Anyone still using Web 2.0s for ranking?

[Marine Mar]

I know they’ve been around forever and most people moved on, but I’m wondering if anyone is still seeing results using Web 2.0s as part of their link strategy.
Not talking about spammed junk, more like aged, manually built ones with decent content.
Are they still worth the effort, or completely dead now in Google’s eyes?

 

[Petromin]

they’re not completely dead, but you gotta use them right.
if they’re well-written, aged, and part of a broader strategy, they can still help a bit, more for diversity and indexing than raw ranking power.
just don’t rely on them alone. think of them as a support piece, not the foundation.

 

[Danper12]

honestly, i still throw a few in the mix now and then. not expecting magic from them, but they’re not totally useless either.
if you take the time to make them look real and mix them with other links, they can still play a small role. wouldn’t build a whole strategy around them though.

 

[washingtondc]

I use them for very low-competition keywords, like 0 search volume, FAQs type keywords and old web2. The results have been good so far.

 

[rankinsight]

Yes, Web 2.0s can still add slight SEO value when used with quality content and context. Think of them as low-cost, foundational links—supporting signals rather than ranking drivers. Use selectively, not as your main strategy.

 

[juliatep672]

They’re not gonna skyrocket your rankings, but they’re not useless either.
if you treat them like mini-sites and not throwaway junk, they can still add some trust signals. just don’t expect miracles.

 

[AiTakenOverWorld]

just treat them like a pbn site because this in turn could become one

 

[netsushi]

They’re definitely not what they used to be. Aged, manually built Web 2.0s with solid content can still work if you use them in a natural way like branded anchors, internal linking, and niche relevance.

Google just doesn’t give them as much weight unless they actually have some authority.

 

[Titans]

It's not completely dead. They're still working fine, and it also depends on how you use them. The high quality & well structured articles with tiered links are helpful and good to diversify the link profile.

 

[Ranking Expert]

Big Yes, still using web 2.0 for ranking sites but with quality content, extra pages and treating web 2.0 or parasites as main site.

 

[1SEOWarrior]

The fact is we need to consider web 2.0 as a serious sites. Not throwing some AI content and expect the ranking. You have to take it like your tier 1 site. Then you might get most benefits from it.

 

[BootyBoost]

Our team uses them only for general and branded anchor links, so it would be possible to use guest posts with commercial anchor texts.

 

[drakan91]

yup i am still using it, just for lower tiers

 

[Jack Rodding]

They’re definitely not what they used to be. Aged, manually built Web 2.0s with solid content can still work if you use them in a natural way like branded anchors, internal linking, and niche relevance.

Google just doesn’t give them as much weight unless they actually have some authority.

where u get aged 2.0s

 

[thildapestasi4]

I know they’ve been around forever and most people moved on, but I’m wondering if anyone is still seeing results using Web 2.0s as part of their link strategy.
Not talking about spammed junk, more like aged, manually built ones with decent content.
Are they still worth the effort, or completely dead now in Google’s eyes?

They’re not dead, but their impact is limited. Aged Web 2.0s with solid content can still help diversify your backlink profile and build relevance, especially if you control the content. Just don’t rely on them alone, they work best when combined with stronger links and a solid content strategy.

 

[Starblazer]

If you treat them like independent sites, then they still work fine. They rank for low-competition keywords and bring some traffic like any other low authority site. They may not work if you treat them like PBNs or churn & burn projects.

 

[InfinityPeace]

Manually built, at least mid-quality content, tier 1 properties that are '2.0' versions of web 2.0s (subpages with good metrics) are still effective ways to assist in ranking a site. If you put one such properly SEO-friendly property on tier 1 for each keyword on your main site, then create 40-50 similar pages on tier 2 pointing to the tier 1 property, and perhaps blast the tier 2s, that should put the tier 1 property in the top 50-100 in rankings for that KW.

If you create a few dozen properties for that same kW the same way, those resulting top 100 pages should push the money site page way up in the rankings. Most folks don't do this, and that part of why they don't get much out of Web 2.0s.

 

[Jiozseo]

Manually built, aged Web 2.0s with quality content can still help in SEO if used carefully, but their impact is limited and not as strong as other authoritative backlinks.

 

[kattech]

Personally still using but no known benefits. Just to try and see.

 

[GenesisOne]

Parasites can be used as backlinks to achieve great results.