cbp – I’m curious. The sites/links in your profile…do you consider them examples of good content people would want to link to?
- google adword
- join with high pagerank
- social networking and bookmarking
- on-page and off-page
Do not forget that it is Google that places so much emphasis on incoming links and suggests that webmasters go out and try and get them.
Also do not forget that it was the clowns at Google who introduced “nofollow” in the first place, scared webmasters into not linking to other sites without using “nofollow” because of fear of diluting page rank, made links a valuable commodity through “link juice”, and uses the number of pageviews of a site gleaned through the Google toolbar as a measure of site relevance.
It is a fallacy to think that search engine rankings can be an entirely automated process and produce good results. By Google’s algorithm, well established webmasters will always beat the little guy. If a new webmaster starts a site and an experienced webmaster with a few high PR websites starts a similar site, who will win in Google? The established buy will win almost 100%. He’ll just use his other sites to link to his new site.
Google has been manipulated for years by established webmasters and those savvy enough to figure out Google’s profound weaknesses.
As most internet users are not webmasters and most sites like Facebook, Myspace, and social bookmarking sites do not give any link juice or use “nofollow”, links are harder to get now than they were years ago.
Care to share the articles that linked to your sites? I see people making impressive claims about getting links but I never see the links.
Here is the most effective way of building links: send links from your established sites to your other sites. Otherwise, your chances of getting any high PR links on the main page of any site are next to none. You will spend more of your time trying to get links than you will working on your site.
I just found a perfect example of this.
The #1 rank in Google for the search term “funny pictures” is icanhascheezburger.com. That site, according to Yahoo Site Explorer, has 2,252,516 incoming links not from that domain name. The domain name was registered in January 2007.
Now, how in the world did that site get 2.25 million incoming links in 3.5 years? Yahoo Site Explorer ranks the links generally in order of value. OK, if you look at those incoming links, you will find some of the sites linking to icanhascheezburger all owned by the same group.
The site that ranks #1 for “funny pictures” in Google ranks #72 in Yahoo.
Don’t think they are using their existing websites to manipulate clueless Google by creating a massive link farm? How would a newbie webmaster possibly compete with that no matter how good his site is?
Hi there
which technique is best for betting backlinks for a site do by the SEO depends on how they used it.whenever you do any one of the technique try to do as per the instruction mentioned.
One of the member of this forum says that these techniques are used by the kids.On his quote I want to say that if you are getting good result or the result which you want to achieve by behaving like a kid then I must say is there any need to grow up.??
How will a mix of the methods listed above look normal? They are all self gained or self promotional links. How is that normal?
All of this methods are OK but do not give much. It is ok to do all the mentioned stuff and it will boost your rankings, but if you want to rank high for medium and high targeted keywords then you should do some serious work.
I suggest to mix all of that methods because it will look normal… What can google say about a site that has 500 backlinks only from directories?
But, all of this stuff requires patience and hard work so you should ask yourself if it is worth your time?
Try to find natural one way links. Try to create great content because one natural link that is not bought will have much more weight.
sure, you are right… that definitively is not normal but it is better to mix link types than to have one kind of links only…
also, I said “if it worth of time” and I meant that is not that worth but at the beginning it can bring some success, especially for non competitive keywords/niches…
They are best for traffic generation. In terms that if readers are inspired by your content, they will eventually follow your link.
Otherwise, if we get a backlink after writing a 250 to 400 words article, its very expensive trade.
Its better to get links by others modes stated in the poll.
All are correct.
All provide you a way to get traffic and back links. The best is one who is good itself. Means that links from a good PR site are more useful.
Also sites/pages with less outgoing links are also useful.
An example:-
I submitted one article to 15 article directories.
One of them approved it within 4 days, the PR of directory is 6 and of my article page is 2.
Some others approved within few hours but lack in their own credibility.
Some others having good PR/credibility PR 5, approved it after a month and my article (actually my link) page was with PR 0.
So here, all are article dir’s but behave in different manner. So one is best who give you the best source to earn some benefits.
Article submission is also called contextual link building or content based link building and is very effective to rank you high.
Off course! What does it say about site if the link profile is all self promotional links (ie directories, forum posting, blog comments, social bookmarks, articles) … it must be a site that offers no value to the web if that is the only way you can get links to the site! How would you interpret that sort of link profile if you were a search engine?
…for eg…just yesterday I found two links to my one of my niche sites from AOL News and the Seattle Times … how valuable are they? Are they worth more than a zillion self promotional links? How much link juice do you think those links might pass? What do those links say to the search engines about the site? How did I get them? … totally from the value of the content on the site.
As stated above, the blog entry, comment, forum post, social bookmark, article, press releases are the best and easiest way to build links. The key is to do ALL of them consistently without short cuts. Write all entries as if it were a term paper. People do read them if relevant keywords and content are used.
So whats the moral of the story then? Create great content on your own site and the backlinks will come?
best link building:
here i have listed some best links building ways,
social bookmarking
blog posting
directory submission
article submission
cheers
mdraja
Thats why you do not spin junk articles and pub them on stupid content gather sites…you write useful articles.
For the purposes of this string though wouldn’t you say articles are the best bet?
Wow, as I look at the various methods the voting is quite close for all of them. In many ways I would recommend using varying methods. You may find some work better for you than others, but that can vary from person to person or site to site. More important is what happens once people arrive at your site. If you don’t master that part, you are missing the boat.
They are methods that are used only by the SEO kiddies - the SEO pros don’t use them. They are very poor quality types of links, they carry no or very little weight. They may be good for getting a site from ranking 100th to 50th for a reasonable competitive term and for a non-competitive low volume term or phrase to page 1 or 2; they may be good for getting a new site with no links indexed … but they not much good for anything else.
The links that are really worth it are those you can not generally get by yourself.
Think about it from Googles perspective - if you were google how much value would you give to links that are from self promotion, self gained and add no value to the web and simply pollute it - that is what directory submission, blog commenting, article spinning, forum profiles, etc are. If you were Google, how much value would you give to these sorts of links? I would give them no value, as they say nothing about the quality of the site being linked to - all they say is that the webmaster has been busy polluting the web. Do you think that the search engines may have some elements of this in the link juice algorithm already?
Again, think about it from the search engines perspective…if you were a search engine, what sorts of links would you give a lot of link juice to? If I was I would give a lot of link juice to the links that are given freely by someone else becasue the site has such awesome content (is it actuallty ‘linkworthy’) … they are the links I spend my time pursuing.
This is what the SEO professional links builders do, not what the SEO Shops run by SEO Kiddies do. The SEO shops are no better than BP polluting the gulf
Really? Do you think the search engines are blind to all the spun pollution that happening on the web?
But 99.9% of articles are not useful. They are crap. They are created for one purpose and that is to create a self promotional link back to the authors website. They add no value to the web and pollute it some more. If you were a search engine how much juice would you give those links?
Care to explain why you think they are the best, especially in the context of comments I made above?