficial thread like this.

Of course, it's just advice.

At the end of the day, you can do whatever the **** you wanna do.

Matt Cutts has said duplicate content gets devalued... I don't state things as fact, unless they are. Either way, keep doing what works for you.

Duplicate content question
[among a million other posts by him about it]

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143596].message }}

HCRoyo

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ashera

Matt Cutts has said duplicate content gets devalued... I don't state things as fact, unless they are. Either way, keep doing what works for you.

Duplicate content question
[among a million other posts by him about it]

Hi mate, I think the Duplicate Content Penalty affects only those duplicate contents in your own sites. Articles get syndicated all the time (think viral news, if you type in the title of a viral Yahoo News you'll see it syndicated all over 1000's of sites. Do they get penalized? No. Are the syndicated content indexed? Absolutely."

The only downside of not spinning your content is that Google might rank the other web 2.0's ahead of your original content. That is why you need to get your original article indexed first before syndicating it around. Also, a Google Authorship tag might do some good for your articles (google might give it a nod for being the original content if you have a rel=author tag)

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143874].message }}

mrjosco

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HCRoyo

Hi mate, I think the Duplicate Content Penalty affects only those duplicate contents in your own sites. Articles get syndicated all the time (think viral news, if you type in the title of a viral Yahoo News you'll see it syndicated all over 1000's of sites. Do they get penalized? No. Are the syndicated content indexed? Absolutely."

The only downside of not spinning your content is that Google might rank the other web 2.0's ahead of your original content. That is why you need to get your original article indexed first before syndicating it around. Also, a Google Authorship tag might do some good for your articles (google might give it a nod for being the original content if you have a rel=author tag)

It doesn't look like you read what he wrote. He actually states, "avoid over-syndicating the articles that you write, and 2) if you do syndicate content, make sure that you include a link to the original content."

He talks about how over syndicating content can lead to google not being sure if the original site uses fresh content or syndicated content.

Thanks

Signature

Vintage and Retro Shirts from Vinretro

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6220171].message }}

dracoboar 12 years ago

hope this answers some questions

When you link those garbage links to your web 2.0 links, do you use the anchor text of your main keyword or do you diversify the anchor text of those garbage links as well?

...the garbage links are usually social bookmarking links just to get my good links indexed. they usually dont have anchor text and if they did I wouldnt care what they use as they are just pointing to my links not my money site. These garbage or "third tier" links are purely to get your medium quality or "second tier" linkks indexed.

Also do you only post 1 article per web 2.0 account? or do you create an account on most web 2.0 sites and then just post articles once you want to create backlinks?

...I have an account on dozens of web 2.0 sites , on some sites I have multiple accounts. After I am sure an article has been indexed on my website I then pick 10 - 20 web 2.0 sites at random and post that article, then point the auto links at those articles so google finds the links quickly.

How many links to the money site do you recommend to have per article?

... my general rule is one link to a high authority 3rd party site like the American Medical Association or CDC then 1 or 2 more to various pages on my money site, then sometimes i also put a link at the bottom to the original article.

How often do you build links like this? or is it better just to make it completely random?

I do one article each weekday morning, basically i am putting out the article that hit my site 2 weeks early like a conveyor belt. It would be better to randomize things a bit but I have an organizational structure that works for me. I also avoid doing more than 1 or 2 per day as that can result in a "blast effect".

I wanted to ask you though, what do you think the "over optimized link anchor text and on page seo" is specifically? Do you have a keyword density that is too high? Do you have too many links on a single page? Why, specifically, do you think on page SEO is the culprit?

...Over optimized anchor text means that to many of the links pointing to my site were exact matches for my keyword. It looks unnatural. When people post a link to your website they rarely take the time to insert an appropriate keyword for that link they usually just put the url or "click here" or something like that. So by deversifying the anchor text of incoming links i can fix this issue and make it look more natural.

As far as on page seo yes that is exactly the H-tags and keywrods density were certainly over optimized. With LSI this can be a tricky thing but i rewrote the content in a more natural way and we will see what happens.

Matt Cutts has said duplicate content gets devalued... I don't state things as fact, unless they are. Either way, keep doing what works for you.
Duplicate content question

.... I ge tthis question alot and it is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Google has specifically stated there is no off site dup content penalty. In the link you gave me matt cutts addresses 2 issues duplicate content on-site, which is outside of our discussion, and duplicate content off-site.

If you read Matt's commments he actually doesnt say there is a penalty. In fact he even acknowledges it is a legitimate practice to syndicate content. He just says if you spam it all over the place we may not be able to tell who the original author was (again no mention of a penalty), this is exactly why i let the original article sit on my website for 2 weeks before i syndicate it out and why some of the 2.0 links point back to the original article itself.

I can tell you when I google snippets of my articles I generally find 75%-90% of the content is indexed and appears in serps which means the links are indexed and count.

TWO VERY IMPORTANT THINGS

First, this should NOT be your only link building practice, it compliments blog commenting well as well as people who get natural links from social media.

Second, this shoud only be used for information based articles and link bait NOT ARTICLES YOU WANT TO RANK FOR KEYWORDS.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143876].message }}

chukcha

12 years ago

What a douche. "Matt Cutss has said"

Matt Cuts says a lots of things. Open your eyes and stop attacking OP with your "intelligence"

Originally Posted by Ashera

Matt Cutts has said duplicate content gets devalued... I don't state things as fact, unless they are. Either way, keep doing what works for you.

Duplicate content question
[among a million other posts by him about it]

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155171].message }}

Ashera 12 years ago

Originally Posted by chukcha

What a douche. "Matt Cutss has said"

Matt Cunts says a lots of things. Open your eyes and stop attacking OP with your "intelligence"

Looks like someones mad their sites are all ranking like crap. Maybe if you listened a bit more to "Matt Cunts" that wouldn't be the issue.
- Thanks
Signature
If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6157091].message }}
dracoboar 12 years ago

Originally Posted by chukcha

What a douche. "Matt Cutss has said"

Matt Cunts says a lots of things. Open your eyes and stop attacking OP with your "intelligence"

douche is a bit strong as we had a legit conversation that was relevant to the thread.

Your sentiment about gooogle is correct though. As over time things they say are mutually exclusive and contradictory, but that really wouldnt be the fault of someone quoting them especially when he did me the curtesy of providing me a link to the quote so I could read it myslef and debate with him.

Although he and i disagreed (and i guess till do) the conversation had solid value for the readers of this thread.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6157439].message }}

StuartM 12 years ago

Originally Posted by ttomp13

Of course, it's just advice.

At the end of the day, you can do whatever the **** you wanna do.

TwinMuscle Much?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838126].message }}

knocksense

12 years ago

It is worth trying .. thanks for sharing.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143539].message }}

WF99

12 years ago

wow very interesting .. thanks for this good sharing ..

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143875].message }}

Ashera

12 years ago

By all means, keep doing if it works - but Matt does say that it gets devalued, hence this quote: "That will help ensure that the original content has more PageRank, which will aid in picking the best documents in our index."

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143891].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ashera

By all means, keep doing if it works - but Matt does say that it gets devalued, hence this quote: "That will help ensure that the original content has more PageRank, which will aid in picking the best documents in our index."

He stated that in a slightly different context though. He said that by linking to the original content it will have greater page rank and rank better.

The page rank is not coming from google it is coming from the links he advises you point at the original content. This is so that if one of your syndicated posts get a few links from natural sources it wont outrank your money site post in the serps.

Again no mention of a penalty, and since i dont want these articles to rank in the serps (they are just relevant content and link bait) which version outranking the other is irrelevant.

I can also tell you from hard experience that because a few of the syndicated versions have links back to the original, and google saw the original first it almsot always out ranks the 2.0 versions when i do a snippet check.

I think if you re-read what Matt said the context will become clear and you will notice he never really impleid a penalty

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143934].message }}

Ashera

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

He stated that in a slightly different context though. He said that by linking to the original content it will have greater page rank and rank better.

The page rank is not coming from google it is coming from the links he advises you point at the original content. This is so that if one of your syndicated posts get a few links from natural sources it wont outrank your money site post in the serps.

Again no mention of a penalty, and since i dont want these articles to rank in the serps (they are just relevant content and link bait) which version outranking the other is irrelevant.

I can also tell you from hard experience that because a few of the syndicated versions have links back to the original, and google saw the original first it almsot always out ranks the 2.0 versions when i do a snippet check.

I think if you re-read what Matt said the context will become clear and you will notice he never really impleid a penalty

More info here:
Duplicate content - Webmaster Tools Help

"However, in some cases, content is deliberately duplicated across domains in an attempt to manipulate search engine rankings or win more traffic."

"Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content."

And just look at the latest changes Google has made in it's rankings. Sites with loads of spun content backlinks are being penalized left and right. I don't see how posting duplicate content would be ANY better in terms of quality.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143975].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

"Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content."

this refers to ON-SITE content not off-site and is thus not what we are discussing, let me know if you do not understand the difference and I will try and explain.

And just look at the latest changes Google has made in it's rankings. Sites with loads of spun content backlinks are being penalized left and right. I don't see how posting duplicate content would be ANY better in terms of quality.

Spun content is garbage spam and more important is not "natural". Syndication however is not only natural but to be expected.

Let me put it to you this way lets say the Fox News breaks the story about the president taking bribes. That story will be republished by the AP (and all its subscribers) reuters (and all its subscribers) CNN, ABC etc etc many of which will not even be re-written until more information breaks on the story.

Duplicate content - Webmaster Tools Help
However, in some cases, content is deliberately duplicated across domains in an attempt to manipulate search engine rankings or win more traffic.

actually the next sentence is key

"Deceptive practices like this can result in a poor user experience, when a visitor sees substantially the same content repeated within a set of search results."

This is a bit intricate. First he does not mention a penalty, in the next paragraph after this he does mention that ON-SITE duplicate content can result in a penalty but it does not reference OFF-SITE syndication.

In the very Matt Cutts article you posted earlier he acknowledges that some syndication is legitimate.

Lets put it another way. lets say google wants to penalize a site because so many sites have the same article all over the place, are they really going to de-rank the ORIGINAL article? no.

Here is a link where google talks about duplicate conent and acknowledges no penalty

Duplicate Content & Multiple Site Issues -...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144045].message }}

Ashera

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

"Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content."

this refers to ON-SITE content not off-site and is thus not what we are discussing, let me know if you do not understand the difference and I will try and explain.

And just look at the latest changes Google has made in it's rankings. Sites with loads of spun content backlinks are being penalized left and right. I don't see how posting duplicate content would be ANY better in terms of quality.

Spun content is garbage spam and more important is not "natural". Syndication however is not only natural but to be expected.

Let me put it to you this way lets say the Fox News breaks the story about the president taking bribes. That story will be republished by the AP (and all its subscribers) reuters (and all its subscribers) CNN, ABC etc etc many of which will not even be re-written until more information breaks on the story.

Duplicate content - Webmaster Tools Help
However, in some cases, content is deliberately duplicated across domains in an attempt to manipulate search engine rankings or win more traffic.

actually the next sentence is key

"Deceptive practices like this can result in a poor user experience, when a visitor sees substantially the same content repeated within a set of search results."

This is a bit intricate. First he does not mention a penalty, in the next paragraph after this he does mention that ON-SITE duplicate content can result in a penalty but it does not reference OFF-SITE syndication.

In the very Matt Cutts article you posted earlier he acknowledges that some syndication is legitimate.

Lets put it another way. lets say google wants to penalize a site because so many sites have the same article all over the place, are they really going to de-rank the ORIGINAL article? no.

Here is a link where google talks about duplicate conent and acknowledges no penalty
Duplicate Content & Multiple Site Issues - YouTube

That first paragraph does not specifically have to do with onsite content, no idea how you came to that conclusion. Hence why it says "multiple domains"...

I never said there was a "penalty" for duplicate content - I said that as the content continues to be posted over and over the power of the backlink becomes weaker and weaker. You're syndication comparison is completely null. There's a huge difference between large media outlets picking up a news story and a user posting a duplicate article across Web 2.0 sites. The purpose of Web 2.0's isn't for syndication, but for users to generate unique content (of course with a few exceptions, pinterest, tumblr etc). And yes, I saw that video over 2 years ago when it was released. Lots of changes have been made since 09.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144066].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Your replies this time seem a bit more terse then previously. I hope we are having a conversation and not an arguement. If some of my replies seem sarcastic it was not intended as tone of voice is impossible to communicate in a post.

I never said there was a "penalty" for duplicate content - I said that as the content continues to be posted over and over the power of the backlink becomes weaker and wearker.

Do you have any proof to quantify this? I have seen nothing that says this is true and even if it were how many count for full strength 10? 12? only posting it 15 times so really diminishing returns would have a limited effect. Obviously neither of us have the resources to prove or disprove this point unless we find exactly on topic information from google. However my sites rank and I have never received an "unnatural link structure" email in webmaster tools.

There's a huge difference between large media outlets picking up a news story and a user posting a duplicate article across Web 2.0 sites.

True, big media sites are much smaller websites then most 2.0 sites and will often have far less juice flowing through them. These sites are so powerfu that google had to specifically target them (ezine and squidoo are great examples). Why would duplicate content on cnn be treated differently than any other surce? google cannot make manual exceptions and adjustments for every site out there.

The purpose of Web 2.0's isn't for syndication, but for users to generate unique content (of course with a few exceptions, pinterest, tumblr etc)

Not my place (or googles) to tell people what web 2.0 is for. I use it to express myself and since my accounts are active I assume the owners of these sites dont mind. I even make a small profit from squidoo from time to time.

And yes, I saw that video over 2 years ago when it was released. Lots of changes have been made since 09.

Very true and google has a habit of talking out of both sides of its mouth. I posted the video as i believe it bests represents what we are talking about.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144109].message }}

Ashera

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Your replies this time seem a bit more terse then previously. I hope we are having a conversation and not an arguement. If some of my replies seem sarcastic it was not intended as tone of voice is impossible to communicate in a post.

I never said there was a "penalty" for duplicate content - I said that as the content continues to be posted over and over the power of the backlink becomes weaker and wearker.

Do you have any proof to quantify this? I have seen nothing that says this is true and even if it were how many count for full strength 10? 12? only posting it 15 times so really diminishing returns would have a limited effect. Obviously neither of us have the resources to prove or disprove this point unless we find exactly on topic information from google. However my sites rank and I have never received an "unnatural link structure" email in webmaster tools.

There's a huge difference between large media outlets picking up a news story and a user posting a duplicate article across Web 2.0 sites.

True, big media sites are much smaller websites then most 2.0 sites and will often have far less juice flowing through them. These sites are so powerfu that google had to specifically target them (ezine and squidoo are great examples). Why would duplicate content on cnn be treated differently than any other surce? google cannot make manual exceptions and adjustments for every site out there.

The purpose of Web 2.0's isn't for syndication, but for users to generate unique content (of course with a few exceptions, pinterest, tumblr etc)

Not my place (or googles) to tell people what web 2.0 is for. I use it to express myself and since my accounts are active I assume the owners of these sites dont mind. I even make a small profit from squidoo from time to time.

And yes, I saw that video over 2 years ago when it was released. Lots of changes have been made since 09.

Very true and google has a habit of talking out of both sides of its mouth. I posted the video as i believe it bests represents what we are talking about.

Not meant to be tense at all - sorry if it comes off that way. I do agree - tone of voice is difficult to get across on a forum.

All in all, do whatever works for you. There is neither a right nor a wrong answer to this discussion.

Per post above - scribd.com is great for SEO

Thanks

Signature

If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you're going.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144165].message }}

mbmehmet

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ashera

That first paragraph does not specifically have to do with onsite content, no idea how you came to that conclusion. Hence why it says "multiple domains"...

I never said there was a "penalty" for duplicate content - I said that as the content continues to be posted over and over the power of the backlink becomes weaker and weaker. You're syndication comparison is completely null. There's a huge difference between large media outlets picking up a news story and a user posting a duplicate article across Web 2.0 sites. The purpose of Web 2.0's isn't for syndication, but for users to generate unique content (of course with a few exceptions, pinterest, tumblr etc). And yes, I saw that video over 2 years ago when it was released. Lots of changes have been made since 09.

Dude you need to educate yourself. No offence.

I know it may be uncomfortable for you as you have believed for so long that what you are stating is true but you need to let go. Let your emotions run free, let go, stop holding on. No one likes leaving a comfort zone, but it is necessary. Do you want me to hold your hand? Let's take a ride, let me lead you, show you, teach you and caress you like the young padawan you are.

P.S No sexual meanings intended, just way it came across ;-) I am so straight I make a circle look straight....No , in all seriousness, I am straight, got a wife and kids and S**T. Feel me?

Thanks

Signature

Identi.ca

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169532].message }}

dmtaylor247

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ashera

By all means, keep doing if it works - but Matt does say that it gets devalued, hence this quote: "That will help ensure that the original content has more PageRank, which will aid in picking the best documents in our index."

It doesn't mean the links are devalued though, in fact he said scraper sites can be a good thing for a webmaster...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144373].message }}

Simon74

12 years ago

With the 2.0 web pages add pdf and powerpoint sharing sites. I use it all the time for all my sites and the combination of all 3 works great.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

B&B In Positano
Amalfi Coast Tours

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144149].message }}

dracoboar 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Simon74

With the 2.0 web pages add pdf and powerpoint sharing sites. I use it all the time for all my sites and the combination of all 3 works great.

never thought of that, can you list some of them if you have the time.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144160].message }}
inazuman 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Simon74

With the 2.0 web pages add pdf and powerpoint sharing sites.

I'm sorry, I don't understand with this part, can anybody explain how to add pdf and powerpoint to the web. Thanks
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178729].message }}

nik0

Banned 12 years ago

You are right Draco, 1 piece of content to 20 or so web2.0's, nothing wrong with that, although I wouldn't syndicate it to 100's of sites but that's not what you are doing so all is good.

I must however say that when you use unique content or very well spun content on each, that the ranking effect is stronger. I've tested it multiple times.

Just curious, do you use the same set of web2.0s to post content to for a new site that you builded or do you create new accounts / new blogs?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144200].message }}

inter123 12 years ago

Looking at all this from a positive angle, there are sites on the first page of Google with little in the way of backlinks. So it is not all bad.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144214].message }}
- dracoboar 12 years ago
  
  Just curious, do you use the same set of web2.0s to post content to for a new site that you builded or do you create new accounts / new blogs?
  
  Well i have accounts on every 2.0 i can find with do-follow links.
  
  I create separate accounts for each website i own (usually as most of my sites are in a related niche sometimes i use blog style sites like edublogs or tumblr to post from multiple sites) and then pick 10 - 20 at random each time i have a new post that needs to be syndicated.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144266].message }}

TamilYoung

12 years ago

Great share, pretty interesting, to share how you see link building! Wishes for your success.

Thanks

Signature

Discover How Our 3 Ugly Videos Raked In $200+ Commissions in 48 Hours!

Add me to your Google Plus Circles!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144272].message }}

sackboy127

12 years ago

Web 2.0s do make wonders, especially recently, and in my opinion the days of using scraped and spun garbage content are over (at least for 1st tier links), however, I still think that it's better to use separate unique articles in the long run. You're probably much safer from future G updates like this one.

Thanks

Signature

Unique Content Web 2.0s
Proven Method to Shoot Up the Serps PERMANENTLY

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144301].message }}

Rich Ray

12 years ago

sound intresting, wanna to try for my blog. thanks for a sharing.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144322].message }}

inter123 12 years ago

Google can throw a punch and give you a bloody nose but it can never knock you out. Matt Cutts should go **** himself.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144330].message }}
- jordyhill 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by inter123
  
  Google can throw a punch and give you a bloody nose but it can never knock you out. Matt Cutts should go **** himself.
  
  My sentiments exactly. I think Matt Cutts takes some sadistic pleasure in trying to give webmasters and SEO's sleepless nights, but it has never had any effect on me.
  
  The only bad thing I've experienced was when my BMR articles got deindexed and the site they pointed to fell from page 1 to page 5.
  
  I wrote a press release, just the 1, and got a girl on Fiverr to submit it across about 30 or so PR sites (yes duplicate content again).
  
  Within 10 days, the site appears back on page 1. I wasn't expecting that. It was the first step of a strategy I was working on, and it turned out out all I needed to do was write a single press release and have submitted to multiple PR sites.
  
  Pandas, penguins, polar bears, possums...who gives a panda's behind?
  
  Sleep well, children
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Total Web Solutions << Does what it says in the anchor text!
  Remember!..There are NO problems....ONLY solutions
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6835210].message }}

Watch Store

12 years ago

firstly thanks for some great information

when you link back from the web 2.0 to your main website, how do you vary the anchor text. You said it is unnatural to use only the keyword anchor text.

So if you have lets say 10 web 2.0 sites how many keword anchor text, how many click here and how many just the url or any other linking method ?

Thanks

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144333].message }}

Steadyon

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Hello,

I think people will find this interesting, if not somewhat educational.

I make about $1000 a month from various adsense websites. As these websites are in various medical niches. Since I am not a trained medical professional I do not engage in social media so I am VERY sensitive to google changes as they account for 100% of my traffic.

Of my 50 or so sites panda had no effect, penguin hammered 1 site which is now costing me about $30 a month. I am certain this is due to an over optimized link anchor text and on page seo.

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART.

All of my sites use a similar link strategy.

First I post content on my website, then let it sit for a week to guarantee it has been indexed.

I then pick 15 random 2.0 websites (edublogs, weebly, xanga, gather, OnSugar, blogger etc. etc) and randomly post that exact same article on these various sites making sure there are links pointing back to my money site in the content area and links to other quality non-competing websites like the AMA or CDC. It is important to randomly pick 10 - 20 different 2.0 sites each time.

I NEVER SPIN ANYTHING, THERE IS NO OFF-SITE DUPLICATE CONTENT PENALTY.

I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites ( I never point garbage links to my money sites) to make sure they get indexed.

Although you should always diversify where your links come from this is just one solid strategy. This process has proven to be 97% immune to both panda and penguin.

Anyways I hope that helps some, I will follow-up with what happens to the one affected site once I change the anchor text and on page seo to see if it returns to page 1.

I understand what you are saying, but there is nothing new here.

It is just another tactic.

Some of our sites using this exactly tactic have been dropped like a stone from the index.

It is NOT a foolproof tactic right now I can assure you.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144338].message }}

sandra98

12 years ago

Hi Dracobar,

Great to hear that your sites are doing good. This is great news, amidst the craziness. Thanks for sharing your methods as well. One question - what's the age of your sites' like (eg greater than 6 months)?

Thanks,
Sandra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144343].message }}

dracoboar 12 years ago

I understand what you are saying, but there is nothing new here.

It is just another tactic.

Some of our sites using this exactly tactic have been dropped like a stone from the index.

It is NOT a foolproof tactic right now I can assure you.

I actually learned this here so I am sure many people are already using it. Credit where credit is due certainly. I am not saying it is full proof it is just another weapon in the arsenal, as I mentioned earlier you should vary your link strategy all the time getting new links from new sources.

when you link back from the web 2.0 to your main website, how do you vary the anchor text. You said it is unnatural to use only the keyword anchor text.

So if you have lets say 10 web 2.0 sites how many keword anchor text, how many click here and how many just the url or any other linking method ?

Since my sites are already ranking well I usually do 3 or so for my main keyword 2 or so for a secondary keyword and the rest are completely random. Since I do every post by hand this is not an issue.

however, I still think that it's better to use separate unique articles in the long run. You're probably much safer from future G updates like this one.

100% correct however that comes at a substantial resource cost in either time or money.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144389].message }}

madison_avenue

12 years ago

I think it's good system, because it's largely manual and controlled. Web 2.0 sites are selected randomly which helps. The size of the syndication is also controlled, this is not like submitting an article to 1000s of low value article directories using AMR, the syndication here is limited to 20 powerful web 2.0, sites this is why it is working.

Mass submission of the same article to 1000's of low value article sites are what raises red flags these links become worthless. There might be case for refining this a little and maybe changing the article titles and some of the content, 20% or so, but it's not essential.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144385].message }}

Chris-

12 years ago

thanks for the info. Nice to see real world testing of such things.

Chris

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144424].message }}

ahmed497

Banned 12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145840].message }}

Seobizz 12 years ago

Thanks dracoboar for answering my questions. I am going to try this link building strategy on one of my affiliate sites. But I am putting my own twist on things to make sure my links are quickly indexed. I will report back with my results later on. Also I am going to post my post Penguin update findings.

For anyone interested in 25 free social bookmark backlinks a day, click on my signature. It's free and perfect to use to build up your web 2.0 links
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6148266].message }}

JSProjects

12 years ago

That's a pretty basic strategy and it's good to hear that it's working for you. Shows that most people over-complicate the process.

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Hello,

I think people will find this interesting, if not somewhat educational.

I make about $1000 a month from various adsense websites. As these websites are in various medical niches. Since I am not a trained medical professional I do not engage in social media so I am VERY sensitive to google changes as they account for 100% of my traffic.

Of my 50 or so sites panda had no effect, penguin hammered 1 site which is now costing me about $30 a month. I am certain this is due to an over optimized link anchor text and on page seo.

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART.

All of my sites use a similar link strategy.

First I post content on my website, then let it sit for a week to guarantee it has been indexed.

I then pick 15 random 2.0 websites (edublogs, weebly, xanga, gather, OnSugar, blogger etc. etc) and randomly post that exact same article on these various sites making sure there are links pointing back to my money site in the content area and links to other quality non-competing websites like the AMA or CDC. It is important to randomly pick 10 - 20 different 2.0 sites each time.

I NEVER SPIN ANYTHING, THERE IS NO OFF-SITE DUPLICATE CONTENT PENALTY.

I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites ( I never point garbage links to my money sites) to make sure they get indexed.

Although you should always diversify where your links come from this is just one solid strategy. This process has proven to be 97% immune to both panda and penguin.

Anyways I hope that helps some, I will follow-up with what happens to the one affected site once I change the anchor text and on page seo to see if it returns to page 1.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6148830].message }}

codecreative

12 years ago

i have a question this exact technique is offered by a seller called volarex on fiverr ive used her a few days ago. im hoping to see a big jump in my rankings. ive used heavily spun articles so all are unique and copyscape passed.

is this the same technique????

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6150371].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by codecreative

i have a question this exact technique is offered by a seller called volarex on fiverr ive used her a few days ago. im hoping to see a big jump in my rankings. ive used heavily spun articles so all are unique and copyscape passed.

is this the same technique????

A lot of the same concepts except a few key differences.

First, spun content, google expects content to propagate across the internet so unless you are talking about posting something on hundreds of sites it makes no sense to spin it. Especially since google can see spun content from a mile away.

Second, Link wheels are easily detectable, my links dont link to eachother they link to my moneysite. Think pyramid not wheel. Also sending thousands of backlinks at your linkwheel with the click of a button seems illadvised in the present climate, all i need is the link indexed nothing more.

Third, price and quality. To do this manually takes over an hour to do 15 or so sites and that is reusing some of the same accounts. I understand this person is probably overseas but that seems like a lot of work for very little money, is she using the same 9 sites over and over?

To be honest I am not really trying to hide what I am doing from google.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6150602].message }}

codecreative

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

A lot of the same concepts except a few key differences.

First, spun content, google expects content to propagate across the internet so unless you are talking about posting something on hundreds of sites it makes no sense to spin it. Especially since google can see spun content from a mile away.

Second, Link wheels are easily detectable, my links dont link to eachother they link to my moneysite. Think pyramid not wheel. Also sending thousands of backlinks at your linkwheel with the click of a button seems illadvised in the present climate, all i need is the link indexed nothing more.

Third, price and quality. To do this manually takes over an hour to do 15 or so sites and that is reusing some of the same accounts. I understand this person is probably overseas but that seems like a lot of work for very little money, is she using the same 9 sites over and over?

To be honest I am not really trying to hide what I am doing from google.

Hi

Thought a lot about your feedback. I've seen a gig on fiverr the guy has 100 percent rating and builds pyramids not links. The site I have has full on site seo done by myself and ive verified it all with ibp and traffic travis. My domain is keyword rich although not a emd. The strength of comp is low about 49 i think.

Do you think one of his gigs will do the trick to get to page one?

The gig is Dino_stark will build eminent backlink pyramid with 5000 profiles links,links are all from different domains and about 90 percent are dofollow for $5, only on fiverr.com

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168627].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by codecreative

Hi

Thought a lot about your feedback. I've seen a gig on fiverr the guy has 100 percent rating and builds pyramids not links. The site I have has full on site seo done by myself and ive verified it all with ibp and traffic travis. My domain is keyword rich although not a emd. The strength of comp is low about 49 i think.

Do you think one of his gigs will do the trick to get to page one?

The gig is Dino_stark will build eminent backlink pyramid with 5000 profiles links,links are all from different domains and about 90 percent are dofollow for $5, only on fiverr.com

I am not an seo expert, I am merely an expert in this method that I have spoken about.

However I believe penguin specifically targeted profile links and just about any other link that can be made at the push of a button. In fact you can probably find somone else on fiverr selling this exact service as a NEGATIVE SEO service.

If you are going to go with one of these services go with the firwst one, but since we are talking $5 you can test both and here is how

Take one of the weak keywords you think you have a shot at. Write a custom article for the keyword and post it for free on blogger, then hire him to hit that page not your money site. Then see what happens. (best to open the blogger acct for that page with a fake email in case disaster strikes and dont put adsense on these pages right away either even if they do succeed)

I would say this of the two fiverr offers you have talked about the first one seems much more viable to me than this one and can be tested in the exact same way. The second guy is literally getting paid $5 to press a button.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168761].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by codecreative

Hi

Thought a lot about your feedback. I've seen a gig on fiverr the guy has 100 percent rating and builds pyramids not links. The site I have has full on site seo done by myself and ive verified it all with ibp and traffic travis. My domain is keyword rich although not a emd. The strength of comp is low about 49 i think.

Do you think one of his gigs will do the trick to get to page one?

The gig is Dino_stark will build eminent backlink pyramid with 5000 profiles links,links are all from different domains and about 90 percent are dofollow for $5, only on fiverr.com

I am not an seo expert, I am merely an expert in this method that I have spoken about.

However I believe penguin specifically targeted profile links and just about any other link that can be made at the push of a button. In fact you can probably find someone else on fiverr selling this exact service as a NEGATIVE SEO service.

If you are going to go with one of these services go with the firwst one, but since we are talking $5 you can test both and here is how

Take one of the weak keywords you think you have a shot at. Write a custom article for the keyword and post it for free on blogger, then hire him to hit that page not your money site. Then see what happens. (best to open the blogger acct for that page with a fake email in case disaster strikes and dont put adsense on these pages right away either even if they do succeed)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168771].message }}

codecreative

12 years ago

Hi thanks for the detailed reply, only one thing points out to me, you mention in the first post
"I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites"

But you also say "Also sending thousands of backlinks at your linkwheel with the click of a button seems illadvised in the present climate, all i need is the link indexed nothing more."

What tools are used for the garbage links, automated blog commenting like sb? And how many garbage links do you point to the 2.0 sites?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6150885].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by codecreative

Hi thanks for the detailed reply, only one thing points out to me, you mention in the first post
"I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites"

But you also say "Also sending thousands of backlinks at your linkwheel with the click of a button seems illadvised in the present climate, all i need is the link indexed nothing more."

What tools are used for the garbage links, automated blog commenting like sb? And how many garbage links do you point to the 2.0 sites?

Sure let me clarify. I use Im automator to send about 15 social bookamrking links to each 2.0 site

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6150944].message }}

codecreative

12 years ago

thanks and what is your typical strength of competition for the keywords your ranking well with?

I've hit #4 on a google kw with 6600 local searches, and its just for having emd no backlinking done on that yet. It's the only site making me some clicks at moment i need to do link building on my other 3

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6151221].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by codecreative

thanks and what is your typical strength of competition for the keywords your ranking well with?

I've hit #4 on a google kw with 6600 local searches, and its just for having emd no backlinking done on that yet. It's the only site making me some clicks at moment i need to do link building on my other 3

I have no way of quantifying competition as it is different for every term.

I want to be very clear this is just one link strategy and link building strategies should be very diversified.

The reason I use this one is that it has the advantage of repurposeing quality content.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6151264].message }}

Lukas

12 years ago

on 15 random sites with all same username with same content?

Or different usernames same content?

You put up 5 articles a week same niche daily?

I am glad to see something still working. Thanks

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154767].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Lukas

on 15 random sites with all same username with same content?

Or different usernames same content?

You put up 5 articles a week same niche daily?

I am glad to see something still working. Thanks

15 random sites, each site has a different username which gets used over and over again unless I feel the need to change it but that is rare.

At first I do maybe one a week then 2 or 3 then 5 but yes 5 a week. takes about an hour and a half and is the first thing I do every morning. I can be very time consuming but once you get your site to a reasonable level you can move on to the next site and just do maintanence.

yes i do 5 articles a week until the keywords get to level i am satisfied with then i do 1 a week just for maintanance.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154985].message }}

hammertorch

12 years ago

Thanks for the share... i was really thinking of this strategy for a while now before i read i stumbled on this thread...

Thanks

Signature

Live a laptop life style by working home base

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155097].message }}

rjd1265

12 years ago

this is called Indirect link building and works great. if you get busted by Google for spam or paid links who cares...it is just your junk sites that go down...not yoru money site

Thanks

Signature

You Are A Snowflake

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155129].message }}

inter123

12 years ago

Do you submit the same article to 15 web 2.0 properties?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155150].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by inter123

Do you submit the same article to 15 web 2.0 properties?

yes, the article sites on my website for 2 weeks. then i randomly pick 10 - 20 (usually about 15) web 2.0 properties and post it there.

I generally make no alterations to the article. I make sure the article has all of the following:

1 link to a vary high quality great reputation site like The American Medical Association

1 ,2 or 3 links to different urls on my site.

and in some cases I will includ a link to the original article source

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155177].message }}

Arav

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

1 ,2 or 3 links to different urls on my site.

and in some cases I will includ a link to the original article source

Hello,
It's a great read and this method is working for you, it's great too.
Anyway, as you said that you point back to different urls of your site and in some cases to the original article. Then my question is, by doing so, are you targeting any specific keyword of the original article or for what purpose? Honestly, I haven't understood that by pointing to other urls, how you are optimizing the original post?
I mean if I target a specific 'url+keyword' to optimize, then wont I point back to that url with a variation of that main keyword? If I point back to other urls with the keyword variation, then will that targeted keyword will rank?

Pardon the confusions. Actually I'm wanting to clarify things which might be useful for me. Thanks

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Actual High PR(3-6), Do-follow,Low OBL,Unique Domain,SPAM Free, Anchor Text allowed, Mostly Auto Approved Blog List Package (30 Links including AA .edu) for Sale. Only 10 Packages. PM me for details.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168183].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Arav

Hello,
It's a great read and this method is working for you, it's great too.
Anyway, as you said that you point back to different urls of your site and in some cases to the original article. Then my question is, by doing so, are you targeting any specific keyword of the original article or for what purpose? Honestly, I haven't understood that by pointing to other urls, how you are optimizing the original post?
I mean if I target a specific 'url+keyword' to optimize, then wont I point back to that url with a variation of that main keyword? If I point back to other urls with the keyword variation, then will that targeted keyword will rank?

Pardon the confusions. Actually I'm wanting to clarify things which might be useful for me. Thanks

great question and about the only thing i have not covered in depth on this thread.

The articles you syndicate should be filler articles nothing more.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU SYNDICATE AN ARTICLE YOU ARE TRYING TO RANK FOR A KEYWORD.

When my site launched i had 90% of the keywords covered by content. i now publish for the following reasons:

to keep google coming back and crawling my site daily
to give me something to syndicate
to increase site size as that is now a ranking factor

As far as what pages i target i do it based on 2 things, which pages will give me the most bang for my buck if they move up (zone based seo) and which links will fit naturally into the article i am putting out.

Once I have as much as i think i can reasonable get out of a site I then slow down my piblishing and divert resources to getting the next site ranked

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168239].message }}

Arav

12 years ago

So, if I want to rank a specific keyword for a specific page, then all the syndicated articles (not original one) will point back to the targeted page with variation of the targeted KW? Or you're doing something difference?

P.S. I want to Rank a KEYWORD for a single url, not the whole site.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Actual High PR(3-6), Do-follow,Low OBL,Unique Domain,SPAM Free, Anchor Text allowed, Mostly Auto Approved Blog List Package (30 Links including AA .edu) for Sale. Only 10 Packages. PM me for details.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168436].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Arav

So, if I want to rank a specific keyword for a specific page, then all the syndicated articles (not original one) will point back to the targeted page with variation of the targeted KW? Or you're doing something difference?

P.S. I want to Rank a KEYWORD for a single url, not the whole site.

yes i take the articles on my site that are just filler.

I syndicate this out in the manner described.

Inside the article that I am syndicating I point back to the url I want to rank with either the kw, a LSI variation of the keyword, or a random thing to avaoid over-optimization.

Each link within my article points to a different url on my site except for the pone that points to a quality 3rd party site. I never point more than one link at the same url on the same page as IIRC google ignores all links going to the same url after it sees the first one on that page.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168558].message }}

igorvrag 12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

then i randomly pick 10 - 20 (usually about 15) web 2.0 properties and post it there.

Could you post the list of web2.0 sites that you mostly use?
- Thanks
Signature
http://training-your-dog-tips.com/
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177997].message }}

dracoboar 12 years ago

Originally Posted by inter123

Do you submit the same article to 15 web 2.0 properties?

yes but each time i post a new article i post it on 15 different random sites
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158919].message }}
- greboguru 12 years ago
  
  Firstly thanks for sharing this and taking time to answer the questions.
  
  Secondly, which 2.0 sites are you using and what criteria did you use to select the sites into your 'site pool'.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164181].message }}

John34

12 years ago

What kind of backlinks do you send to these web 2.0 blogs?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156779].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by John34

What kind of backlinks do you send to these web 2.0 blogs?

i use IMAutomator to send spammy social bookmarking links bu tonly about 15 or so.

any automated process to send links to tier 2 sites would be fine as long as you dont over due it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6157417].message }}

inter123

12 years ago

Are most of your niches quite low when it comes to competetion? 15 web 2.0 sites with 15 social bookmark backlinks to them mean 225 backlinks at the most and that is not very many backlinks.

Originally Posted by dracoboar

i use IMAutomator to send spammy social bookmarking links bu tonly about 15 or so.

any automated process to send links to tier 2 sites would be fine as long as you dont over due it.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158867].message }}

carrotdogs

12 years ago

Thanks for sharing the your linkbuilding technique. I have been using a similar method recently but havn't been automating the social bookmark submissions. It is VERY boring but I don't really like automating any of my SEO. IMAutomator does look very good though, I will probably purchase the Lite version shortly. Would you recommend purchasing IMAutomator?

Thanks!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6157694].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by carrotdogs

Thanks for sharing the your linkbuilding technique. I have been using a similar method recently but havn't been automating the social bookmark submissions. It is VERY boring but I don't really like automating any of my SEO. IMAutomator does look very good though, I will probably purchase the Lite version shortly. Would you recommend purchasing IMAutomator?

Thanks!

Only the lite version, the rest i dont think is worth the money.

I dont like to automate either but i dont mind when i automate links to things that are NOT on my moneysite

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158180].message }}

John34

12 years ago

Can you list the web 2.0 sites which you use for tier 1?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164310].message }}

CatherineMay

12 years ago

Thanks so much for sharing your technique. I like the fact that it is straightforward and organized and very focused.

My question is this: do you do all your work from one IP address? Some people are super careful about using different IP addresses and some people seem to not worry about it. This has been a confusing issue for me, especially since I have no idea how to set up a different IP anyway, lol.

Catherine

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164407].message }}

jinx1221

12 years ago

Originally Posted by CatherineMay

My question is this: do you do all your work from one IP address? Some people are super careful about using different IP addresses and some people seem to not worry about it. This has been a confusing issue for me, especially since I have no idea how to set up a different IP anyway, lol.

Hi Catherine, I think your question revolves around the fear that Google, Yahoo, Bing or whoever can tell that your sites are all coming from you. Search engines can not tell who posted the content or whether the poster posted from the same ip address. Some people use rotating proxies so that the blog site itself cannot tell that the user is setting up several accounts, etc. Also, there may be some confusion about the IP address issue.. you need to have each site coming from different IP addresses, true. This is why people who set up their own networks buy several accounts from different companies in order that their interlinking blogs have diversifying IP's. This will not be a concern for us in setting up Web20's, since they all are on different IP's, and some are even so busy as to have several different IP's of their own.

I would also like to touch on a comment earlier about how "Google can see spun content a mile away".. true, they can see poorly spun, word level only spun content. But if you spin manually, at all levels (paragraph, sentence, and word), even spin as to omit some paragraphs/sentences, Google can not tell. Just spin well and diversify your anchor text. Hope this was helpful to you!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169497].message }}

Cyberdog1

12 years ago

That's a really good strategy - I wonder if you've just hit upon the cheapest way to SEO your site from the outside using articles.

Thanks for this, I will be trying that with some of my articles. Is there anyway I can find a big list of Web 2.0 sites?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Most think that it was God who created man in his own image but it was us who created God in ours.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164494].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by John34

Can you list the web 2.0 sites which you use for tier 1?

Guys I am unfortunately on the road visiting family in friends where i grew up until the weekend so I dont have access to my excel spreadsheet with all the 2.0s I use. I can tell you off the top of my head I use there:

Gather.com
Onsugar.com
Quizilla.com
Webs.com
Blogger.com
tumblr
multiply
friend feed
publr
Blog.com
Edublogs.org
weebly
wikidot.com
salon.com
yola.com
squidoo.com

this is by no means a complete list (which i will post when i get back, cant believe i didnt think of that) but these i remember off the top of my head and found a few in an old meail i have access too atm.

Why did i choose these sites?
simple, they are interested in my business. All of these ites except squidoo are fine with syndicated content, most are easy to use and many are WP based.

Why bother with a website that insists you post "unique" garbage totally spun crap. Most of the sites that demand "unique" content are not worth front line quality so they end up being repositories of spun garbage so you know what better left alone anyways.

SQUIDOO is the notable exception , as I make a few bucks a month from squidoo i mess with them a little but it is getting less and less. If you are not interested in trying to get around squidoos unique content filte best to just move on.

Squidoo has moved into a secodary link source for me. If i get a top 10 ranking w/o and links on my site I will rewrite the article and post it on squidoo to see if i can get top 10 with them as well why not have 2 in the top 10 right?

As far as pure links I am using squidoo less and less.

Always do business with people who want your business not people that dont right?

Originally Posted by CatherineMay

My question is this: do you do all your work from one IP address? Some people are super careful about using different IP addresses and some people seem to not worry about it. This has been a confusing issue for me, especially since I have no idea how to set up a different IP anyway, lol.

Catherine

Catherine,

I have neither passion or prejudice towards google and bing I take them as I find them. I am not a very technically proficient guy and KNOW google and bing have thought of things I cant even possible conceive.

Thus I generally dont hide what I do. I am not saying this is a great idea but all the time we spend trying to hide and fool search engines is probably better spent building a business.

This policy is easy to espouse when you are as ignorant as I am. If i was efficient with things like proxy servers and emerging web 2.0 technologies, lol I dont even have a facebook page, I would probably be more guarded but its just not my style.

Since all my blogs are in the same niche I dont even hide the fact that my sites link together like a pyramid, again cant say I would follow that advice if i was you but it is what it is.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165059].message }}

CatherineMay

12 years ago

Even though I added a "thank-you" to your last post, I just want to thank you again for the your attitude toward the discussion you were having with Ashera, who is another warrior I am paying attention to.

The differences in opinion between the two of you created the most educational dialogue I've encountered on this subject of duplicate content.

I appreciate the intelligence, respect, and restraint that you both showed.

Catherine

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165948].message }}

DBracey

12 years ago

Originally Posted by CatherineMay

I just want to thank you again for the your attitude toward the discussion you were having with Ashera, who is another warrior I am paying attention to. The differences in opinion between the two of you created the most educational dialogue I've encountered on this subject of duplicate content.I appreciate the intelligence, respect, and restraint that you both showed.

I was intending to post something similar, but you said it so well I'll just quote you and second your view.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172613].message }}

christopherk

12 years ago

dracoboar, can use same method for foreign keywords. Maybe whole article in foreign language? Do these Web 2.0 sites accept foreign language articles?

Thanks

Signature

Check out my Fiverr.com GIGs!
!!!Cheapest and powerful backlinks!!!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166073].message }}

itlnoor

12 years ago

Very Good strategy except for the syndication part. Again posting Garbage links to the web 2.0 properties, I think we may see an update in the near future to kill that as well. I must agree the part of linking authority sites .. That is a very good ides to make things normal.

Thanks

Signature

Unbelievable 5dollar web design
Work from home

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166165].message }}

cooler1

12 years ago

Thanks for sharing your strategy.

With the 15 web 2.0 sites which you submit to, do they have a minimum word count which the article has to be? If so, what is it? Just wondering because someone mentioned that it's best if the content is original in regards to future updates.

How many times do you vary the anchor text for the link to your money site when you submit the article to the 15 web 2.0 sites? Do you vary the anchor text for each of the 15 articles or only some of the time?

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166234].message }}

eb1229

12 years ago

So I have read the threads above, but as a non-marketing guy, I am unsure what I should do. My site supposedly has a PR 2 but none of my keywords are ranking. My strategy has been to put good content on my website and write articles with E-zines with backlinks to my site. I am at a loss as what to do. It is almost like my organic rankings went from page 1 to non exsistent in a matter of days.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166286].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by christopherk

dracoboar, can use same method for foreign keywords. Maybe whole article in foreign language? Do these Web 2.0 sites accept foreign language articles?

I honestly dont know. Many of the sites do not have filters or checker but whether or not they are capable of posting a foreign language is not something I have every tried.

The only reason i can see why this might not work is that i assume a foreign language may require a special font or soehting tha tthe sites might not be able to handle. However many of them do have language selectors so i guess they would work fine. I simply have never worked in any language besides english, i am sorry i cannot be more helpful

Originally Posted by itlnoor

Very Good strategy except for the syndication part. Again posting Garbage links to the web 2.0 properties, I think we may see an update in the near future to kill that as well. I must agree the part of linking authority sites .. That is a very good ides to make things normal.

You said it was a good idea except about the syndication part, as that is the heart of the whole process I dont follow you, unless you mean I should spin or rewrite content.

If you id mean I should spin or rewrite content I guess that is up to the user but if i had to guess spinning is taking a bigger risk right now than syndication. I can also tell you that almsot all the pages i create get indexed.

As far as throwing garbage links at the 2.0 sites it may be hammered soon but it is really just an indexing device to make sure google sees the new off-site page i have created. there are a thousand ways to do this and even if google ignores the bookmarking link they will probably follow it to see where it leads.

Originally Posted by cooler1

Thanks for sharing your strategy.

With the 15 web 2.0 sites which you submit to, do they have a minimum word count which the article has to be? If so, what is it? Just wondering because someone mentioned that it's best if the content is original in regards to future updates.

How many times do you vary the anchor text for the link to your money site when you submit the article to the 15 web 2.0 sites? Do you vary the anchor text for each of the 15 articles or only some of the time?

the articles i syndicate all came from my website so they ae gnerally about 400 - 600 words long. sinc emost of the 2.0 sites are blog based i dont think they require any minimum or maximum, and sinc the purpose is to create contextual links i dont want these posts to rank anyways i just want google to see the link and see it was within an article that was contextual. Although sometimes these posts do rank that is NEVER intended. Posts that I want to rank for keywords stay on my site and dont get syndicated.

As far as original content in future updates who knows. It wuld be easy to say google will never attack this becaus syndication is both proper and expected for quality content, but then again google has lost its damn mind with negative seo and you simply cannot say.

I can tell you this, someday google MAY ignore links that are on duplicate content, but they already chew up and spit out spun content which I am sure is a pet peeve of theirs.

The one site that got hit was a quality site that i had gotten lazy changing the anchor text. Now i do it daily, as i insert links into the article i am about to syndicate i just put in things that naturally fit into the article. My goal is to have less than 50% of my incoming links be an exact kw match but that is a totally arbitrary number i just picked out of the sky.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167575].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by eb1229

So I have read the threads above, but as a non-marketing guy, I am unsure what I should do. My site supposedly has a PR 2 but none of my keywords are ranking. My strategy has been to put good content on my website and write articles with E-zines with backlinks to my site. I am at a loss as what to do. It is almost like my organic rankings went from page 1 to non exsistent in a matter of days.

Ebb you have several issues going on here that I will address.

First off article marketing is NOT about the links, these links are about as bad as it gets and in todays world probably hurt you more then help you especially if thats all the links you have.

Proper article marketing is tracking to see who uses your articles from ezine and then forming a relationship with them to see if you can get quality links on their website, or post on their website to drive traffic to yours, or somehow market to their list etc etc.

For more on how article marketing is supposed to be done look up ALEXA Smith in these forums her work on the subject is as close to definitive and authoritative as it gets. if someone can find one of her threads and link it for him that would be great.

Now as far as links go contextual is better then not. This means a link going to a dog trainer site is worth more if it is on a page or website about dog training. I honestly dont know if context is defined on the site level, the page level or the paragraph level i suspect all of the above.

The first thing I would do is take unique snippets from the articles you have already posted n ezine and either google them or run them through copyscape (copyscape tends to only return high quality results( If you see webmasters using your content contact them and form a relationship.

Second since you like writing why not do what I am doing with atleast one or two articles, having links from a diverse set of domains is good in goggles eyes so the worst case scenario is you diversify your link profile which is key, and since these links will be INSIDE your content and not in a resource box they should count for more.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167641].message }}

karamarius

12 years ago

I totally agree with this method of link building. Its my first time to have a niche website and I made it to 2nd page of G within 29 days by just using web 2.0 sites and some article directories for backlinks. But I did spun my content before submitting it manually and u should make sure that the url of the 2.0 sites that you created will somehow have your main keyword on it.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167713].message }}

wahidswebgarage

12 years ago

Actually every kind of link works if u do them consistantly.Panda gave a big slap to the web 2.0s but now penguin is giving them value?That's just shows that google doesn't even know what their updates should do.Every time there's a big update most of my sites go down and comes back after 15-20 days and stays there.I can only advice u guys to keep on building links,ur site might get sandboxed for that for sometime but it will come back stronger.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168844].message }}

unclebuck

12 years ago

Very interesting thread! I have not used web 2.0 on my latest sites and those sites have suffered. I have used the syndication technique you describe and it does work well. Thanks for taking time out to share with us what is working for you.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6171294].message }}

mrtrance

12 years ago

OK I've gone thru this thread and I thought I understood your process, but now I'm a bit confused on your process.

So let's use an example site of mine. Say I have a EMD site that I want to rank the homepage for that keyword that is EMD and I also will 9 more pages each targeting a related keyword in the niche. So total of 10 main keywords I'd want to rank eventually, but I'd like to first get my main keyword ranked for the homepage url.

So using your system I once my homepage post is indexed, wait a 1 week, and I then submit that same article to like a random 15 Web 2.0 social network sites, point 1 link back to the homepage url with 50% of those links using same keyword as anchor text and other 50% a mixture of LSI, domain, click here, etc, and point 1 link to authority site. I then point some backlinks to each of these Web2.0's to get these tier 1s indexed.

So I post my 2nd article on my site targeting a related keyword I want to rank, wait for it to be indexed, then pick another set of random 15-20 Web 2.0s and post that same article there...again pointing 1 link back to that internal page of my site I want to rank for that keyword (using a variety of anchor texts), 1 link to a authority site, and then point social book backlinks to these web 2.0 links to get them indexed.

So I do this until I work my way thru all 10 keywords/pages of my site.

So my question is how many rounds do you do until you get page 1 rankings for your keywords? Do you do multiple rounds of these, but that would mean you will need to first post an article on your site and then start the cycle again.

Is my understanding correct here on how your system works or do I have it wrong? Do you think this will work for my sites that were hit with recent Penguin update and my setup is similar to what I have described here? I have microniche sites that are EMD and each one has 10-15 pages of content with each page targeting a different, but related keyword, but mainly my homepage and main keyword were ranking on 1st page. Now those sites took a hit and most moved to page 2 and beyond for their main keyword and homepage url that were ranking.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6171590].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by mrtrance

OK I've gone thru this thread and I thought I understood your process, but now I'm a bit confused on your process.

So let's use an example site of mine. Say I have a EMD site that I want to rank the homepage for that keyword that is EMD and I also will 9 more pages each targeting a related keyword in the niche. So total of 10 main keywords I'd want to rank eventually, but I'd like to first get my main keyword ranked for the homepage url.

So using your system I once my homepage post is indexed, wait a 1 week, and I then submit that same article to like a random 15 Web 2.0 social network sites, point 1 link back to the homepage url with 50% of those links using same keyword as anchor text and other 50% a mixture of LSI, domain, click here, etc, and point 1 link to authority site. I then point some backlinks to each of these Web2.0's to get these tier 1s indexed.

So I post my 2nd article on my site targeting a related keyword I want to rank, wait for it to be indexed, then pick another set of random 15-20 Web 2.0s and post that same article there...again pointing 1 link back to that internal page of my site I want to rank for that keyword (using a variety of anchor texts), 1 link to a authority site, and then point social book backlinks to these web 2.0 links to get them indexed.

So I do this until I work my way thru all 10 keywords/pages of my site.

So my question is how many rounds do you do until you get page 1 rankings for your keywords? Do you do multiple rounds of these, but that would mean you will need to first post an article on your site and then start the cycle again.

Is my understanding correct here on how your system works or do I have it wrong? Do you think this will work for my sites that were hit with recent Penguin update and my setup is similar to what I have described here? I have microniche sites that are EMD and each one has 10-15 pages of content with each page targeting a different, but related keyword, but mainly my homepage and main keyword were ranking on 1st page. Now those sites took a hit and most moved to page 2 and beyond for their main keyword and homepage url that were ranking.

NO YOU NEVER SYNDICATE CONTENT YOU WANT TO RANK FOR.

what you syndicate is the posts you put on the site.

Think of it this way the content i put on PAGES is content I want to rank for and it is always 100% unique and unstndicated

The content i put on POSTs is the content i syndicate, this content is never meant to rank it is meant to be syndicated.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6171847].message }}

mrtrance

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

NO YOU NEVER SYNDICATE CONTENT YOU WANT TO RANK FOR.

what you syndicate is the posts you put on the site.

Think of it this way the content i put on PAGES is content I want to rank for and it is always 100% unique and unstndicated

The content i put on POSTs is the content i syndicate, this content is never meant to rank it is meant to be syndicated.

So I guess I had understood it incorrectly. Well the way my sites are setup are that they are all posts for the different articles/keywords I want to rank and I only use pages for like about us, privacy, contact,etc content. I have a static homepage post that has an article on the keyword that is also the EMD and the internal posts focus on the other related keywords.

Well I guess the way my sites are setup is irrelevant here and my focus should be to implement your system in the same way you are doing except I would need to get more unique content written for those web 2.0 sites or at least have some very well spun content that reads well on those sites. I don't want to syndicate the content I use for my posts.

So going back to your method and say you want to rank a page of yours that is about "dog training tips"? So you then take one of your posts that is on similar topic on your site and syndicate it on 15 Web 2.0 blogs with a link back to that page and another link to authority site and then build some backlinks to those 15 blogs correct? So do you then monitor how it does in the SERPs and if you see no movement you do the cycle again with another one of your posts and different set of 15 Web 2.0 blogs. You continue this cycle until you get your desired rankings on page 1 for that page about "dog training tips"?

So the bottom line is your method is about using Web 2.0 blogs with related content that link back to the page you want to rank for that particular keyword and then build tier 2 links to these web 2.0 blogs to pass along juice to your money site url and help it move up the SERPs?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172146].message }}

CatherineMay 12 years ago

Hi Catherine, I think your question revolves around the fear that Google, Yahoo, Bing or whoever can tell that your sites are all coming from you. Search engines can not tell who posted the content or whether the poster posted from the same ip address. Some people use rotating proxies so that the blog site itself cannot tell that the user is setting up several accounts, etc. Also, there may be some confusion about the IP address issue.. you need to have each site coming from different IP addresses, true. This is why people who set up their own networks buy several accounts from different companies in order that their interlinking blogs have diversifying IP's. This will not be a concern for us in setting up Web20's, since they all are on different IP's, and some are even so busy as to have several different IP's of their own.

In the excerpt above from post #81, I need some help in clearly understanding what Jinx is saying. In the second sentence, he says that "search engines can not tell who posted the content or whether the poster posted from the same IP address." Yet, a sentence later, he says "you need to have each site coming from different IP addresses."

What I think he's saying is that your main money sites should be on different IP addresses if they interlink, but that otherwise there should be no concern about a footprint, especially with 2.0 properties.

Is this how others read this paragraph?

Catherine
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172403].message }}

Iamcap

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

NO YOU NEVER SYNDICATE CONTENT YOU WANT TO RANK FOR.

what you syndicate is the posts you put on the site.

Think of it this way the content i put on PAGES is content I want to rank for and it is always 100% unique and unstndicated

The content i put on POSTs is the content i syndicate, this content is never meant to rank it is meant to be syndicated.

Hi Dracobar, Could you please explain your reasoning behind not syndicating your "pages"? What is wrong with having those syndicated also? Have you tried doing this and had negative results?

I've looked for discussion on this subject, but it's hardly mentioned around here.

Thanks for the share.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832415].message }}

christopherk

12 years ago

It means that every Web 2.0 need to be placed in different server/ip. This is named as IP diversity. You need a bunch of different IP's pointing to your money site.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Check out my Fiverr.com GIGs!
!!!Cheapest and powerful backlinks!!!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172417].message }}

CatherineMay

12 years ago

Originally Posted by christopherk

It means that every Web 2.0 need to be placed in different server/ip. This is named as IP diversity. You need a bunch of different IP's pointing to your money site.

It really seems to me that Jinx is saying exactly the opposite of what you say here. He says that the 2.0s already have their different IPs.

Don't want to hijack this great thread, but would appreciate more comments on my post. Or PMs. The way some people talk about the horrors of leaving a footprint on the internet had the eventual effect of making me too hesitant to accomplish anything productive on the internet. I'm encouraged by Dracoboar's success, but just want to lay my last fears to rest...if possible.

Catherine

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172493].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by CatherineMay

It really seems to me that Jinx is saying exactly the opposite of what you say here. He says that the 2.0s already have their different IPs.

Don't want to hijack this great thread, but would appreciate more comments on my post. Or PMs. The way some people talk about the horrors of leaving a footprint on the internet had the eventual effect of making me too hesitant to accomplish anything productive on the internet. I'm encouraged by Dracoboar's success, but just want to lay my last fears to rest...if possible.

Catherine

Catherine,

Let me clear up some confusion. Your original question is do I hide my personal oip, and the answer is NO. Only the website owner (the 2.0 site) can see my IP google cannot see the ip of the person who posted content. This is a non issue you need to forget about.

IP deversity in links is important however each of these sites already has an ip address that you dont know or care about just post on their site.

THE ONLY TIME YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS IF YOU ARE BUILDING YOUR OWN PRIVATE NETWORK.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172776].message }}

Hud 12 years ago

Someone already asked, but I think it has not been answered yet:
whats the maximum competition for the keywords you try to rank for with this strategy and how do you measure competition?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173411].message }}

karamarius

12 years ago

Can somebody share some dofollow 2.0 sites?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172447].message }}

NXmarketeer

12 years ago

simple, logical, human... why shouldn't it work?

thanks for sharing

Thanks

Signature

- Pinterest Bots Get Pin Blaster Bot Now -

- The free web proxies site! -

- Make money online -

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172516].message }}

Rocketboy

12 years ago

Great method.
Do you change the title on your syndicated article on each property?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Cheap WebHosting - Perfect For People With Small Budgets!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172712].message }}

dracoboar 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Rocketboy

Great method.
Do you change the title on your syndicated article on each property?

Not usually
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172750].message }}

wgetfree

12 years ago

Just confused about one thing.

I think you mentioned something about reposting your POSTS on the 2.0 sites, and not your PAGE content? I'm a little confused with that. Does that mean both your pages and your posts both have content but your pages mean more for some reason? Or do you mean that your pages are usually things like "About Me", "Privacy Policy" etc and there's no use posting that to the 2.0 sites?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173451].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Hud

Someone already asked, but I think it has not been answered yet:
whats the maximum competition for the keywords you try to rank for with this strategy and how do you measure competition?

I make a PAGE for every ww that is worthwhile and has reasonable competition. "worthwhile" and "reasonable" being in the eye of the beholder.

I cant really advise you on judging competition however your post seems to imply that this is a stand alone link building solution and you can attack competition with this method all by itself. This i NOT a good idea.

You should also use complimentary methods that will enhance your link diversity, things like blog commenting, guest posting or a private link network which you control.

Originally Posted by wgetfree

Just confused about one thing.

I think you mentioned something about reposting your POSTS on the 2.0 sites, and not your PAGE content? I'm a little confused with that. Does that mean both your pages and your posts both have content but your pages mean more for some reason? Or do you mean that your pages are usually things like "About Me", "Privacy Policy" etc and there's no use posting that to the 2.0 sites?

PAGE contain unique content that is meant to rank for a kw and is NEVER syndicated

POSTS are filler content that are meant to keep google coming back for fresh content and to be syndicated, not to be ranked.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173547].message }}

bigcoolio

12 years ago

Firstly, what a great thread! I like the way that you are keeping your important keywords on the pages and content to syndicate on the blogs. I have to admit that I have been putting most stuff in posts because you can assign tags and categories to it and I find that I get ranked for the tagged content sometimes. But also because pages don't appear in the rss feeds.

This method is certainly something I'm going to try now. Thanks.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6175347].message }}

dracoboar

12 years ago

Originally Posted by bigcoolio

Firstly, what a great thread! I like the way that you are keeping your important keywords on the pages and content to syndicate on the blogs. I have to admit that I have been putting most stuff in posts because you can assign tags and categories to it and I find that I get ranked for the tagged content sometimes. But also because pages don't appear in the rss feeds.

This method is certainly something I'm going to try now. Thanks.

if you stay organized you can absolutly use posts instead of pages just dont syndicate what you want to rank for. You can even use the text plugin or custom menu option on wp to have links to the important stuff on your homepage.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6175363].message }}

mrtrance

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

if you stay organized you can absolutly use posts instead of pages just dont syndicate what you want to rank for. You can even use the text plugin or custom menu option on wp to have links to the important stuff on your homepage.

So what you are saying is if I have 10 POSTS on my site that each target 1 keyword (I want to rank each of these internal urls for their keywords) then I should start with 1 round of submissions to like 15 Web2.0 blogs with unique content on these sites (or at least have 1 article that is heavily spinned that reads well on a similar topic as my internal url) and then do socialbookmarks on these web 2.0 blog urls I get for my tier 1. I should then mix in other types of backlinks to these internal urls and see what sort of rankings I see.

If I'm not where I want to be then do another round of random 15 web 2.0 blogs with different sites and another related article that is heavily spinned and repeat this process.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6176688].message }}

kithara

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites ( I never point garbage links to my money sites) to make sure they get indexed.

i heard this tactic before on several forums.. will this work in a good way ? how would your site be helped by the junk links pointing to your social media sites ?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6176932].message }}

unikbit

12 years ago

interesting, amazing that is working after penguin update
thx for sharing

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177155].message }}

cooler1

12 years ago

You said that on the web 2.0 site you usually put 3 links in your article which include one to an authority site. Do you make the link to the authority site no follow or isn't that necessary?

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178021].message }}

DBracey

12 years ago

@dracoboar

First, thanks for this thread. Every post of yours I've read has been articulate, informative, and most of all appreciated.

I've been thinking about your Squidoo comments. You mentioned that you now only bother with Squidoo when you need that little extra boost - that it's kind of a last resort 2.0 place. Personally I gave up on Squidoo probably half a year ago or so as I found the extra boost Squidoo gave me was not commensurate with the time it takes to create a meaningful lens. I also made this decision as I felt Squidoo Lens' that were at least somewhat informative actually did me an injustice by potentially solving customers needs before they would click on any of my source links from the Lens.

I'm probably never going back to Squidoo as not using the service hasn't harmed me one bit as far as I can tell, but that said, I'm interested to know how you determine when Squidoo might be able to give you the extra boost you're looking for. Or is it a case of you just using Squidoo on a rare occasion in the hope that it might give you a slight edge?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178112].message }}

vema123

12 years ago

I use BMD most of the times to boost my targeted keywords on SERP. Can I also use BMD in this case by putting links from social bookmarks to those 2.0 sites or those trashy ones?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178132].message }}

OmarNegron

12 years ago

Thanks for sharing! very interesting strategy indeed. Taking advantage of the power of web 2.0 sites linking them back to your money site and then hitting them is pure brilliant. The amazing thing is how you were able to withstand the penguin update.

That's all the proof needed indeed. As for Matt Cutts I honestly don't see why he would tell any of us the truth, so why listen to him? The best way to find out anything is to try and take note of what happens. In other words experience.

Can you really trust this guy?

Matt Cutts on Content Unseen - YouTube

LOL

- Will

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178626].message }}

codecreative

12 years ago

Don't you think the only problem with repeating your articles on the web2.0 site is that it leaves a kind of footprint telling google, ok these sites in the web2.0 are assosciated with my own website.

Ok there is no problem in doing that. But if you start blasting your web2.0 with a few hundread say 500 quick fire links it will then be apparent to google what your doing in an instance.

Thats my only quarm with not publishing unique articles on each web2.0 site

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6181415].message }}

Rocketboy

12 years ago

Originally Posted by codecreative

Don't you think the only problem with repeating your articles on the web2.0 site is that it leaves a kind of footprint telling google, ok these sites in the web2.0 are assosciated with my own website.

Ok there is no problem in doing that. But if you start blasting your web2.0 with a few hundread say 500 quick fire links it will then be apparent to google what your doing in an instance.

Thats my only quarm with not publishing unique articles on each web2.0 site

Who told you to blast 500 links to your web 2.0 property? You only use social bookmarkings and only 15 links per property. You only want your links to get indexed, no blast at all.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Cheap WebHosting - Perfect For People With Small Budgets!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6181817].message }}

StevenJones

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Rocketboy

Who told you to blast 500 links to your web 2.0 property? You only use social bookmarkings and only 15 links per property. You only want your links to get indexed, no blast at all.

Indeed, when indexed the rest comes naturally. In most cases.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6181972].message }}

olamilekan2 12 years ago

Thanks for sharing this. Good to know this is still working after Penguin Update.

Just a question, Instead of using thesame article on the posts on your site. Can't you just use a PLR articles related to the Niche on the Web 2.0, by doing a bit of rewrites on the PLR be4 posting to the Web 2.0.

Thanks

Moruf
- Thanks
Signature
Morando Stores
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6181984].message }}

codecreative

12 years ago

if the articles on your web2.0 pyramid are unique could giveing them a blast effect your money site since your not blasting your money site direct just the next tier

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6188182].message }}

Chronic IM

12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6189695].message }}

inter123

12 years ago

The problem is getting the web2.0 indexed. If you got access to a PR5 site or similar that will help get it indexed but not all sites will ge tpicked up Google.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6189802].message }}

cooler1

12 years ago

Originally Posted by inter123

The problem is getting the web2.0 indexed. If you got access to a PR5 site or similar that will help get it indexed but not all sites will ge tpicked up Google.

Wouldn't pinging them get them indexed or isn't that powerful enough?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6191544].message }}

CatherineMay 12 years ago

Yes, what about pinging? I've hardly seen this mentioned at all lately. I thought is was supposed to be so effective for getting backlinks indexed.

Is this not really so?

Catherine
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6191917].message }}
inter123 12 years ago

Originally Posted by cooler1

Wouldn't pinging them get them indexed or isn't that powerful enough?

Pinging was not sufficeint for me. About 50% of the web 2.0 don't get indexed and the most of the rest required effort with pinging, backlinking, etc.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6193412].message }}

christopherk

12 years ago

You may try Nuclear Link Indexer to get your Web 2.0's indexed. I use it and indexing rate is 60-80%. Such a good thing

Thanks

Signature

Check out my Fiverr.com GIGs!
!!!Cheapest and powerful backlinks!!!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6189815].message }}

glock67

12 years ago

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Hello,

I think people will find this interesting, if not somewhat educational.

I make about $1000 a month from various adsense websites. As these websites are in various medical niches. Since I am not a trained medical professional I do not engage in social media so I am VERY sensitive to google changes as they account for 100% of my traffic.

Of my 50 or so sites panda had no effect, penguin hammered 1 site which is now costing me about $30 a month. I am certain this is due to an over optimized link anchor text and on page seo.

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART.

All of my sites use a similar link strategy.

First I post content on my website, then let it sit for a week to guarantee it has been indexed.

I then pick 15 random 2.0 websites (edublogs, weebly, xanga, gather, OnSugar, blogger etc. etc) and randomly post that exact same article on these various sites making sure there are links pointing back to my money site in the content area and links to other quality non-competing websites like the AMA or CDC. It is important to randomly pick 10 - 20 different 2.0 sites each time.

I NEVER SPIN ANYTHING, THERE IS NO OFF-SITE DUPLICATE CONTENT PENALTY.

I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites ( I never point garbage links to my money sites) to make sure they get indexed.

Although you should always diversify where your links come from this is just one solid strategy. This process has proven to be 97% immune to both panda and penguin.

Anyways I hope that helps some, I will follow-up with what happens to the one affected site once I change the anchor text and on page seo to see if it returns to page 1.

that is called backlink boosting

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6189996].message }}

Danijelb

12 years ago

1. Create unique article related to the post/page you want to rank for
2. Get good manual spin on it
3. Post the article on web 2.0 sites, ping them
4. Blast web 2.0 URL's with bookmarking, profile links, forum profiles, etc, then ping all links
5. Submit all URL's you have so far to the Linklicious.me (helps alot)
6. Ping RSS feeds of the web 2.0 directories
7. Combine RSS feeds for your web 2.0 accounts and submit it to RSS directories
8. Grab a Coffee

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6193587].message }}

footfoot

12 years ago

It's a private blog network of web 2.0s instead of your own domains. Much cheaper and easier too.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6196255].message }}

gamemerlin

12 years ago

Dracoboar,

Glad I came across this thread can't wait to try this. General question about your web 2.0 set up. Some of these web 2.0 look like blogging platforms. So for example blogger.com, are you just creating 1 account / 1 blog / 1 page? or do you add more pages to your web 2.0 to make it look more natural?

Put another way when you say create 10 - 20, web 2.0s are they all ONE-PAGERS?

If you can answer this that would be helpful. thanks!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6219291].message }}

Ettienne

12 years ago

This method might work on smaller niches, yes. But I have to agree that posting your own website's article on other sites might not always be the best idea. Yes, duplicate content gets frowned upon, unless it's PR sites and Article Directories that syndicate content that you've posted on them.

I'm sure if this strategy is working for you now, you'll get even better results if you write one variation of your original article and post THAT to the web2.0 sites, rather than using the EXACT same one from your page. Just a thought, not looking for an argument. If it works for you, fantastic. But if you want genuine long-term results, there are no shortcuts.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

>> Get a Free SEO Audit for Your Website <<

... or just jump in and get a 14-day Free Link Building trial

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6219486].message }}

inter123 12 years ago

Tried this but no change in SERPs. Maybe because it has only been 5 days since I created the web 2.0 to point back to main site.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6220040].message }}

backlinkxone

12 years ago

It seems very interesting. I will work on it. Thanks you

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6219926].message }}

benzwm02

12 years ago

That is sweet.

Originally Posted by dracoboar

Hello,

I think people will find this interesting, if not somewhat educational.

I make about $1000 a month from various adsense websites. As these websites are in various medical niches. Since I am not a trained medical professional I do not engage in social media so I am VERY sensitive to google changes as they account for 100% of my traffic.

Of my 50 or so sites panda had no effect, penguin hammered 1 site which is now costing me about $30 a month. I am certain this is due to an over optimized link anchor text and on page seo.

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART.

All of my sites use a similar link strategy.

First I post content on my website, then let it sit for a week to guarantee it has been indexed.

I then pick 15 random 2.0 websites (edublogs, weebly, xanga, gather, OnSugar, blogger etc. etc) and randomly post that exact same article on these various sites making sure there are links pointing back to my money site in the content area and links to other quality non-competing websites like the AMA or CDC. It is important to randomly pick 10 - 20 different 2.0 sites each time.

I NEVER SPIN ANYTHING, THERE IS NO OFF-SITE DUPLICATE CONTENT PENALTY.

I then use automated tools to point garbage links to the 2.0 sites ( I never point garbage links to my money sites) to make sure they get indexed.

Although you should always diversify where your links come from this is just one solid strategy. This process has proven to be 97% immune to both panda and penguin.

Anyways I hope that helps some, I will follow-up with what happens to the one affected site once I change the anchor text and on page seo to see if it returns to page 1.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6221235].message }}

puvanahim

12 years ago

great tip
Thank you

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6223889].message }}

Lukas

12 years ago

Danieljb,

That is the difficult part getting them indexed. All I see when using s..gla$$ is H..Pages showing up for web 2.0 the other's don't. So, you need to double ping or triple ping, same with rss feeds 2 or 3x to achieve it. I think their algoithm is extremly smart so I'd start being more careful as to what you write. God, I wish Bing were gaining share.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6223993].message }}

joshpat2

12 years ago

love posts like these keep me going !!!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832501].message }}

Rakgan

12 years ago

Google never affects on ranking on offpage seo, anyone in the world can link to our website, google can understand that, but over offpage optimization may penalize for over optimization, on my view, just use basic SEO such as internal links, h1, h2, h3 with original content, and get links from high ranked sites (article directory, guest posts) that's enough for bloggers and daily updating sites. For ranking high keywords, another story.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6835781].message }}

daweelmac

12 years ago

Thanks for sharing your experience with us. After the panda update, doing web 2.0 properties helped me a lot in recovering my websites.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6836457].message }}

usabids

12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838134].message }}

ttomp13

12 years ago

I've actually since changed my opinion on this topic.

Originally Posted by ttomp13;

Study proves Article Spinning and Content Syndication is NOT as effective as
Unique Content for backlinks as --- and may even cause drop in rankings?

Study done by a 4-year IM veteran, who's done guest posts for John Chow, Daily
Blog Tips, the Bad Blogger, and has made over $20,000.00 online. (Not impressive to
some, I know, but better than some people, I guess.)

Over the past few weeks, I've ran several tests, on all brand new domains. This
test isn't 100% conclusive, due to competition factors, but the way my rankings
moved around should still teach you something.

I decided to run this test as a response to Pat Flynn's Backlink Building Strategy.

Here are my findings:

Click here to read the full thread

I'm not trying to hijack your thread, but I think you guys will find my results interesting.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6838301].message }}

$30 out of $1000 penguin proves 2.0 works

Trending Topics

Teacher seeking guidance/mentorship

Media Buying Guidance

Free fully working SEO Tool for a Dog Charity?

Model Collapse

Unfortunately we won't get a 'Following' feed option on IG