How the heck do you get backlinks from them?
You don’t need to - they aren’t worth any different from any other site as a result of the TLD. The TLD has no effect on SEO.
Buy a site that already has them. I did that recently: buying the website, [URL=“http://www.spgazette.com/renovating-a-dead-website/”]renovating the website. Most owners don’t want to sell, but if you’re persistent, you’ll find one who does.
It is not that much easy to get back link from .gov and .edu sites. But those links have more weight than normal back links. Still I am trying to get those links.
Did you read post 2? Even Matt Cutts has declared in a video that Google don’t give any extra weight to those links.
While it’s true that .gov and .edu don’t get a boost because of the letters in them, by their nature they tend to be authority sites and so a link back from them is almost guaranteed to be worth getting. That can’t be said for the site picked at random from the .com or .co.uk crowd.
Have something on your site they want to link to.
That’s the way to get backlinks from anywhere.
There’s no reason for trying to target particular TLDs for your backlinks - what you should be targetting is popular pages on related subjects. If those pages happen to be from a US government or US school site then they might happen to have one of those TLDs previously mentioned but if your site is not US specific then there are probably lots of other popular more relevant sites to look at first.
Yes it is, that’s why I said it, but thank you for your confirmation.
Nobody said there was Stephen. The OP asked how you get links from .edu or .gov sites, he didn’t ask for your incorrect theory on why they’re not worth anymore than any other link. You might have meant they don’t get treated any differently which is true, unfortunately you didn’t say that you said "they aren’t worth any different " which isn’t true. On average they’re worth a lot more than the typical .com link. He also didn’t ask for a lecture on relevance and I can’t help but feel you gave it because you assumed an intent on his part that you don’t approve of.
I read post 2 and it was incorrect. Also, Google may not give those TLDs any extra weight but that doesn’t mean they don’t have extra weight because generally they do due to the type of site that uses them.
Exactly which bit of felgall’s post was incorrect?
There is only one person in this thread lecturing,and it ain’t felgall.
Exactly the bit I quoted in the post above yours.
Don’t know why you bolded that part of his post, it’s not that part I’m talking about or I would have quoted that part. If I’d said ‘partially incorrect’ instead of just ‘incorrect’ would you be doing this? Fine, his first post was partially incorrect but I’m not drawing attention to the bit that was right, why would I bother to do that? I’m correcting the mistake.
Stephen doesn’t do SEO for a living, if he did he would know that .edu and .gov links are worth their weight in gold (let’s assume relevance here…) simply because those types of site tend to have high Site Authority, by their very nature they’re ‘trusted’ sites. Either you didn’t know that or you do and you’re hair splitting again.
Yes it is, the guy asked a question and got two lectures, one on link relevance and one on why it apparantly isn’t worth getting the kind of links he asked about.
The posts you quoted were from post 7. Post 2 was fine in my opinion. Have you got the two mixed up? If not, which bit of post 2 do you think is incorrect?
Well. What is going on?