[belgirl]

Yeah, I know..It's completely disappeared...

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by belgirl

Yeah, I know..It's completely disappeared...

Haha, same happened with mine. First it flew like a rocket then it fell like a stone. And it is not the Google dance it returned to its original position before I used the links

[daveshu]

I wanted to throw my latest experience into the melting pot here because I think it addresses 2 issues (the url question and the backlinks question), and to ask a couple of questions I've thought of.

Firstly, I recently aquired a 2 word seo related domain name on a fairly average tld, lets say its seokeyword.xx.xx

Now, I'd already had a site up for maybe 18 months with lots of seo information on it but the domain was a one word obscure company name with a hyphen - say obscure-dd.xxx - and it was nowhere in the serps even though it was fully indexed.

I moved the entire content to my new website seokeyword.xx.xx, redirected the pages from the old site with a 301 redirect, and let it go - that was a week ago.

Now I'd always been convinced that the content was excellent, the linking internally was excellent, etc, & that the thing holding me back was the domain.

Well, a couple of days ago (so 6 days after launching it) it was on page 2 of google for the search term seo keyword (that matched the domain), I started building backlinks using Angelas packs a couple of days ago, and it is now on page 1 of google out of 14,500,000 pages - and it only has 8 pages indexed in Google.

So, I think that proves that a) the url is very beneficial if it contains keywords, & b) the backlinks work.

On that front, I've also been using them for an old site of mine that had dropped from page 1 to page 3, and within a couple of days it's at the top of page 2 pushing for page 1 again.

I also have been using them for a customer. I did reoptimise his site and it came from nowhere to page 8 for his main keyword. 2 days after starting building links its shot up to the top half of page 5.

Its already appeared now on page 1 & 2 for some phrases but thats down to good optimisation

Anyway, 1 thing I noted. The sites that have responded best thus far all have some age - they aren't new (I think the youngest is 8 months old) with the exception of my new seo site - but that has a 4 year old site 301'd to it.

So does age matter?

Secondly, do you think it will help when you make the links if you choose a keyword as your username in each site?

For example, along comes a spider & in the internal link structure it finds a link to a user called "keyword". On that page it finds a link with anchor text "keyword" leading to a site all about "keyword".

Do you think this will add to the link juice instead of using jimmy jones or something as your user name?

Many Thanks!

[AlbertF]

Don't expect to rank well with ONLY Angela's packages if you got new domain or just made a new article.

Link diversity is important. Add a mixture of other link building methods as well. Having 60 profile backlinks only looks weird no?

[webmatic]

I want to try Angela's backlinks for a competitive keyword. Shall i go for that keyword or target some less competitive one? For example if i am targetting "weight loss" that is high competitive so using Angela's backlinks, can i really get myself on 1st page of google? Or shall i go for other keyword?
Thanks
Webmatic

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by webmatic

I want to try Angela's backlinks for a competitive keyword. Shall i go for that keyword or target some less competitive one? For example if i am targetting "weight loss" that is high competitive so using Angela's backlinks, can i really get myself on 1st page of google? Or shall i go for other keyword?
Thanks
Webmatic

You can target a highly competitive keyword, but you won't get to the top with one packet. It will take several packets to get there.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Don't expect to rank well with ONLY Angela's packages if you got new domain or just made a new article.

Link diversity is important. Add a mixture of other link building methods as well. Having 60 profile backlinks only looks weird no?

Well, a HUMAN might think it looks weird. But Google uses an algorithm; it's not a human looking at websites. Not only that, but there are folks (teens or people who are interested in networking) who just MIGHT only have "profile" type links. That can happen "naturally" as well.

People don't realize just how big the internet is. Here is what it would take for Google to "see" every webpage, if every Google employee from the CEO on down (including Matt Cutts) didn't eat, didn't sleep, didn't smoke, and didn't go to the bathroom ALL year:

[jamesali39]

I will be following to see the results as well. I am relatively new to the internet and as I am finding out with most newbies,we tend to try anything that looks good. Thanks.

[AlbertF]

I would think of Google's bots as the first line of defense. Google has been in this search engine thing for a while now and they should know what is considered suspicious and what is considered normal.

As for your remark on how long it would takes Google employees to look at every site, Google bots probably eliminate at least 90% of the sites they have to look manually at, and sites that don't update are deindexed and dropped.

If Google never looked at sites manually, why do they have a force of Google employees enforcing their guidelines?

I would say that a new site would be under the radar at first because 30 puny backlinks is really nothing, but over time if you had lets say purely 1200 profile links, you would think there would at least be some other backlinks pointing to that one site other than profile links, no?

If Google was unable to detect some measly unnatural links, then what have they been doing all these years trying to make their search engines better? They would fail at being the worlds #1 search engine.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

I would think of Google's bots as the first line of defense. Google has been in this search engine thing for a while now and they should know what is considered suspicious and what is considered normal.

As for your remark on how long it would takes Google employees to look at every site, Google bots probably eliminate at least 90% of the sites they have to look manually at, and sites that don't update are deindexed and dropped.

If Google never looked at sites manually, why do they have a force of Google employees enforcing their guidelines?

I would say that a new site would be under the radar at first because 30 puny backlinks is really nothing, but over time if you had lets say purely 1200 profile links, you would think there would at least be some other backlinks pointing to that one site other than profile links, no?

If Google was unable to detect some measly unnatural links, then what have they been doing all these years trying to make their search engines better? They would fail at being the worlds #1 search engine.

They would also fail at being the world's #1 search engine if they held every site that had any kind of "pattern" under suspicion. Like I said, there are a lot of reasons why someone might have profile links only. Teenagers using social networking sites for "friendships" and such just might have pretty much ONLY those types of links. Let's say a teenager has a MySpace profile and that's what they use for their "URL" on all the other sites. Or, the teen may have their own website, with pictures of them and their pets and family and a place to complain about their parents' rules and such. Many teens don't like blog commenting and making comments on news articles and the like and just wouldn't be getting those types of links. But they might put their site up on all their other profiles. That is perfectly natural; how many teenagers do you think use the Internet?

Remember the reason I am forced to only put "profile type" links in the packets is because of the abuse and the theft by black hatters and spammers. However, each site is slightly different and not ALL links are exactly the same, even though most of them are inside of profiles. Each site is just a little different from all the others. We think in general terms of "profile links" but what does that mean, exactly since all the sites are different and the links are in different parts of the profile?

There has been absolutely zero evidence that Google devalues these links or that any website is being penalized for using only those type, and the idea that they "might" someday be penalized for it is purely speculation.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

but over time if you had lets say purely 1200 profile links, you would think there would at least be some other backlinks pointing to that one site other than profile links, no?

If you have nothing but 1200 profile links and nothing else, then you're not really doing your job correctly. Whether Google would consider that a negative probably isn't your biggest concern at that point.

[yommys01]

Great thread. I have been sitting on the Fence about Angela and Paul's WSO but I am definitely going to sign up for them now are reading through this thread.

[AlbertF]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

If you have nothing but 1200 profile links and nothing else, then you're not really doing your job correctly. Whether Google would consider that a negative probably isn't your biggest concern at that point.

I'm not stating that a webmaster should do this, but what Angela is saying is that a mixture of links doesn't matter what so ever because it is blinded to Google. I am simply confronting her on the topic. Does anyone else have opinions on whether or not a mixture of links is important in terms of building a link profile?

Angela, I am not trying to say profile links don't work, I am just trying to get across that having only one type of link source is certainly detectable.

I think your service is great, but there is more to ranking well than simply profile links. That is what I just want to get across.

As for your story about teens linking to their social profiles, most of them don't even link enough to rank well for anything. The only time that I see they rank high is simply due to other bloggers trackbacking to their interesting profile.

[banker0679]

i find it MUCH HARDER to believe that Google says

oh..this is an article link..and this one is a regular website link..and this one is a press release..and this one is a forum profile link...and this one............

do you honestly think Google would waste its resources on differentiating the types of backlinks besides the PR/Trustrank of the link?

[Doug D]

I would not argue with Angela's point...with regard to G. specifically devaluing profile links. HOWEVER, as Angela likes to point out...we are just little fish in the big internet ocean.(I'm paraphrasing). Having said that, I have to say that I was a little disheartened when i opened the last packet and saw the reference to "affiliate".
The bottom line...in broad strokes, G. does not like people manipulating their rankings...so to speak. I know, I know, let me qualify that-- It comes down to...make great content, then make more great content etc. etc. Build a site that people want to link to naturally, blah, blah, blah. A wise man once told me....if you would be comfortable sitting down with Matt and talking to him about your methods that you are using, then go for it. Well, I can comfortably say that there is know doubt in my mind, Matt wouldn't be to keen on this method of link getting. Oh, that wise man was Dan Theis. Not that I personally care what Matt thinks, thats not the point.
My fear is...that as this continues to grow, at some point in will eventually find its way on to G's radar. And the bottom line is...if they really wanted to throw some resources at it....then trust me....it wouldn't be that hard for them to devalue these links. Angela, you have every right to earn as much as you can from your hard work.
I'm all for entrepreneurialism. Personally, I would rather pay 4 times the price, and maintain the current subscription base, than to have its internet presence and users increase by 4 times the current rate.
The time will come, be it in 2 months or 2 years, when what happened to reciprocal links, and then to three way links...will happen with this method. I know the idea is...keep the price low for the newbie's so they can have a chance too. Well, that is fine for today...but that way of thinking could result in a sooner demise for this method of link getting.
Ang, I don't mean this to be condescending, just stating my opinion on the subject that was brought up by others.
We can all justify it to ourselves by saying..."but I have a great site with great content", "I should be ranked anyway". Ya, hell I say that to myself. The bottom line is if something is highly effective at getting you moving up the serps, and that something starts to proliferate itself around the web, and that something does not provide "value" to the web, or a reason for people to want to naturally link to you--eventually G. will throw some resources at it to shut it down...just as they did with paids, reciprocals and three ways.

[AlbertF]

Banker, aren't you contradicting your self because Google weighting links is basically the same as saying this link is less of a value and so forth?

Okay, lets say one day, I standout in my niche in that ocean of websites, what happens then? I am talking about a long term project with competitive niches. It takes a good natural looking link profile to get where you want in the long run.

The moment you see Googlebots coming in and out, right and left, is the moment you know that you aren't really under the radar anymore.

If you want to run a short term project under the radar where it doesn't take much backlinks to rank well for an uncompetitive keyword, so be it. That is another situation.

[silent_thunder]

Angela's experiment will work, simply because most of them are authority website. You don't require anchor text backlinks from them just put your URL and your keywords in title gets the power automatically.Google looks at the rotation of text as well so if you must also rotate anchor text in places where you have to use anchor text. I personally never use keywords as anchor text. I use the entire title of that page as anchor. Try this technique you will find sucess No need for keywords in backlinks.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Doug D

I would not argue with Angela's point...with regard to G. specifically devaluing profile links. HOWEVER, as Angela likes to point out...we are just little fish in the big internet ocean.(I'm paraphrasing). Having said that, I have to say that I was a little disheartened when i opened the last packet and saw the reference to "affiliate".
The bottom line...in broad strokes, G. does not like people manipulating their rankings...so to speak. I know, I know, let me qualify that-- It comes down to...make great content, then make more great content etc. etc. Build a site that people want to link to naturally, blah, blah, blah. A wise man once told me....if you would be comfortable sitting down with Matt and talking to him about your methods that you are using, then go for it. Well, I can comfortably say that there is know doubt in my mind, Matt wouldn't be to keen on this method of link getting. Oh, that wise man was Dan Theis. Not that I personally care what Matt thinks, thats not the point.
My fear is...that as this continues to grow, at some point in will eventually find its way on to G's radar. And the bottom line is...if they really wanted to throw some resources at it....then trust me....it wouldn't be that hard for them to devalue these links. Angela, you have every right to earn as much as you can from your hard work.
I'm all for entrepreneurialism. Personally, I would rather pay 4 times the price, and maintain the current subscription base, than to have its internet presence and users increase by 4 times the current rate.
The time will come, be it in 2 months or 2 years, when what happened to reciprocal links, and then to three way links...will happen with this method. I know the idea is...keep the price low for the newbie's so they can have a chance too. Well, that is fine for today...but that way of thinking could result in a sooner demise for this method of link getting.
Ang, I don't mean this to be condescending, just stating my opinion on the subject that was brought up by others.
We can all justify it to ourselves by saying..."but I have a great site with great content", "I should be ranked anyway". Ya, hell I say that to myself. The bottom line is if something is highly effective at getting you moving up the serps, and that something starts to proliferate itself around the web, and that something does not provide "value" to the web, or a reason for people to want to naturally link to you--eventually G. will throw some resources at it to shut it down...just as they did with paids, reciprocals and three ways.

And yet~there are STILL thousands of "Do Follow Blog Search Engines" all over the web. Those are used for the exact same reason; to help people with their rankings. In order for Google to devalue MY links, they'd have to actually BE a subscriber; my links come from all over the place and from all sorts of niches and I find them manually, without the use of any type of software.

Keep in mind that people use Social Bookmarking for this EXACT reason and there is "social bookmarking placement" software as well as people and companies that will do it manually FOR you ALL over the internet and there are pages like this everywhere. How many people use Digg and Reddit and Propeller? MILLIONS. Why haven't those sites and the links on them been devalued? One "inner page" on Digg can beat out millions of competing sites for your keyword; this happens all the time and webmasters KNOW that. Digg users aren't stupid or ignorant of what's going on. They know exactly what they're doing. People were saying two years ago that Social Bookmarking was going down the tubes. And here it is, two years later, and it's still going strong.

Just so you know, however, I DO keep my affiliate program low key and it's very, very small. That is not a big push for me at all; I simply made it available for a few folks who wanted something to offer to their own members and email subscribers.

[AlbertF]

I think social bookmarking it is today, with no promotion what so ever, isn't really effective by it self. Of course it will never die out. Digg has about millions of pages. Just think about how many times their page's value gets divided by, but with the proper backlinking or, bloggers spreading the news virally by backlinking, that is when social networking is at it's strongest point and carries more weight.

I don't think Google is really devaluing anyone's links. Some links just have a better internal linking structure that has more "weight" than other sites as well as more backlinks pointing to it than others. Thats what determines a link's weight.

Then why do we build backlinks to our spokes when we create a web 2.0 link wheel? Simply to increase the link's weight.

@silent_thunder

Also, you would want to pinpoint exactly the keyword you want to rank for, other wise, your efforts won't be 100% effective in terms of ranking for the keyword you want. There are a lot of things that can go wrong if you simply link a whole title or sentence when link building.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Also, you would want to pinpoint exactly the keyword you want to rank for, other wise, your efforts won't be 100% effective in terms of ranking for the keyword you want. There are a lot of things that can go wrong if you simply link a whole title or sentence when link building.

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I have coached people to link a whole title or sentence when they are link building. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My own keywords are single word keywords, but some people have a small phrase; something like "dog grooming". I don't know ANYONE who is linking a whole sentence and I am not sure why you thought you needed to "warn" about something like this.

[banker0679]

it takes a lot more resources to figure out the kind of link

just like Google updating the Pagerank...they were doing it every 3-4months because they dont have the resources or want to spend the resources doing it every day,week, or month

PR matters more than if the link is from an article or press release or forum profile or forum signature

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Banker, aren't you contradicting your self because Google weighting links is basically the same as saying this link is less of a value and so forth?

Okay, lets say one day, I standout in my niche in that ocean of websites, what happens then? I am talking about a long term project with competitive niches. It takes a good natural looking link profile to get where you want in the long run.

The moment you see Googlebots coming in and out, right and left, is the moment you know that you aren't really under the radar anymore.

If you want to run a short term project under the radar where it doesn't take much backlinks to rank well for an uncompetitive keyword, so be it. That is another situation.

[Mandy Allen]

Can you just clarify - I have just followed the link and it says it costs $5 a month but you said the info is free. Where do I get the free document? Or isn't there one?

Enjoy the journey.

[AndyBlackSEO]

Originally Posted by Mandy Allen

Can you just clarify - I have just followed the link and it says it costs $5 a month but you said the info is free. Where do I get the free document? Or isn't there one?

Enjoy the journey.

When you sign up to Angelas links you get the first packet free. You don't pay your first $5 until a month passes. You can cancel before then if you're not happy with the links or server. To be honest, $5 is nothing for what Angela offers. If you do things properly you could make X more time that cost back in no time.

[djbory]

The bottom line of this discussion is this: All links work! Angela’s links work and they’ll continue to work.

And Doug, sorry to disagree with you, but I have 3 sites that were dancing between 2nd and 3rd page of Google for fairly competitive keywords, they achieved 2 and 3 PR and all I did was 3 Way Linking. So 3 way linking does work. That’s all we need? Of course not.

And if we want to build a solid business we need to concentrate in all kind of links; Profile Links, Bookmarks, Blog Links, Forum Links, Authority Sites Links, and if we get lucky maybe a couple of .edu and .gov links.

It all comes down to variety, and we won’t have to worry about what may happen in the future. Just my humble opinion.

DJBory

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by djbory

The bottom line of this discussion is this: All links work! Angela’s links work and they’ll continue to work.

And Doug, sorry to disagree with you, but I have 3 sites that were dancing between 2nd and 3rd page of Google for fairly competitive keywords, they achieved 2 and 3 PR and all I did was 3 Way Linking. So 3 way linking does work. That’s all we need? Of course not.

And if we want to build a solid business we need to concentrate in all kind of links; Profile Links, Bookmarks, Blog Links, Forum Links, Authority Sites Links, and if we get lucky maybe a couple of .edu and .gov links.

It all comes down to variety, and we won’t have to worry about what may happen in the future. Just my humble opinion.

DJBory

Exactly. Just because I am not putting blogs or news comment sites or forums in the packets anymore doesn't mean that people shouldn't use those sites. It simply means that the people who are spamming such sites can't be trusted to have those sites in the packets. But most serious business folks will be coming across some blogs and forums and such and will naturally be putting their links in those spots. So even if there WAS a "penalty" for only having profile links, most serious folks wouldn't be seeing it, anyway. Don't forget that I just started NOT putting those types of links in my packets last month; anyone who's been around longer than that has different sorts of links anyway. Most folks probably also have forum sig links right here at the Warrior Forum, which erases the "you only have profile links" situation for them, too.

[AlbertF]

Ahh, Angela, the comment wasn't for you. It was a response to silent_thunder's answer when he said this. I put @silent_thunder to justify that I was talking to him.

Originally Posted by silent_thunder

Angela's experiment will work, simply because most of them are authority website. You don't require anchor text backlinks from them just put your URL and your keywords in title gets the power automatically.Google looks at the rotation of text as well so if you must also rotate anchor text in places where you have to use anchor text. I personally never use keywords as anchor text. I use the entire title of that page as anchor. Try this technique you will find sucess No need for keywords in backlinks.

As for Banker, it is pretty easy to tell which link is from authoritative site and etc by looking at a link's internal structure as well as the backlinks pointing to it. It is all the matter of taking your time to look it up. If you got a profile link from a PR 9 page, of course it will be indexed because Google goes down the charts on what to index. PR/Links in Google is determined everyday, it is just that page PRs are exported for us to see every quarter of a year.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Ahh, Angela, the comment wasn't for you. It was a response to silent_thunder's answer when he said this. I put @silent_thunder to justify that I was talking to him.

Twitter-talk, eh?

I have to "reset" my password EVERY time I go to the site, so I don't use it much. That's why I didn't realize you were talking to him.

[banker0679]

i'm not disputing that

i'm disputing whether Google actually cares if the link is a forum profile link or some article


i think they look at the PR, and other factors

and they also look at how many other external links on the same page
if you're the only external link then you should get the most benefit of being the only external link on that page.

the issue with a lot of forum profiles is that you're 1 out of thousands of pages
so if the PR is 9 or 10...then it's divided to many other different pages, and this is why almost all of profile links have no PR.

now the trust/authority of it is another story which may have nothing to do with PageRank.

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Ahh, Angela, the comment wasn't for you. It was a response to silent_thunder's answer when he said this. I put @silent_thunder to justify that I was talking to him.



As for Banker, it is pretty easy to tell which link is from authoritative site and etc by looking at a link's internal structure as well as the backlinks pointing to it. It is all the matter of taking your time to look it up. If you got a profile link from a PR 9 page, of course it will be indexed because Google goes down the charts on what to index. PR/Links in Google is determined everyday, it is just that page PRs are exported for us to see every quarter of a year.

[Saidar]

Doug,

What other links did you use other than Angela's link packages?

[AlbertF]

To have "weight" on a link, it must have some links point to it. If a profile link has more weight than from another link, I would say its solely because of the site's internal linking structure. It depends on how powerful the site is already internally. But since there are millions of profiles, that still isn't enough to significently raise a profile link's PR to 1.

That is why when we look at profile links, we have to look at them from a microscope to really determine their true value. You may say that a profile link has trust/authority just because it's from an authority site, but really I think its just "talk" to persuade people.

So, if I got a profile link from Google, a PR of 10, I would gain the same trust/authority of Google? Of course not, because there must be some more powerful links targeting it to get some good out of that profile link since it is piggybacking on Google's rep.

I've heard they were going to nofollow links in Google's profiles, so don't bother trying to increase it's PR.

Why is it that people say go for the dofollow links with the highest PageRank? Simply because it is a trust scale. You can say PageRank and "weight" are somewhat alike.

[banker0679]

it's not just talk
there have been many ppl who will tell you that their SERPs increased with forum profiles

let's put it this way...you'll never know until you try it out yourself.
if you can't afford 5 bucks per month then i dont know what to tell you
i believe the first few links are free...so you have a whole month to find out if it works

Google's profile link or bookmarking is GARBAGE because Google never gives any juice to it's own links.
You'll never see the profile link or bookmarks in your webmaster tools

Originally Posted by AlbertF

To have "weight" on a link, it must have some links point to it. If a profile link has more weight than from another link, I would say its solely because of the site's internal linking structure. It depends on how powerful the site is already internally. But since there are millions of profiles, that still isn't enough to significently raise a profile link's PR to 1.

That is why when we look at profile links, we have to look at them from a microscope to really determine their true value. You may say that a profile link has trust/authority just because it's from an authority site, but really I think its just "talk" to persuade people.

So, if I got a profile link from Google, a PR of 10, I would gain the same trust/authority of Google? Of course not, because there must be some more powerful links targeting it to get some good out of that profile link since it is piggybacking on Google's rep.

I've heard they were going to nofollow links in Google's profiles, so don't bother trying to increase it's PR.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

Doug,

What other links did you use other than Angela's link packages?

I haven't used other links or link programs and I am still number 2 out of 81 MILLION for the keyword Angela and number 2 out of 11 million for Backlinks. My doctor is still number one for his keyword and so is my friend. For my doctor's website, it's going on six months now and he's STILL THERE. I did ALL of these projects with my link packets and no other programs.

That's what people keep forgetting while they're debating whether the links work, whether they're diluted, whether they've been "penalized" and on and on. The multiple examples of the links working are STILL valid and those projects are STILL in their very high positions in Google.

[Doug D]

Saidar,
Paul, Angela's, article marketing, social bookmarking, and some other miscellaneous stuff that represents a small % of my links.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

I haven't used other links or link programs and I am still number 2 out of 81 MILLION for the keyword Angela and number 2 out of 11 million for Backlinks. My doctor is still number one for his keyword and so is my friend. For my doctor's website, it's going on six months now and he's STILL THERE. I did ALL of these projects with my link packets and no other programs.

That's what people keep forgetting while they're debating whether the links work, whether they're diluted, whether they've been "penalized" and on and on. The multiple examples of the links working are STILL valid and those projects are STILL in their very high positions in Google.

Okay I understand that, you said it about a thousand times. I know your links work, but I want to mix it with other types of links. I can't put all my eggs in one basket, and your basket is getting a bit shaky by the day, too many people have your packets.

I'm using directories, and blog commenting also. Was just wondering what Doug does because he had some success with his website as I recalled

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

To have "weight" on a link, it must have some links point to it. If a profile link has more weight than from another link, I would say its solely because of the site's internal linking structure. It depends on how powerful the site is already internally. But since there are millions of profiles, that still isn't enough to significently raise a profile link's PR to 1.

That is why when we look at profile links, we have to look at them from a microscope to really determine their true value. You may say that a profile link has trust/authority just because it's from an authority site, but really I think its just "talk" to persuade people.

So, if I got a profile link from Google, a PR of 10, I would gain the same trust/authority of Google? Of course not, because there must be some more powerful links targeting it to get some good out of that profile link since it is piggybacking on Google's rep.

I've heard they were going to nofollow links in Google's profiles, so don't bother trying to increase it's PR.

Why is it that people say go for the dofollow links with the highest PageRank? Simply because it is a trust scale. You can say PageRank and "weight" are somewhat alike.

You logic makes sense to me. But like Angela said experimentation shows her links work (I'm struggling to get good results but many people had great success)

To tell the truth, at the end of the day, real world results is all that count. To me Google is crazy, they do weird things, so I don't go on logic anymore but real world results.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Doug D

Saidar,
Paul, Angela's, article marketing, social bookmarking, and some other miscellaneous stuff that represents a small % of my links.

Awesome stuff. I have had major success with blog commenting. Found free software that searches for all do-follow blogs in certain niches. Found about 5000 blogs for one of my websites (is going to take 10 years to comment on 5000 blogs!!).

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

Okay I understand that, you said it about a thousand times. I know your links work, but I want to mix it with other types of links. I can't put all my eggs in one basket, and your basket is getting a bit shaky by the day, too many people have your packets.

Why do you say this? Simply because a few sites cut off capability of getting links? This has been happening all along, from the VERY beginning, even before I offered this program as a WSO. That's just part of life on the Internet.

If "too many people" make something "shaky" then Digg should go down in flames, as should Propeller and Reddit and all the others. You KNOW that people are using these sites for great backlinks and movement in the Search Engines. There is no debate about that. And I don't even have a FRACTION of the users those sites have, even with all the "black hatters" who are getting my packets for free. I'm just a little fish in a little fish tank compared to the vast ocean that those sites represent.

As it is, Digg does not allow EZA and Goarticles to be linked there. That's been going on for a long time. Obviously, a TON of folks were doing that. But Digg is far from "shaky". Digg is one of the strongest sites online today and they have been for quite some time.

[AlbertF]

The only time I think it would be "shaky" with Angela links is only when you fill them out quickly in one go and they all link to a new site/page that just came out tomorrow.

When Google sees this, they would probably either promote it or think it is unnatural for a page to do that and demote it. If it gets promoted higher, you've got to keep up with that standard that you have already equipped it with, the previous day or lower the standard slowly. Profile links from high home PR sites get indexed quickly because Google goes down the PR chart.

The older the page your promoting, the easier it is to by pass Google's suspicions. I think everything makes sense to me.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Why do you say this? Simply because a few sites cut off capability of getting links? This has been happening all along, from the VERY beginning, even before I offered this program as a WSO. That's just part of life on the Internet.

If "too many people" make something "shaky" then Digg should go down in flames, as should Propeller and Reddit and all the others. You KNOW that people are using these sites for great backlinks and movement in the Search Engines. There is no debate about that. And I don't even have a FRACTION of the users those sites have, even with all the "black hatters" who are getting my packets for free. I'm just a little fish in a little fish tank compared to the vast ocean that those sites represent.

As it is, Digg does not allow EZA and Goarticles to be linked there. That's been going on for a long time. Obviously, a TON of folks were doing that. But Digg is far from "shaky". Digg is one of the strongest sites online today and they have been for quite some time.

Digg cannot be compared to spamming authoritative websites. At the end that is what we do with the link packages, we spam 90% of the websites in those packets. Digg is a website made for the purpose of posting links and bookmarks. The other websites are not. I have started to use your July package. Already I have found a website that disabled some function because of spammers. It is only the 4th of July. You are getting more and more famous, within a year your subscribers will have doubled and the pirates trippled. There is no stopping it.

All I'm saying, it is a risk for a business to ONLY use your links. And you can't argue with that

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

The only time I think it would be "shaky" with Angela links is only when you fill them out quickly in one go and they all link to a new site/page that just came out tomorrow.

When Google sees this, they would probably either promote it or think it is unnatural for a page to do that and demote it. If it gets promoted higher, you've got to keep up with that standard that you have already equipped it with, the previous day or lower the standard slowly. Profile links from high home PR sites get indexed quickly because Google goes down the PR chart.

The older the page your promoting, the easier it is to by pass Google's suspicions. I think everything makes sense to me.

Google's "suspicions", although they should be there, I don't think they are there. Many warriors does a few hundreds links a day and they haven't complained about any penalty. Lets hope Google stays dumb

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

Digg cannot be compared to spamming authoritative websites. At the end that is what we do with the link packages, we spam 90% of the websites in those packets. Digg is a website made for the purpose of posting links and bookmarks. The other websites are not. I have started to use your July package. Already I have found a website that disabled some function because of spammers. It is only the 4th of July. You are getting more and more famous, within a year your subscribers will have doubled and the pirates trippled. There is no stopping it.

All I'm saying, it is a risk for a business to ONLY use your links. And you can't argue with that

I don't agree that it's a risk as the sites are new and fresh EVERY month. They come from all over and from all sorts of niches. Many of them are Authority Sites. They are high Page Rank sites that a LOT of people already know about and already have links on. Again, unless Google actually SUBSCRIBES to my packets, they are not going to know which sites to "devalue" and if they DO 'devalue' sites they are going to be doing damage to many hugely popular and well used sites.

And I HAVE put sites in the packets where people were required to post bookmarks and stories. It's not just a bunch of profile links to "spam". The only reason most of them are that type now are because of the abusers. And again, Google would HAVE to determine who was a valid user and who was not. Thousands of people sign up for sites and then forget to use them or don't have time or lose their internet capability or their computers break down or some such thing.

Like I said already, having a site or two disable signing up is NORMAL and has been from the VERY BEGINNING; even when there were only a couple of dozen people signed up to my program. If you think the program is "shaky" then you think it's shaky. There's no use trying to convince you that it's working beatifully, even now.

However, unless you can prove that Google HAS devalued these links or that similar programs such as all the Social Bookmarking software and programs and manual submissions have been devalued, then there is no evidence that this is going to happen. Again, two years ago, people were saying that Social Bookmarking was going down the tubes, too. And I had several customers who were concerned by the Social Bookmarking sites I had in my packets in the past. Some people didn't want to use ANY of those types of links. And yet~here we are, two years later and those sites and all that software and such is still humming along beautifully.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

I don't agree that it's a risk as the sites are new and fresh EVERY month. They come from all over and from all sorts of niches. Many of them are Authority Sites. They are high Page Rank sites that a LOT of people already know about and already have links on. Again, unless Google actually SUBSCRIBES to my packets, they are not going to know which sites to "devalue" and if they DO 'devalue' sites they are going to be doing damage to many hugely popular and well used sites.

And I HAVE put sites in the packets where people were required to post bookmarks and stories. It's not just a bunch of profile links to "spam". The only reason most of them are that type now are because of the abusers. And again, Google would HAVE to determine who was a valid user and who was not. Thousands of people sign up for sites and then forget to use them or don't have time or lose their internet capability or their computers break down or some such thing.

Like I said already, having a site or two disable signing up is NORMAL and has been from the VERY BEGINNING; even when there were only a couple of dozen people signed up to my program. If you think the program is "shaky" then you think it's shaky. There's no use trying to convince you that it's working beatifully, even now.

However, unless you can prove that Google HAS devalued these links or that similar programs such as all the Social Bookmarking software and programs and manual submissions have been devalued, then there is no evidence that this is going to happen. Again, two years ago, people were saying that Social Bookmarking was going down the tubes, too. And I had several customers who were concerned by the Social Bookmarking sites I had in my packets in the past. Some people didn't want to use ANY of those types of links. And yet~here we are, two years later and those sites and all that software and such is still humming along beautifully.

I'm not against your Google argument, I'm worried about the webmasters. Don't tell me a webmaster won't notice 10 000 new profiles in 5 months that has little to no content or value with a bunch of links in them that they don't even know how they got there. I'm worried that the links won't stay for at least two years. Webmasters of those big sites will find out sooner or later that they are getting spammed, and they will remove all the profiles and links. That is the problem, not Google.

What is the point of spending all that time if the links will be removed within two years? And most of them will definitely be removed sooner or later.

They won't notice 100 profiles that are out of the ordinary, but a few thousand is a bit difficult not to notice.

I may be wrong but this is reality, websites make a lot of money and where money is to be made all threats are extinguished as quickly as possible

[AlbertF]

Saidar, you are basing your facts on assumptions of what other people think. If you believe that so be it. There are a lot of people who believe this and that. It just doesn't hurt to appear more natural looking.

Just hope Google stays dumb like you said, otherwise if it goes wrong, many things can go wrong. But, what if they didn't stay dumb? What happens then?

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Saidar, you are basing your facts on assumptions of what other people think. If you believe that so be it. There are a lot of people who believe this and that. It just doesn't hurt to appear more natural looking.

Just hope Google stays dumb like you said, otherwise if it goes wrong, many things can go wrong. But, what if they didn't stay dumb? What happens then?

I'm not against what you said, I'm just saying that empirical experimentation has proven otherwise. Not assumptions, experimentation. Nothing beats experimentation.

Can you prove otherwise? I would be glad to see some results because right now I'm building links at a very fast pace and I don't want to do it all for nothing

[Saidar]

AlbertF,

From your experience, how should we proceed with our links building campaigns? I would like yo hear your opinion, theories, experimentation or whatever about it

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by daveshu

I wanted to throw my latest experience into the melting pot here because I think it addresses 2 issues (the url question and the backlinks question), and to ask a couple of questions I've thought of.

Firstly, I recently aquired a 2 word seo related domain name on a fairly average tld, lets say its seokeyword.xx.xx

Now, I'd already had a site up for maybe 18 months with lots of seo information on it but the domain was a one word obscure company name with a hyphen - say obscure-dd.xxx - and it was nowhere in the serps even though it was fully indexed.

I moved the entire content to my new website seokeyword.xx.xx, redirected the pages from the old site with a 301 redirect, and let it go - that was a week ago.

Now I'd always been convinced that the content was excellent, the linking internally was excellent, etc, & that the thing holding me back was the domain.

Well, a couple of days ago (so 6 days after launching it) it was on page 2 of google for the search term seo keyword (that matched the domain), I started building backlinks using Angelas packs a couple of days ago, and it is now on page 1 of google out of 14,500,000 pages - and it only has 8 pages indexed in Google.

So, I think that proves that a) the url is very beneficial if it contains keywords, & b) the backlinks work.

On that front, I've also been using them for an old site of mine that had dropped from page 1 to page 3, and within a couple of days it's at the top of page 2 pushing for page 1 again.

I also have been using them for a customer. I did reoptimise his site and it came from nowhere to page 8 for his main keyword. 2 days after starting building links its shot up to the top half of page 5.

Its already appeared now on page 1 & 2 for some phrases but thats down to good optimisation

Anyway, 1 thing I noted. The sites that have responded best thus far all have some age - they aren't new (I think the youngest is 8 months old) with the exception of my new seo site - but that has a 4 year old site 301'd to it.

So does age matter?

Secondly, do you think it will help when you make the links if you choose a keyword as your username in each site?

For example, along comes a spider & in the internal link structure it finds a link to a user called "keyword". On that page it finds a link with anchor text "keyword" leading to a site all about "keyword".

Do you think this will add to the link juice instead of using jimmy jones or something as your user name?

Many Thanks!

Speaking from personal experience, Google can say "content is king" all they want to, but time and time again I have seen that dispproved. For example, I have a web design site that is completely in Flash. (started in 2002) I have never SEO'd it, and a couple of years ago I started a blog that had only about 5 posts, but then stopped because I just didn't have the time. I started a new blog a few weeks ago. But before I started that blog, my PR was a 3. Now that cracks me up, because there is no content, and the only other thing I did is put a backlink on my clients' sites--which is never relevant to what I do. So personally I think Google values backlinks over content, but that's just my unscientific personal opinion..

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Saidar

I'm not against your Google argument, I'm worried about the webmasters. Don't tell me a webmaster won't notice 10 000 new profiles in 5 months that has little to no content or value with a bunch of links in them that they don't even know how they got there. I'm worried that the links won't stay for at least two years. Webmasters of those big sites will find out sooner or later that they are getting spammed, and they will remove all the profiles and links. That is the problem, not Google.

What is the point of spending all that time if the links will be removed within two years? And most of them will definitely be removed sooner or later.

They won't notice 100 profiles that are out of the ordinary, but a few thousand is a bit difficult not to notice.

I may be wrong but this is reality, websites make a lot of money and where money is to be made all threats are extinguished as quickly as possible

Well, we're assuming that EVERYONE is simply "drive by spamming" the sites. However, I have heard several people talk about how thrilled they were about some site or another in a packet that they have stayed and participated on. Quite a few of these sites are extremely interesting, or they are great for networking, or several other things. People DO stay and participate on the sites...lots of times.

Another thing we should remember is that a lot of website owners are making money from their websites and the more traffic, the better. So what if people create profiles there? The more people who visit, the more likely their ads will be clicked or whatever. Not ALL website owners are going to be bothered by the traffic.

One of the great .Edu sites I found for September was given away on a post on Digital Point shortly after my packet came out. (There are over 100,000 users on that forum.) That site got spammed to DEATH. People left FULL PAGES of links. And yet~that .Edu site is still Page Rank 6 today (it's PR didn't "wash away" like some claim will happen), is still Do Follow, and still gives great "link juice" 10 months later. So all this talking about 'devaluing' of links is just that: speculation and conjecture.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Well, we're assuming that EVERYONE is simply "drive by spamming" the sites. However, I have heard several people talk about how thrilled they were about some site or another in a packet that they have stayed and participated on. Quite a few of these sites are extremely interesting, or they are great for networking, or several other things. People DO stay and participate on the sites...lots of times.

Another thing we should remember is that a lot of website owners are making money from their websites and the more traffic, the better. So what if people create profiles there? The more people who visit, the more likely their ads will be clicked or whatever. Not ALL website owners are going to be bothered by the traffic.

One of the great .Edu sites I found for September was given away on a post on Digital Point shortly after my packet came out. (There are over 100,000 users on that forum.) That site got spammed to DEATH. People left FULL PAGES of links. And yet~that .Edu site is still Page Rank 6 today (it's PR didn't "wash away" like some claim will happen), is still Do Follow, and still gives great "link juice" 10 months later. So all this talking about 'devaluing' of links is just that: speculation and conjecture.

Making money from link builders? I don't think so. I know you are trying to make your service look good for the websites but it is not, it can't be good in any way possible no matter how you look at tit, Visitors who spam and leave forever are definitely not a valuable asset to any website business, and the tiny few who actually stay are one out of a thousand.

That is the reason why I say most of those websites will remove the links within two years. And speculating I am, only time will tell. But I'm still going to use your links as usual , until the red flags are waving everywhere.

This has gone a bit off topic.

[Angela V. Edwards]

I think we're actually talking about similar things. The "visitors who spam" the sites much of the time were the folks who got the packets for free in the first place. I'm all for the webmasters taking away those links.

I always put my name, my photo, my location and often other stuff in my profiles and I've recommended that others do the same. People who are wise and use the sites like the gold they are most likely won't have any problems, even two years down the road.

[Saidar]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

I think we're actually talking about similar things. The "visitors who spam" the sites much of the time were the folks who got the packets for free in the first place. I'm all for the webmasters taking away those links.

I always put my name, my photo, my location and often other stuff in my profiles and I've recommended that others do the same. People who are wise and use the sites like the gold they are most likely won't have any problems, even two years down the road.

Doing that may solve to problem, but I do not think webmasters gave the about box for the reason of leaving HTML links there. That may get your profile deleted if they delete all profiles with links in their about boxes. That is what I would have done, because 99% of web surfers doesn't even know what HTML is, so the chance of deleting innocent profiles will be less than 1%

It is a bit difficult to leave a link in the about box without it looking like spam:p I have tried but It always looks suspicious, even more so if anchored text is used.

I just want to make you understand that I''m not your enemy here I want to figure this out myself so that we can use your links to the best way possible for our businesses and websites. Sometimes arguing is necessary, that is usually what solves problems