With $1000, you can easily buy any kind of link from any website. Forbes, - I think you missed a 0 off the end of this.
Are there ANY SEO packages that actually work?
- Thread starter epoch1337
- Start date
With $1000, you can easily buy any kind of link from any website. Forbes, - I think you missed a 0 off the end of this.
- Apr 3, 2019
- 602
- 772
Some BHW sellers mention those sites in thread titles that sell some sort of guest posting or press release, but so far I didn’t see those exact domains in their sample spreadsheets.
No forbes.com, huffpost.com, nbc.com… Some do have correct logos but domains are different. I imagine $1000 for these would indeed not be sufficient.
Last edited:
- Jun 10, 2010
- 2,405
- 1,675
A lot of SEO is based around having quality links and from my experience as a customer of many of the SEO services provided they all taught links from their private PBN or forbes.com, etc... at a cost that is too good to be true. I'm sure the right way to use these services are to point them towards your tier 3 sites, but lets face it many folks here are using them on their money site and the gains are always short lived.
My lesson learned is to take the money I would have spent on SEO services and spend it on quality content ie. article, guide, review, infographic, pdf, whatever because, that content will last a lot longer than a link to a website and if the content is killer and goes viral, then the number of links you get will be far more valuable than lady gaga's pbn.
My lesson learned is to take the money I would have spent on SEO services and spend it on quality content ie. article, guide, review, infographic, pdf, whatever because, that content will last a lot longer than a link to a website and if the content is killer and goes viral, then the number of links you get will be far more valuable than lady gaga's pbn.
- Sep 7, 2017
- 7,167
- 6,414
The truth is an SEO package(or service) isn't the same with a backlink package(or service).
Backlinks alone won't rank your site unless other things are in place. If you have other aspects of your site's SEO in perfect condition you'd already begin to get positive results. Backlinks would be to get you to positions you couldn't without links.
johnsnowlives
Newbie
- May 13, 2021
- 3
- 1
linksmanagement.com for backlinks always check metrics with semrush and for articles posts on high da / pa sites use adsy.com with both of those sites you will crush the serps!
Stitches and Burns
Elite Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 1,517
- 1,605
You just don't buy backlinks indiscriminately. You have to know which links are good for your site. Peppering your site with tons of random backlinks from various SEO providers is a surefire way to get a Google penalty.
- Nov 25, 2017
- 11,570
- 7,545
A lot of decent or interesting SEO providers exist on this site but like all things depends on what you buy and onpage factors for example I bought of I think so far 5 different people SEO things but in general I would not expect them to rank me perfect or in full forms since I never spent enough money on it just like $200 on links so far which to me is overall to small to do big ranking boost in most cases.
Rdan13
Regular Member
- Dec 14, 2020
- 293
- 71
I can help you!
ericdonalddavenport
Newbie
- May 6, 2021
- 2
- 1
SEO ought to be under a genuine and valuable deal. How it can be possible?
Be precious, Choose the only service-oriented keywords even include highly competitive keywords before diving into SEO.
Buy SEO service carefully. I don't market anything. I think you can select as per your needs and budget.
Be precious, Choose the only service-oriented keywords even include highly competitive keywords before diving into SEO.
Buy SEO service carefully. I don't market anything. I think you can select as per your needs and budget.
BrandingCat
Elite Member
- Jan 6, 2015
- 8,117
- 10,311
If you can buy from any of these sites a guest post/niche edit for 1000 USD, I give you 1000 USD extra. Come on guys, lol.
akunbajak
Regular Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 223
- 120
That is press release backlink which usually only cost $100
blackbeans
Elite Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 9,247
- 4,806
Try SEO outreach instead of 'packages'
Most of those packages' easy to get links don't really pack much SEO value
Focus on securing harder to get links. These are done through outreach for guest posts or niche edits.
Most of those packages' easy to get links don't really pack much SEO value
Focus on securing harder to get links. These are done through outreach for guest posts or niche edits.
- Apr 3, 2019
- 602
- 772
Would you say that doing this yourself and mailing bloggers is better than using an outreach service? Lower success rate would be compensated with money saved because there is no middleman and you get a link from a site that is perhaps not yet in the business of selling guest posts in bulk and will look more natural to Google.
blackbeans
Elite Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 9,247
- 4,806
Right. You can do it manually yourself but make sure you're patient since finding legit sites are hard enough but finding those who want to cut a deal is hard. It's easy to lose motivation after your first few hundred dead ends.
Also, your outreach has to be customized. You can't just send templates out.
Patience, customization, and perseverance are the reasons why people outsource this type of work
kk42041
Junior Member
- Nov 18, 2020
- 191
- 117
Okay, I know it feels like you've used every other option out there. But there's always something you're missing out on. Saying from my personal experience. From what I have read, I am not gonna assume something and say something that puts you off. But I will say, if you have spent that much, and you're unsure what to do next with all this, maybe find someone who'll analyse everything for you, sort out the issues where you're going wrong in your strategy and help you fix it. You might be doing 300 sites and making 100$ a day with them, someone out there is definitely making 500$ a day with a single site and getting bigger every single day.
I'm going to resurrect this discusssion as this (and my last paragraph about PPC) have been on my mind heavily the last month or two.
I was doing SEO for about 15 years up until about 5 years ago. This goes back to the "good 'ole days" where things like "Doorway Sites" worked amazing. But of course, Google spent thousands of engineering hours to continually change their ranking algorithm to where all these older "Black Hat" and most "Grey Hat" techniques no longer work (or worst, get you penalized or banned.) And they'll continue to battle them and they will continue to win with the resources they have.
My work focus shifted elsewhere mainly to running my two small businesses, one totally unrelated to Online Marketing Services. Essentially what happened in my opinion is that Google has gradually given more and more importance to one of the least discussed probable components of their ranking algo: site stickiness. You see, back in the old days, before Google was #1, some of the search engines, the sites were actually manually reviewed by an army of human reviewers. As the web grew this was no longer possible of course.
Who do you think after examing a page can determine its relevancy to a particular search term, and company/service offering quality? A computer or a human? Well I still think a human can, but the AI aspects of ranking algos are getting pretty damn close. The most discussed aspect of SEO is typically backlink profile. What do you think is the primary driver of generation of "real/natural" backlinks? Typically for the most valuable backlinks, It's a HUMAN that maintains another website, making a decision with their human brain, to add a backlink to you because they think your website has something good enough to offer people who visit their website.
But there is another human aspect over the years I see rarely discussed in all the SEO articles published. It's what I call 'site stickiness' and in my opinion it has gradually become more and more of ranking factor that Google has been typically very quiet about.
You see, the links to the sites in all the search results are all redirects. They first take you to Google, and THEN to the target web page. So Google can record what keywords you search for, and what results page and the ranking position of the search result you clicked on. If go to a site and quickly assess it doesn't have what you are looking for, you go back to the search results page and typically click the next search result listing. Google can calculate then the time you spent on the website before. If you spent little time there, that's a very negative sign that that web page is relevant to the search keywords you used. If you spend a lot more time than average at a website for a particular search, or don't come back at all, Google can infer that you probably found what you were looking for. They can distinguish finding what you were looking for from just giving up and not coming back by other users searching using similar keywords and going to the same websites and coming back.
So essentially by analyzing millions of users' click-thru and return patterns for billions of search queries, they essentially create an army of volunteer human manual reviewers without those reviewers even knowing they are essentially working for Google to help determine webpage relevancy and quality. Combining this with all the other ranking factors is what makes their results so spot on. This is also why the SEO Mantra in recent years has basically evolved to "create quality content." If you have lots of relevant quality content, the visitor is going to spend more time on your site than average for similar sites. And as I postulate here, I think that is a huge ranking factor in the algo that is underestimated, or at least just not talked about much, the 'site stickiness.'
Starting about 7 years ago, I used Sarkar because I just didn't have the time anymore to do more SEO and had a new company that I wanted to boost the rankings on sooner than later. These guys/gals basically all use the same techniques and are just in a pattern of cycling out the old ineffective websites they use with new ones and experimenting with different combinations of techniques. Initially, Sarkar's (and similar methods I assume) were quite effective. He could move me from a page 2 or 3 ranking to top 5 fairly quickly in most all but the largest niche's/industries.
As the years went on, and Google changed its algo, I saw the changes from buying these services get less and less. I also noticed a disturbing pattern. (1) These guys all ask you to post here that you placed an order. This is simply to keep their service's thread in the forum constantly growing so it shows up near the top of the discussion threads. A crafty strategy but a bit 'scammy' in my opinion. (2) You will see that for anyone that does post results in the SEO Service's Discussion Thread, they are always positive. You rarely see anyone complaining. Why? Because as you point out, the Service Provider will BEG and BEG you to remove your post if you do. Plus people tend to not want to publicly acknowledge they wasted their money. No one has the balls to use these guys' services for several months for several different websites and show a complete study of the results which views as a whole, are actually typically not that impressive.
Are these services a scam? I don't think so. I think they have value in certain circumstances. The circumstance is where you have a new website that since it has no backlinks, it's maybe on page 2 at best or page 3 or greater depending on how competitive the niche is. So you have people that have started businesses that are DESPERATE for more traffic. The services typically can easily take a site from like a 25 or higher ranking to the 9-12 range depending on the site and niche. That's an impressive jump for most site owners. But in reality, especially if your targeted keywords generate 3-pack map results, the value of the ranking exponentially declines as you go from about 4 and lower. So the difference in traffic between say being ranked 9 and ranked 29 is minimal compared to being ranked 3 and ranked 13.
Most of the sites in the top 5 have been around a long time, with large legitimate backlink profiles. None of these services like Sarkar or Samblogs are going to be able to take a site ranked in the 20's to top 3 and keep them there, EXCEPT only if it is a very small niche with very few competing sites.
Instead of spending thousands of dollars on Grey Hat SEO services you would have been much better served by hiring a PPC Advertising Expert to manually and carefully craft and manage your PPC advertising campaigns. Then you could rank in the actual top 3 on the page (above or in Map Pack) and above organic results and stay there as long as you want to pay for it. You could in the meantime continue to develop your site content, get legitimate backlinks (like from Business Directories), write your own blog, post on social media, etc etc, to help improve your organic rank. Organic ranks though don't make Google Money. So over time they have gradually been pushed down by mostly ads, and to some degree 3-pack results (which they don't make any money on the latter, YET.)
One cautionary note about advertising on Google (and Bing). Google and Bings PPC Ad Systems have evolved to be extremely complex with like 10 times more features and settings than they had years ago. One thing Google has done is made a conscious effort to provide AI "Recommendations" on how to set up your campaigns. They've moved this way in my opinion mainly to help the less knowledgeable advertisers get better results, but at the same time it generates more ad revenue for Google. I would avoid "Smart Campaigns" where it's all up to the machine to set up and run everything for you. You need an expert that really knows how to use their system and do things like constantly examine Search Term reports and build negative keywords lists among many other strategies. I can say the Google (and Bing) ad system has grown to have such a large and complex set of features/settings now, there are probably very few companies or individuals out there using their advertising system correctly to keep their Cost Per Action/Aquisition/Sale to a minimum and maximizing the return on their advertising spend. In fact, I would bet the vast majority of advertisers aren't even measuring their cost per conversion at all or at least not accurately.
I was doing SEO for about 15 years up until about 5 years ago. This goes back to the "good 'ole days" where things like "Doorway Sites" worked amazing. But of course, Google spent thousands of engineering hours to continually change their ranking algorithm to where all these older "Black Hat" and most "Grey Hat" techniques no longer work (or worst, get you penalized or banned.) And they'll continue to battle them and they will continue to win with the resources they have.
My work focus shifted elsewhere mainly to running my two small businesses, one totally unrelated to Online Marketing Services. Essentially what happened in my opinion is that Google has gradually given more and more importance to one of the least discussed probable components of their ranking algo: site stickiness. You see, back in the old days, before Google was #1, some of the search engines, the sites were actually manually reviewed by an army of human reviewers. As the web grew this was no longer possible of course.
Who do you think after examing a page can determine its relevancy to a particular search term, and company/service offering quality? A computer or a human? Well I still think a human can, but the AI aspects of ranking algos are getting pretty damn close. The most discussed aspect of SEO is typically backlink profile. What do you think is the primary driver of generation of "real/natural" backlinks? Typically for the most valuable backlinks, It's a HUMAN that maintains another website, making a decision with their human brain, to add a backlink to you because they think your website has something good enough to offer people who visit their website.
But there is another human aspect over the years I see rarely discussed in all the SEO articles published. It's what I call 'site stickiness' and in my opinion it has gradually become more and more of ranking factor that Google has been typically very quiet about.
You see, the links to the sites in all the search results are all redirects. They first take you to Google, and THEN to the target web page. So Google can record what keywords you search for, and what results page and the ranking position of the search result you clicked on. If go to a site and quickly assess it doesn't have what you are looking for, you go back to the search results page and typically click the next search result listing. Google can calculate then the time you spent on the website before. If you spent little time there, that's a very negative sign that that web page is relevant to the search keywords you used. If you spend a lot more time than average at a website for a particular search, or don't come back at all, Google can infer that you probably found what you were looking for. They can distinguish finding what you were looking for from just giving up and not coming back by other users searching using similar keywords and going to the same websites and coming back.
So essentially by analyzing millions of users' click-thru and return patterns for billions of search queries, they essentially create an army of volunteer human manual reviewers without those reviewers even knowing they are essentially working for Google to help determine webpage relevancy and quality. Combining this with all the other ranking factors is what makes their results so spot on. This is also why the SEO Mantra in recent years has basically evolved to "create quality content." If you have lots of relevant quality content, the visitor is going to spend more time on your site than average for similar sites. And as I postulate here, I think that is a huge ranking factor in the algo that is underestimated, or at least just not talked about much, the 'site stickiness.'
Starting about 7 years ago, I used Sarkar because I just didn't have the time anymore to do more SEO and had a new company that I wanted to boost the rankings on sooner than later. These guys/gals basically all use the same techniques and are just in a pattern of cycling out the old ineffective websites they use with new ones and experimenting with different combinations of techniques. Initially, Sarkar's (and similar methods I assume) were quite effective. He could move me from a page 2 or 3 ranking to top 5 fairly quickly in most all but the largest niche's/industries.
As the years went on, and Google changed its algo, I saw the changes from buying these services get less and less. I also noticed a disturbing pattern. (1) These guys all ask you to post here that you placed an order. This is simply to keep their service's thread in the forum constantly growing so it shows up near the top of the discussion threads. A crafty strategy but a bit 'scammy' in my opinion. (2) You will see that for anyone that does post results in the SEO Service's Discussion Thread, they are always positive. You rarely see anyone complaining. Why? Because as you point out, the Service Provider will BEG and BEG you to remove your post if you do. Plus people tend to not want to publicly acknowledge they wasted their money. No one has the balls to use these guys' services for several months for several different websites and show a complete study of the results which views as a whole, are actually typically not that impressive.
Are these services a scam? I don't think so. I think they have value in certain circumstances. The circumstance is where you have a new website that since it has no backlinks, it's maybe on page 2 at best or page 3 or greater depending on how competitive the niche is. So you have people that have started businesses that are DESPERATE for more traffic. The services typically can easily take a site from like a 25 or higher ranking to the 9-12 range depending on the site and niche. That's an impressive jump for most site owners. But in reality, especially if your targeted keywords generate 3-pack map results, the value of the ranking exponentially declines as you go from about 4 and lower. So the difference in traffic between say being ranked 9 and ranked 29 is minimal compared to being ranked 3 and ranked 13.
Most of the sites in the top 5 have been around a long time, with large legitimate backlink profiles. None of these services like Sarkar or Samblogs are going to be able to take a site ranked in the 20's to top 3 and keep them there, EXCEPT only if it is a very small niche with very few competing sites.
Instead of spending thousands of dollars on Grey Hat SEO services you would have been much better served by hiring a PPC Advertising Expert to manually and carefully craft and manage your PPC advertising campaigns. Then you could rank in the actual top 3 on the page (above or in Map Pack) and above organic results and stay there as long as you want to pay for it. You could in the meantime continue to develop your site content, get legitimate backlinks (like from Business Directories), write your own blog, post on social media, etc etc, to help improve your organic rank. Organic ranks though don't make Google Money. So over time they have gradually been pushed down by mostly ads, and to some degree 3-pack results (which they don't make any money on the latter, YET.)
One cautionary note about advertising on Google (and Bing). Google and Bings PPC Ad Systems have evolved to be extremely complex with like 10 times more features and settings than they had years ago. One thing Google has done is made a conscious effort to provide AI "Recommendations" on how to set up your campaigns. They've moved this way in my opinion mainly to help the less knowledgeable advertisers get better results, but at the same time it generates more ad revenue for Google. I would avoid "Smart Campaigns" where it's all up to the machine to set up and run everything for you. You need an expert that really knows how to use their system and do things like constantly examine Search Term reports and build negative keywords lists among many other strategies. I can say the Google (and Bing) ad system has grown to have such a large and complex set of features/settings now, there are probably very few companies or individuals out there using their advertising system correctly to keep their Cost Per Action/Aquisition/Sale to a minimum and maximizing the return on their advertising spend. In fact, I would bet the vast majority of advertisers aren't even measuring their cost per conversion at all or at least not accurately.
5 Nights at Freddy's
Newbie
- Jan 8, 2022
- 36
- 13
A golden thread.
The rule is simple: build whitehat links to the money site, then build blackhat ones to those links.
Whitehat links are manual backlinks, they are guest posts, link exchanges, directories.
The rule is simple: build whitehat links to the money site, then build blackhat ones to those links.
Whitehat links are manual backlinks, they are guest posts, link exchanges, directories.
Golden thread i agree !
If anyone is interested in sharing "case studies" / experiences with some of those SEO services im in !
In the past i managed to rank #1 for a competitive kw with 100% of my links coming from here.
Results lasted for a year.
But yeah i also got disapointed quite often with those SEO service that will ask you to remove your bad review in exchange of a full refund or some more links.
Those services have a lot of reviews with accounts that has only commented on their thread, which also looks suspicious lol
If anyone is interested in sharing "case studies" / experiences with some of those SEO services im in !
In the past i managed to rank #1 for a competitive kw with 100% of my links coming from here.
Results lasted for a year.
But yeah i also got disapointed quite often with those SEO service that will ask you to remove your bad review in exchange of a full refund or some more links.
Those services have a lot of reviews with accounts that has only commented on their thread, which also looks suspicious lol