Link Wheel vs Link Pyramid

[jb2008]

Since I am not allowed to post any links / attachments I can't show the pic, but you guys know the one on The Warrior Forums called 'Total SERP Domination' by some broad from Slovenia?

Well, I was looking at that an it seemed ok, but after the updates around Oct 09 (So I have been reading) this doesn't seem like a very wise strategy anymore. Micallef posted an excellent thread, again one which I am unable to link to, entitled 'Long Term Experiment - The "Foolproof" Linkwheel', addressing many of these concerns. However some have suggested that the linkwheel, however disguised, will be heavily penalized by Google and that 'Link Pyramids' are what should be sought after.

I have a few questions about the typical linkwheel, firstly about what the difference exactly is between an 'open' and 'closed' wheel. I am aware of course one link has to be missing, but in the typical simple wheel shape I don't know if the link should be missing from web2.0<->web2.0 or from web2.0<->money site . I'd just like some clarification on that.

I want to get into a network that will allow me to use the power of scrapebox to build up the power of the network, but at the same time distancing BH tactics from the main money site. The link pyramid seems to be simpler, with web2.0 linking to small sites and then to the big money site, but this doesn't seem to be any more secure - if anything less so - than the conventional link wheel. Indeed I am inclined to say that Micallef's method is the best out there so far, but if I am wrong I would like any suggestions and clarification about the Link Pyramid as there doesn't seem to be as much out there as for LWs.

I would appreciate greatly any answer to my queries and some good discussion.

 

[volund]

Well personally I go with pyramids for a couple of reasons.

First there is less of a footprint, second all the secondary pages are separate so that if something happens to one then it does not affect any of the others. I do not know about the particular methods you mention but to me most of the ones I have looked at are just too complicated for no good reason. I like to keep things as simple as possible. I do not worry about layers and different types of sites in each layer and all that, just too much work.

Basically I divide all the links I create into three groups. Good quality, poor quality and questionable quality. The first one (good quality) I link directly to my site. Most of the others I send to a buffer site, usually a article or web 2.0 page though sometimes I create a domain just for that purpose. I never interlink these buffer sites in any way and no fancy diagrams or plans. I just send a bunch of links to a page to give it some pr so it flows through to one of my money making sites. You can do this to any page though you do want to make sure that it is a page that is going to be around as it would be a waste to send links to a page that is going to disappear on you.

 

[jb2008]

Hi Volund, thx for that. I know this sounds crazy but does anyone have a diagram and how are the pyramids different from the wheels?

If I didn't "close" the wheel, i.e. link the final web 2.0 site in the link back to the original web 2.0 site, wouldn't that just be like a web 2.0 site in the first place?

 

[fear91]

I prefer to form schemes which look like a spider web... Done by some very very drunk spider(chaotic).

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

@OP - if you want to send me your email address via PM, I'll send you not only a diagram but an entire ebook on a process I dubbed "Link Pushing".

It's a very strong method to whitehat your way to the top of the search engines.

 

[Stumickel]

Why not use an original source for information, Michael Campbell? He's the first person I know of who came up with the linkwheel concept. He called it mininet, but it is essentially the same.

But they do leave a footprint. I read or saw somewhere Matt Cutts saying that Google could see them easily.

I really like his MC's Jiggling The Web idea: Jiggling The Web

This is more in line with the pyramid concept and I believe it is far stronger than linkwheels.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[gmicalzoma]

I saw the salespage for the Pyramid concept but it seems the only strategy exposed is like Volund explained above.

 

[rocket]

I've said this before, there are two components to anything - the METHOD and the QUALITY. Linkwheels still work, it's just that some do them right and others don't. So you are going to get varying opinions, just like how some people on here have success with a particular program and some do not.
QUALITY is the common denominator in determining the different results for anything done in life and can be applied straight across the board.

 

[jb2008]

Hey man! I got your msg about link pushing! Gratitude for it, I wasn't aware you were the actual author.


A couple questions about "Link Pushing":

1. It seems similar to the link pyramid, very chaotic and random. But why would we need a new IP address for each web 2.0 property? Unless Google are affiliated with some of them...? I've never before heard from anyone to change IP address...

2. The money site seems to get only 4 inlinks, out of all that work. Even if we get high PR for some of those web 2.0 sites, how is building such a complex structure worthwhile if we only get 4 links. Maybe I'm a noob but how is this supposed to catapult us to the top of SERPs for competitive keywords when there is minimal work.

3. Can I use scrapebox to increase the PR of the web 2.0 properties?

4. Need 28 articles of unique content, that's a lot! Do you think spinning them would work, and if so , what is the minimum % spin on an article you'd recommend?

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

1. It seems similar to the link pyramid, very chaotic and random. But why would we need a new IP address for each web 2.0 property? Unless Google are affiliated with some of them...? I've never before heard from anyone to change IP address...

The thought process behind changing the IP address is because if you use this process, you'll end up creating a lot of different pushes and if you use a lot of the same Web 2.0 properties they may see a pattern and close all of your sites.

2. The money site seems to get only 4 inlinks, out of all that work. Even if we get high PR for some of those web 2.0 sites, how is building such a complex structure worthwhile if we only get 4 links. Maybe I'm a noob but how is this supposed to catapult us to the top of SERPs for competitive keywords when there is minimal work.

That particular 28 site push has a lot of strenght when it is all combined together so the links you are getting are very strong as well as the search engines do not see the "structure" as a contrived thing. Also, it makes sense to use different Web 2.0 sites when creating a push so as to add more randomness.

3. Can I use scrapebox to increase the PR of the web 2.0 properties?

Absolutely, the more you push the sites, the more those sites will push your money site.

4. Need 28 articles of unique content, that's a lot! Do you think spinning them would work, and if so , what is the minimum % spin on an article you'd recommend?

You can get away with a 50% spin and still have a solid product when you complete the push.

 

[6000RWHP]

I have used link pyramids with good success.

Here's a basic diagram:

 

[jb2008]

BassTrackerBoats: I get it now. I will try. Excellent point about the web 2.0 people seeing something suspect if you do it in the future, i.e. it's not necessarily with Google in mind. For link pushing, presuming we get a whole lot of pages with a high page rank, is it possible to "push" another money site in the same niche, with the same sites, as opposed to creating new ones?


6000, great diagram! Ah I love these forums!

It seems to me that BassTrackerBoats' method is far more random, and far harder to detect. The link pyramid seems to be quite interlinked in a less chaotic manner, and all are linked to eachother either directly or indirectly. It should be no more difficult for Google to detect than a linkwheel, unless I am misunderstanding it.

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

BassTrackerBoats: I get it now. I will try. Excellent point about the web 2.0 people seeing something suspect if you do it in the future, i.e. it's not necessarily with Google in mind. For link pushing, presuming we get a whole lot of pages with a high page rank, is it possible to "push" another money site in the same niche, with the same sites, as opposed to creating new ones?

I've never tried that because I think that then you would be losing some of the benefit because of an additional outbound link but I may try that this week and see what kind of results I get on a particular keyword phrase.

 

[Micallef]

It's simple.

Build assets - An asset is a website you control which Google does not believe is spammy.

Develop assets - Build links to your assets to make them bigger assets.

Link assets - Over a long period, join up your assets in a naturalized pattern.

Doing it any other way means there is a high risk of failure. Pushing out blogs all in the same week with only a few articles each, all interlinked with no back-link support is not going to get you anywhere. Google is aware of the recent surge in the popularity of "mini-nets", and it's looking for the common signs. You need to dodge these signs to get a high functioning network in Google and truly rig the system.

 

[Jason_parker700]

The funny thing is that, people are willing to write 50-100 pages of unique content and post them on article directories, but nobody wants to post informative 3-5 line comments on authority blogs. Most times you just have to rehash a previously posted comment with just a lil more information in it.

 

[Imhotep]

There is always something new to keep up with! That's what makes IM so much fun I believe. This thread was an interesting read. I am now looking for more info on link pyramids. Fun stuff indeed!

 

[Jason_parker700]

did you guys ever know that you could use your existing bookmarking profiles to write comments on bookmarking sites like digg, propeller etc ? It could save a lot of your time!

 

[guerilla]

Whenever you build anything, whether it is a business model, or a serp rank, you want it to be robust. You want it to be able to withstand shocks like algo changes and loss of key backlinks.

http://blackhatseo-blog.com/basic-link-farm-evolution-linking

I still think the best way to link is to link in tiers, and to decentralize the tiers so that losing one or two or three top tier links won't massively damage your backlink profile.

 

[jb2008]

It's simple.

Build assets - An asset is a website you control which Google does not believe is spammy.

Develop assets - Build links to your assets to make them bigger assets.

Link assets - Over a long period, join up your assets in a naturalized pattern.

Doing it any other way means there is a high risk of failure. Pushing out blogs all in the same week with only a few articles each, all interlinked with no back-link support is not going to get you anywhere. Google is aware of the recent surge in the popularity of "mini-nets", and it's looking for the common signs. You need to dodge these signs to get a high functioning network in Google and truly rig the system.

In what way should we link, exactly? I remember a post of yours recommending to hold off linking for a while and post instead a .gov or .edu link to make it seem as not spammy as possible. This would work but wouldn't it eventually divert the link juice away from the site you want to give it to (i.e. your own sites).

Your suggestion to 'develop' the assets suggests that we might develop our web 2.0 sites not to be simple throwaway projects but rather sites from which we can pass link juice to a number of our money sites, not just one? (The question I just asked BassTrackerBoats too).

 

[Micallef]

In what way should we link, exactly? I remember a post of yours recommending to hold off linking for a while and post instead a .gov or .edu link to make it seem as not spammy as possible. This would work but wouldn't it eventually divert the link juice away from the site you want to give it to (i.e. your own sites).

Your suggestion to 'develop' the assets suggests that we might develop our web 2.0 sites not to be simple throwaway projects but rather sites from which we can pass link juice to a number of our money sites, not just one? (The question I just asked BassTrackerBoats too).

I haven't addressed the exact linking pattern - there's no point, no magic diagram to make everything ok. It all depends on what kind of network you've built, what it's meant to do and how sneaky you need to be to evade Google's spam filters. My assessment of the linkwheel spam filter is that it's very advanced - and I therefore have to do a lot of ducking and diving to get a functioning network. Google are succeeding in their goal of making spam more expensive - but it is still defnintely worthwhile.

The benefits of posting authority out-links, in my mind, outweighs the loss of PR power. Normal non-spam blogs have a lot of out-links to authority sites. If your blog doesn't have any, Google will find this abnormal.

Gain the trust by whatever means necessary - once the trust has been gained, you have yourself an "asset" which can be turned to any purpose you please. You could do any number of things:

• Attempt rank (if success, drive traffic)
• Provide relevant links and context
• Depending on the blog topic, it can be used to provide a trusted context link to any other website in the general topic area.

Take my most important money-making page as an example. It usually exhibits a high rank (4 or 5 - may not seem like much but this is a BIG keyword) but it's been fluctuating recently - every 2 weeks or so, it has a 2 or 3 day long "vacation" halfway down page 2.

Currently the page is supported by my best comment and wiki spam links, a few sitewides, and an aging old-style 12 site linkwheel which is slowly disintegrating as platforms go nofollow.

The fluctuations in rank have got me worried, so I have decided to take action by creating a gigantic multi-layered network of "high quality" websites that will cement my money page in position. All the content of course is meaningless drivel, but as long as Google cannot detect this (and it cannot), then the plan is sound. Other linking methods have played their part - now it's time to bring out the big guns. It's some work, definitely, but this page is so profitable that it's still a pretty sweet deal.