Web 2.0 backlinks still work?

13 years ago

Yeah, Web 2.0 Backlinks working very well with SERP, But main Important things, Diversify your anchor text with Each property, don't focus with Primary keyword, use all the keywords with variations. it will help you lead your business with next level, Each Created back links please share with social media sites.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187154].message }}

seamy82

13 years ago

Originally Posted by kavinfordseochamp

Yeah, Web 2.0 Backlinks working very well with SERP, But main Important things, Diversify your anchor text with Each property, don't focus with Primary keyword, use all the keywords with variations. it will help you lead your business with next level, Each Created back links please share with social media sites.

Do you use the one and done method, or do you build up mini-sites? What do you do use for your second tier? One and done or do you use mini sites there as well?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187274].message }}

kavinfordseochamp 13 years ago

Originally Posted by seamy82

Do you use the one and done method, or do you build up mini-sites? What do you do use for your second tier? One and done or do you use mini sites there as well?

Second tier we can use web 2.0 property back links for our anchor text, with variations of keywords, we used in 500 words 2 anchor text first for for our main primary business keyword, second web 2.0 property itself.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187292].message }}

flipfire

13 years ago

Yes very much so...

The better web 2.0s that work are ones that have some great quality unique content with pictures videos, and more then one article posted, all based around your niche.

Regards,

Lee

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187328].message }}

kavinfordseochamp

13 years ago

Originally Posted by flipfire

Yes very much so...

The better web 2.0s that work are ones that have some great quality unique content with pictures videos, and more then one article posted, all based around your niche.

Regards,

Lee

Lee Thanks for your advise

Quality unique content matters, We can Create 10 to 15 high quality blog, Or create a post with each one in a week 2 times with pictures videos, Proper anchor text or syndicate our content with social we can get more exposures.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187366].message }}

alvinchua91

13 years ago

Personally, I feel that web2.0 works better for getting traffic rather than SEO results.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187420].message }}

Kevin Maguire

13 years ago

Originally Posted by kavinfordseochamp

Yeah, Web 2.0 Backlinks working very well with SERP, But main Important things, Diversify your anchor text with Each property, don't focus with Primary keyword, use all the keywords with variations. it will help you lead your business with next level, Each Created back links please share with social media sites.

Nonsense

Originally Posted by kavinfordseochamp

Second tier we can use web 2.0 property back links for our anchor text, with variations of keywords, we used in 500 words 2 anchor text first for for our main primary business keyword, second web 2.0 property itself.

I'll be awaiting your "my site got tanked" thread in the near future.

Originally Posted by flipfire

Yes very much so...

The better web 2.0s that work are ones that have some great quality unique content with pictures videos, and more then one article posted, all based around your niche.

Regards,

Lee

Google cant read or judge quality of anything.
Google cant see pictures.
Google doesn't read JS embedded videos.

Originally Posted by alvinchua91

Personally, I feel that web2.0 works better for getting traffic rather than SEO results.

That could be said about any backlink.

Gonzo

Originally Posted by G0nzalez

My question is:
Web 2.0 backlinks still work?

I'm about to create some soon, it's been 3 months since I created them, I want to create more...

Google doesn't index Platforms or Domains. Google Indexes pages.

So it's more a question of, Do backlinks on 0 authority sub-domains, built on high authority root domains still work?

It depends on what your trying to rank for.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187948].message }}

jinx1221

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Nonsense

I'll be awaiting your "my site got tanked" thread in the near future.

Google cant read or judge quality of anything.
Google cant see pictures.
Google doesn't read JS embedded videos.

So you join in on the conversation and act all know it all by replying to others beliefs with put downs and quick judgement sentences, as if everyone but you is stupid, huh? Sounds pretty typical. Oh how I wish this bullying know-it-all b*sh^t state of mind I keep seeing graduates out of middle school soon.

And btw, google knows if pictures and/or videos are there, and can indeed 'see' pictures very well. Its a sign of a 'quality' page, among other 'signals' written in their 'algorithm' to rate the 'quality' of an article.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187980].message }}

Kevin Maguire

13 years ago

Originally Posted by jinx1221

And btw, google knows if pictures and/or videos are there, and can indeed 'see' pictures very well. Its a sign of a 'quality' page, among other 'signals' written in their 'algorithm' to rate the 'quality' of an article.

Can I get your copy of the algorithm just to confirm?

Video
Googlebot cannot crawl the content of video files, so it's important that you provide information about videos you include. Consider creating a transcript of the video you want to include, or provide a detailed description of the video inside your HTML. If you have video content, you can host it on Google Video, YouTube, or a number of other video hosting providers. Searchers can view Google Video or YouTube videos directly from the Google search results page.

Flash and other rich media files - Webmaster Tools Help

Images

Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content, or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in images. If you must use images for textual content, consider using the "ALT" attribute to include a few words of descriptive text.

Webmaster Guidelines - Webmaster Tools Help

Article Quality

The 1996 edition of Ethnologue listed 6,703 living languages,

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/li...languages.html

Google has trouble translating the main 72. So how do you suppose they know what quality is?
http://translate.google.com

Sup homie?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188035].message }}

jinx1221

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Google cant read or judge quality of anything.

Enlighten us and everyone else whos sites tanked because of poor quality, in more than one sentence, please

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Google cant see pictures.

They cant read text but can indeed tell what an image is and if it exists or not

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Google doesn't read JS embedded videos.

It knows if one is there and shows that extra effort is put into the page

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Google has trouble translating the main 72. So how do you suppose they know what quality is?

They must know somehow. I dont own google. They can be considered 'quality' by the content's relevance in accordance to the text on the page, the overall theme of the site/page, and the pages linking to and from the page. They can also tell somehow if it is unreadable garbage or not. Dont ask me how. If I knew, I would be working there instead of typing this right now. But to say they "cant" as an absolute fact is almost ludicrous given the evidence to the contrary. A more accurate statement would be "to what degree" can they determine quality, and what criteria?

Besides, just an example of how it feels to be personally quoted and called out on your helpfulness.. a simple reply saying what you think could have been done without plucking out quotes from others who are expressing their opinion and making them out to be idiots. Thats all.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188067].message }}

Kevin Maguire

13 years ago

Originally Posted by jinx1221

Enlighten us and everyone else whos sites tanked because of poor quality, in more than one sentence, please

They cant read text but can indeed tell what an image is and if it exists or not

It knows if one is there and shows that extra effort is put into the page

They must know somehow. I dont own google. They can be considered 'quality' by the content's relevance in accordance to the text on the page, the overall theme of the site/page, and the pages linking to and from the page. They can also tell somehow if it is unreadable garbage or not. Dont ask me how. If I knew, I would be working there instead of typing this right now. But to say they "cant" as an absolute fact is almost ludicrous given the evidence to the contrary. A more accurate statement would be "to what degree" can they determine quality, and what criteria?

Besides, just an example of how it feels to be personally quoted and called out on your helpfulness.. a simple reply saying what you think could have been done without plucking out quotes from others who are expressing their opinion and making them out to be idiots. Thats all.

I just say it like I see it man.

Images, Videos and grammatically perfect user engaging articles have no relevance to SERP's, like none nada zilch zip.
These are user based experience factors. Nothing more.

You only have to look in this WF section to see at least 2 threads a day, with guys crying "my sites gots X amount of hand written quality articles but my sites tanked, and this guy ahead of me has his site and hes got a crap looking page, with articles that could only be written by a monkey with a crayon so why is he ahead of me? blah blah blah".

What they don't tell you is how the page was a huge easy to filter footprint doorway page or an MFA site stuffed to hell with links and banners. Or that they have been whacking the crap out of it with Senuke for the last 6 months thinking they where making high authority backlinks.

Simply,
The only sites that get tanked are the ones that are trying to monetize their site, and do poor job of it. Or game the SERPs and do a poor job of that.

Sites that put the user experience first over monetisation do not have this problem. And you unfortunately won't find any of these such site owners hanging out at WF. Because they don't need to learn anything.

p.s
Sorry the show of extra effort thing.
I could put a picture of a bear riding a bicycle backwards, and a video of the Pamela Anderson sex tape into an article about Hemroids. And it would have no impact on SERPs.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188258].message }}

jinx1221

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Sites that put the user experience first over monetisation do not have this problem. And you unfortunately won't find any of these such site owners hanging out at WF. Because they don't need to learn anything.

p.s
Sorry the show of extra effort thing.
I could put a picture of a bear riding a bicycle backwards, and a video of the Pamela Anderson sex tape into an article about Hemroids. And it would have no impact on SERPs.

But these two sentences contradict eachother. In one, you say that you put user experience first, i.e. high quality, videos, images, you know, user experience, and you will do great, yet on the other you say none of these have any impact in serps and they don't know how to judge quality. Which is it?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188329].message }}

Kevin Maguire

13 years ago

Originally Posted by jinx1221

But these two sentences contradict eachother. In one, you say that you put user experience first, i.e. high quality, videos, images, you know, user experience, and you will do great, yet on the other you say none of these have any impact in serps and they don't know how to judge quality. Which is it?

No what I'm saying about user experience depends entirely on the user.
If your site users could be helped with an image or video or a 500k word article written by John Nash on Game Theory then great. If they just need a short paragraph of text, then great too.

But none of these factor will directly effect your SERPs.

Of course, lets be real here. If a user show up on your site and is hit by a white page and a wall of text. They will most likely say WTF kinda crap is this and bug out of there quickly.

But the subject We are discussing is not about creating user experience. It's about using Web2.0 to manipulate SERP's through the placement of backlinks within those pages.

We are not building these Web2s to create good user experience. So having any type of positive user experience elements on such pages is simply not required.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188470].message }}

ogenox

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

I just say it like I see it man.
Images, Videos and grammatically perfect user engaging articles have no relevance to SERP's, like none nada zilch zip.
These are user based experience factors. Nothing more.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not exactly with this quoted part.

Images and videos aren't only user based experience factor, they're also quality signals. Google can't see what's on some image, but can read file names and alt text and see whether it is relevant to the article or not. Also, their algorithm can't watch videos, but almost every embedded video has its title, tags, description, etc. which Google can understand whether it is related to the article or not. And don't forget that YT now using speech recognition technology to provide captions, which also can help them to understand what some video is about.

Regarding grammar or spelling errors, Google definitely pay attention on the readability score and the better the score is, it's more understandable to the masses.

To conclude, length of the article, good reading level, relevant image and relevant video are signals that can tell to the Google that it's very likely that an article will be useful to visitors. And that's why they are quality signals. Opposite to that are content mills.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188596].message }}

Kevin Maguire

13 years ago

Originally Posted by jinx1221

and content that at least makes sense enough for people to hang around for awhile (another factor)

Bounce rate? Not an SEO factor.
I'd dare to guess that Googles onsite tracking is installed on less than 20% of the worlds sites. And with only half the world using Chrome. It would be unimaginable that Google would use time on site as any sort of site quality indicator.

Originally Posted by ogenox

I agree with the rest of your post, but not exactly with this quoted part.

Images and videos aren't only user based experience factor, they're also quality signals. Google can't see what's on some image, but can read file names and alt text and see whether it is relevant to the article or not. Also, their algorithm can't watch videos, but almost every embedded video has its title, tags, description, etc. which Google can understand whether it is related to the article or not. And don't forget that YT now using speech recognition technology to provide captions, which also can help them to understand what some video is about.

Regarding grammar or spelling errors, Google definitely pay attention on the readability score and the better the score is, it's more understandable to the masses.

To conclude, length of the article, good reading level, relevant image and relevant video are signals that can tell to the Google that it's very likely that an article will be useful to visitors. And that's why they are quality signals. Opposite to that are content mills.

Hey Og,
I can change my Bear riding a bicycle backwards pictures ALT and Description to anything I want.

Youtube videos are held within an Iframe. The Iframe host is youtube, therefore they will not attribute that content as yours. So if they did give extra credit for video. They would give it to youtube. And that would be an OBL leaking juice from my site. Another downer no?

But again, there's no evidence or suggestion to be found from Google. That having video or images on a page improves SERPs.

Please cite me something from Google that tells me I'm wrong. I take being wrong very well.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188723].message }}

seamy82

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Youtube videos are held within an Iframe. The Iframe host is youtube, therefore they will not attribute that content as yours. So if they did give extra credit for video. They would give it to youtube. And that would be an OBL leaking juice from my site. Another downer no?

I was thinking this. So you are better off downloading the video from youtube and hosting it on your own website? Interesting.

Also blog comments, social signals and web2.0s are needed for lower layers. Your layers can't all be made up of private blog networks and guest posts. Would it not be better just to point everything at your money site. Is tiered linking dead? I have never seen any evidence that crap built on top crap gets you anywhere in the serps i.e. your money site having pointed at it, web2.0s with web2.0s, Article directory and blog comments pointed at them.

I may be wrong. Is anyone else seeing results for this?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8189870].message }}

Kevin Maguire

13 years ago

Originally Posted by seamy82

I was thinking this. So you are better off downloading the video from youtube and hosting it on your own website? Interesting.

Also blog comments, social signals and web2.0s are needed for lower layers. Your layers can't all be made up of private blog networks and guest posts. Would it not be better just to point everything at your money site. Is tiered linking dead? I have never seen any evidence that crap built on top crap gets you anywhere in the serps i.e. your money site having pointed at it, web2.0s with web2.0s, Article directory and blog comments pointed at them.

I may be wrong. Is anyone else seeing results for this?

I can only presume that the reason most webmasters would use a YT embed would be to cut down on their hosting. Not everyone can afford a dedi so its the poor mans weapon of choice to just host videos off-site. But ideally, it would be better to have them hosted on-site.

A lot of people get sold up the river when it comes to backlinks. Probably because the industry goes completely unregulated, which leads to a lot of deceptive marketing and advertising of SEO/Backlink services.
This has led to an insane amount of confusion across the board when it comes to backlink sources, and the positive effects they have on SERPs.

There are blog comments and there are blog comments.
There are social signals and there are social signals.
There are Web2s and there are Web2s.

The former are whats being sold deceptively in services and software. Where the sellers manipulate the buyers lack of knowledge, and convince them that their freshly made PR N/A Web2.0 subdomain sitting on a high PR main domain is an authority backlink. Or that 100 Tweets from 100 freshly made Twitter accounts would be an authoritative social signal.
Or that their PR1+ Auto approve blog comments, posted alongside 4000 other comments on the same orphaned website, would give them great links diversity.

When people woke up a bit, the sellers had to change their game accordingly they adjusted their sales pitch. Now they would do what they did before but this time they would add a second level of the same types of links to their packages. This would surely make the first level work better. And the levels of Tiers offered just grew and grew and grew..
Finally Penguin rolled in and cleaned the clock of any chance that junk working in any remotely competitive niche.

So whats a real social, web2.0?

Here's a couple from my own network.
FB fanpags

Web2.0 property

All natural organic likes/backlinks etc....

See the difference?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8190412].message }}

ogenox

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Hey Og,
I can change my Bear riding a bicycle backwards pictures ALT and Description to anything I want.

Youtube videos are held within an Iframe. The Iframe host is youtube, therefore they will not attribute that content as yours. So if they did give extra credit for video. They would give it to youtube. And that would be an OBL leaking juice from my site. Another downer no?

But again, there's no evidence or suggestion to be found from Google. That having video or images on a page improves SERPs.

Please cite me something from Google that tells me I'm wrong. I take being wrong very well.

Hi Kevin,

I can't prove anything, as Google never revealed what are the real ranking factors, as people will use that information to game the system. People are saying that there are over 200 factors that affect on rankings. And most of them are just someone's guess.

However, it's known that they tend to serve the most relevant pages for a certain search query. And they do that by comparing all indexed pages that are relevant to some search query. It's all about answering to the questions and providing the best information. That's what search engines are trying to do.

For example, if someone search for the phrase "how to teach bear to ride a bicycle", they will try to serve pages that will provide the best answer to that question. So, if they see that some page has an article about teaching bear to ride a bicycle, and an image of bear doing that, and a YT video that shows how bear rides a bicycle, why do you think that they won't judge that as a quality page that deserves to be shown to the people? To put it simple, if everything else is the same, the page with videos on it will definitely be seen as the one that provides more information about that topic.

And they own YT, and YT has all possible options that encourage people to share their videos. Why do you think that they don't like to see embedded videos on websites? It doesn't matter whether they give a credit to the YT, as they will also give a credit to the page where it's embedded.

They know that people like images and videos, and they definitely heard about saying that a picture is saying more than thousands words. And video even more. At the end, that's why they show images and videos on first pages for a lot of queries. They know that there is some value in them.

That's why I believe that they appreciate more pages with images and/or videos. However, that's just my logic, I could be wrong.

And being afraid that outbound links to authority sites will damage your PR or whatever, is simply wrong.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8190438].message }}

paulgl 13 years ago

Work for what?!?!?!?!?!

People are mixing up backlinks with social media signals.

Has nothing to do with web 2.0 or not. It has to do with
the individual webpage, its authority, PR, nofollow, etc.

A link on squidoo is now nofollow, but can still work for
traffic. Ditto twitter. A link on FB is essentially not even
seen. But traffic, yes indeed. A link on something else,
that you have built trust, like a blog from wp, blogspot, etc.
sure can have PR, authority, relevancy.

So, what do you want the link to work for?

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188003].message }}

sentient

13 years ago

"I could put a picture of a bear riding a bicycle backwards, and a video of the Pamela Anderson sex tape into an article about Hemroids."

This would become my favourite ever website. Please PM me the URL if you ever set it up.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188311].message }}

PROmotions LLC

13 years ago

Web 2.0 Links, Social Bookmark Backlinks, and Blog Comment Backlinks are all the same to me. TERRIBLE. These links are not worth jack and people need to stop chasing these low quality links.

Thanks

Signature

Signature!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188438].message }}

jinx1221

13 years ago

Now were getting somewhere

I agree with you, the OP's question is almost obvious.. will Web20 backlinks still work in an effort to boost your serp position ala link pyramids - link wheels - etc etc.

but like Paul pointed out, its about the context of the question. Is the question "Do web20 backlinks still work" as a way to promote your site? Or funnel traffic? I say yes to these, and images/video/quality user experience in that sense is essential obviously, outside whether or not it will help boost your site or not.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188505].message }}

paulgl 13 years ago

Why would google care if you have video, pictures, or whatever?

They "should" care about the quality of the info. How can they
view a pic, watch a video?

The more crap you add to a webpage, the more crappy it will
appear in results, if at all.

If you people are now stuffing your webpages with pics and vids,
man, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree.

Pics and vids are on a site by site basis, not just because.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188529].message }}

jinx1221

13 years ago

Thats where I agree with Kevin, though, in the sense that, how can google judge quality? They cant. They cant tell whether one page is better than another based on the information on it alone because only humans can do that, computers cant. Thats why backlinks are their most important ranking factor, because for the most part, it's people that link to pages they like.

How does google determine site quality on it's own, without people? I dont know completely, but a good guess is that a quality page, most of them anyways, have at least a pic or 2 on it, maybe a video, and content that at least makes sense enough for people to hang around for awhile (another factor)

Thanks

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188580].message }}

godoveryou

13 years ago

Really guys? Just because there isn't a signed statement from Google it isn't true huh?

Using impossible criteria to meet as evidence is hardly evident of anything other than hard hardheadedness.

Thanks

Signature

Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
http://www.godoveryou.com/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8188950].message }}

G0nzalez

Banned 13 years ago

Will I have to write unique content on the web 2.0 sites just like before?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8190936].message }}

rudi 13 years ago

Originally Posted by G0nzalez

Will I have to write unique content on the web 2.0 sites just like before?

Well unique content will get you further. There are several things that might happen with duplicate content but the main issue will be that if Google see's it as dup content it will pass little or no link value.
- Thanks
Signature

New Course - Master Level Funnels - Get Multiple High Paying Clients While Living Life On Your Own Terms
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8193390].message }}

fiehatran

13 years ago

Web 2.0 still work after penguin 2 , you should create quality web 2.0 property , don't spam Google

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8193409].message }}

Web 2.0 backlinks still work?

Trending Topics

How to add Backlink ? I am under thread of losing the job

Don't set new years resolutions

Content Relevance vs Backlinks: Which One Is Really Winning Today?

Wordpress Plugins, Desktop Tools, Bloated Software

Is Off-page SEO become hard as Ai Energizes