[Case Study] Blast 5 Million Backlinks to a PR4 Authority Site

[94726]

Too many people are not reading the OP's first post. He does not care if you think it's a bad idea. He's running a test. Stop trying to give him advice on what he should do instead of blasting his money site because he doesn't care, he's running a case study.

Thanks for the clarification.

Important Update

Nearly a week later, results are ridiculous.

Ranking
6.5 Million blasts sent
Current PR: 4 (still the same
Current Keyword Rank: Rank 13 (+39 ranks!) The keyword is medium-hard and i ranked 39 ranks!
Google backlinks (link:website.com): 119

Conclusion:

First note that I was lazy and just sent 6.5 million blasts (the list had a high success rate). Probably less than half of them posted and even fewer remained (and even even fewer were index, etc).

That being said, it was still an "unusual amount" of backlinks that would have deindexed a site with lower authority.

I'm going to keep monitoring the site and post any significant changes. However, the lesson to take away from this study is not "spamming crappy links to money site = higher rankings". The site is PR 4 (on several inner pages) and has a ton of authority.

My advice is to continue building your website with a variety of methods (2.0s, social bookmarks, wikis, edus, etc). Focus on getting links from High PR authority sites rather than spamming many low pr sites. After you do all this and your site has established itself in the eyes of google, you'll have a lot more flexibility and options to rank your site. At that point, you'll have to really screw up your site to get sandboxed or lower rankings.

 

[VagabondEntrepreneur]

argh why i learn so slow!!! all this terminology is still going over my head

 

[sitecontact]

Lol, 6,5 M links really helped the site

 

[Shogeki]

How many links show up in Majestic SEO ?

 

[Kickflip]

First note that I was lazy and just sent 6.5 million blasts (the list had a high success rate). Probably less than half of them posted and even fewer remained (and even even fewer were index, etc).

That being said, it was still an "unusual amount" of backlinks that would have deindexed a site with lower authority.

Do you know how many "successful" submissions you had and how many "live links" were found? I don't understand how you say you got "lazy" and sent 6.5 million "blasts", didn't you only have a list of around 5 million? Man, I have been confused ever since you opened this thread, and the numbers you are giving aren't adding up at all. I have to say I think you have lied to us about this since the beginning.

Please start giving some real numbers here so we can understand what you really did here if you are telling the truth. Don't use "link:site.com" that is a silly way to check for links.

Please go to:

http://www.majesticseo.com/reports/site-explorer

And take a snapshot of your sites backlink profile. Basically you can screenshot the entire page, and just cut out your domain, like this:

 

[94726]

Do you know how many "successful" submissions you had and how many "live links" were found? I don't understand how you say you got "lazy" and sent 6.5 million "blasts", didn't you only have a list of around 5 million? Man, I have been confused ever since you opened this thread, and the numbers you are giving aren't adding up at all. I have to say I think you have lied to us about this since the beginning.

Please start giving some real numbers here so we can understand what you really did here if you are telling the truth. Don't use "link:site.com" that is a silly way to check for links.

Please go to:

http://www.majesticseo.com/reports/site-explorer

And take a snapshot of your sites backlink profile. Basically you can screenshot the entire page, and just cut out your domain, like this:

Before accusing me of lying think about a few things.

1. It's been over a week. Don't you think I've active enough to find several more lists? You can do a search for yourself. You can find a million new urls if you use the search button.

2. Buddy, why do I want to make up things. Give me one reason why posting that my rankings increase would have benefited me more than if I just said OMG OMG MY SITE WAS SANDBOXED.

3. On more than one occasion and more than one thread, you've had quite a negative attitude towards me and other members. If you have problems sort them out on your own. Don't accuse me of lying when i'm making a case study.

Lastly, I'll conduct the study how I want to. As long as I report what I do and the result, you shouldn't have anything to complain about. I told you all I did was use scrape box to spam a ton of lists. If there's a problem with that, let us know in an non-accusatory manner.

Grow up please.

 

[94726]

argh why i learn so slow!!! all this terminology is still going over my head

Made FAQ this for you guys to learn:

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/410978-must-read-black-hat-search-engine-optimization-faqs-resources-1-google-new-users.html

 

[Kickflip]

Lastly, I'll conduct the study how I want to. As long as I report what I do and the result, you shouldn't have anything to complain about. I told you all I did was use scrape box to spam a ton of lists. If there's a problem with that, let us know in an non-accusatory manner.

So you changed your mind about this?

I appreciate your input. I'll try my best to report as accurately as possible.

You are not reporting accurately. The thread title and everything contained within this entire thread is just you making things up as you go. I have a negative attitude towards people who make this kind of stuff up in order to gain attention. This is the wrong kind of attention.

You are providing inaccurate information to the members of this forum. This is a real serious problem. If everyone just made up information and posted it all the time, none of us would be able to keep fact and fiction separate. It just makes everyones job much harder.

Why are you refusing to co-operate with such simple tasks that only take few seconds to do? This is very suspicious. Do you even know how many sites you successfully submitted your comments to? Do you even know how many links went live? Do you have even close to an approximate number of links which went live?

You say you got more live links than any normal side could take without being sandboxed, but how can you know this if you dont have any idea how many links got live? I am just confused! Why not just take the time to answer these simple questions to provide clarification?

A normal site doesn't just get sandboxed from making 5 million comments or even 10 million comments. It just isn't how Google works.

 

[Expertpeon]

You are not reporting accurately. The thread title and everything contained within this entire thread is just you making things up as you go. I have a negative attitude towards people who make this kind of stuff up in order to gain attention. This is the wrong kind of attention.

A normal site doesn't just get sandboxed from making 5 million comments or even 10 million comments. It just isn't how Google works.

Kickflip,
I get what you're saying, and you're probably right here. But it is certainly possible to have 100k-200k AA domains, believe me. You cannot "scrape" them though, that's not how you generate such a list. It's not unusual for me to have working lists of over 10 million urls across 100,000 domains. The issue is, this only achieves about a 20% actual link dropping rate successfully.

That being said, if you created a simple blog commenting tool that has a lot more platform versatility, it's certainly possible to achieve much larger lists than this.

 

[Kickflip]

Kickflip,
I get what you're saying, and you're probably right here. But it is certainly possible to have 100k-200k AA domains, believe me. You cannot "scrape" them though, that's not how you generate such a list. It's not unusual for me to have working lists of over 10 million urls across 100,000 domains. The issue is, this only achieves about a 20% actual link dropping rate successfully.

That being said, if you created a simple blog commenting tool that has a lot more platform versatility, it's certainly possible to achieve much larger lists than this.

Well he is using Scrapebox, and some rehashed lists. So I can say with 99% certainty his lists contain very very few unique domains, and probably only 1% auto approved domains. I have also found some unique sources of auto approve domains after reading your posts, but just not compatible with fast poster on scrapebox, and not all indexed/easily scraped.

 

[Expertpeon]

Well he is using Scrapebox, and some rehashed lists. So I can say with 99% certainty his lists contain very very few unique domains, and probably only 1% auto approved domains. I have also found some unique sources of auto approve domains after reading your posts, but just not compatible with fast poster on scrapebox, and not all indexed/easily scraped.

Yup! It's tough, I'm working on a python tool to do a lot of cross platform postings

 

[94726]

Well he is using Scrapebox, and some rehashed lists. So I can say with 99% certainty his lists contain very very few unique domains, and probably only 1% auto approved domains. I have also found some unique sources of auto approve domains after reading your posts, but just not compatible with fast poster on scrapebox, and not all indexed/easily scraped.

LOL! Keep going. Ill keep laughing at your posts. I received more than one pm telling me how much you love to argue with people on this board. And just to ignore your flamboyant comments. How shall i resist!

Why are you refusing to co-operate with such simple tasks that only take few seconds to do? This is very suspicious.

Thanks Sherlock.

Anyways just to give you something to chew on, ill post majesticseo when i make a new account (used up all my free).

 

[ejrussell]

@impulse - second request please

1. Did you ping the links?

2. Can you please run the domain that you are testing in https://ahrefs.com

and list the following data. I would really appreciate it

Total backlinks:
Ref IPs:
Ref subnets:
Ref domains:
nofollow:

 

[kityuen123]

I think the most reasons google find you are cheating are not the number of backlinks you built, but the deleted rate of those backlinks. Don't stop, otherwise you will be taken out of the game.

 

[Getwhatchuwant]

I am not sure why all the hub bub, bub?

Certainly I can appreciate that this case study is not 100% accurate but I look at it like this, the case study is relative to what we can expect from a fiverr gig or even a newbie doing this for himself and even some service right here on BHW.

The point is not really how is 5 million blog comments going to affect me, the point is more or less how is a large SB blast going to affect me.

There are dozens of gigs all over the web offering up 10k-20k blasts and it is likely they too have a high drop/failure rate. So lets assume out of his 5 million only 1% stick, that is still 50,000 blog comment links in a pretty short time frame, far more than you can expect with any gig anywhere and likely higher than what quite a few of us here do on our own.

Point being this is Still far larger a blast than we can expect on a normal basis. Based on that I feel that this case study is relevant, assuming OP is being honest with the lists/tools and submissions he has mentioned so far in this thread.

 

[meatro]

Well he is using Scrapebox, and some rehashed lists. So I can say with 99% certainty his lists contain very very few unique domains, and probably only 1% auto approved domains. I have also found some unique sources of auto approve domains after reading your posts, but just not compatible with fast poster on scrapebox, and not all indexed/easily scraped.

This thread is intensely interesting and has been until you came along. Shut your mouth and figure out what's going on or go do your own case study.

I'm sure you can find enough info in some WSO's lying around about how to do it, maybe Matt Cutts has a video showing you how... Just because you do not understand something does not mean you need to pipe up with your ridiculous questions and then turn argumentative and dicky because the OP will not break this shit into baby food for you.

 

[Kickflip]

This thread is intensely interesting and has been until you came along. Shut your mouth and figure out what's going on or go do your own case study.

I'm sure you can find enough info in some WSO's lying around about how to do it, maybe Matt Cutts has a video showing you how... Just because you do not understand something does not mean you need to pipe up with your ridiculous questions and then turn argumentative and dicky because the OP will not break this shit into baby food for you.

You mean, do my own case study, something like this?

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/272212-myths-truths-re-blasting-new-sites-links.html

If you guys believe you are getting accurate information from this study, good on you. But without actually seeing REAL numbers, this "study" doesn't mean anything. If you thought blasting a PR4 site with 50,000 or even 200,000 comment backlinks was really dangerous in most cases, then you aren't reading enough.

We need more information before we can draw any conclusions from this "study".

This isn't an argument, this is me asking the OP for easy information, and he already stated he will try to track this information for me before because I already questioned him. Then when I asked him for the information which he said he will try to track, he refuses to answer the questions straight on.

I just don't understand why someone would make a study like this, then refuse to answer simple questions about it.

Until you know how many links Google is recognizing, this test is inconclusive. It isn't even accurate to compare this test to a Fiverr or BHW gig. There are too many factors such as: How often the lists are pinged, how abused the lists are, how fast your link gets moved off the first page.

Also OP, how did you compare the extra list of 1.6 million URLs against your original list of 5 million URLs to make sure you weren't blasting the same URLs? I think all of us would benefit from knowing which tool you were using for that.

These are simple questions, and shouldn't be considered an attack if the OP is legit.

The answers to these questions benefit EVERYONE. Why would you guys be upset at me trying to get MORE useful information for ALL OF US?

This isn't an argument.
This is how you get information to LEARN. By asking questions.

 

[meatro]

You mean, do my own case study, something like this?

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/272212-myths-truths-re-blasting-new-sites-links.html

If you guys believe you are getting accurate information from this study, good on you. But without actually seeing REAL numbers, this "study" doesn't mean anything. If you thought blasting a PR4 site with 50,000 or even 200,000 comment backlinks was really dangerous in most cases, then you aren't reading enough.

We need more information before we can draw any conclusions from this "study".

This isn't an argument, this is me asking the OP for easy information, and he already stated he will try to track this information for me before because I already questioned him. Then when I asked him for the information which he said he will try to track, he refuses to answer the questions straight on.

I just don't understand why someone would make a study like this, then refuse to answer simple questions about it.

Until you know how many links Google is recognizing, this test is inconclusive. It isn't even accurate to compare this test to a Fiverr or BHW gig. There are too many factors such as: How often the lists are pinged, how abused the lists are, how fast your link gets moved off the first page.

Also OP, how did you compare the extra list of 1.6 million URLs against your original list of 5 million URLs to make sure you weren't blasting the same URLs? I think all of us would benefit from knowing which tool you were using for that.

These are simple questions, and shouldn't be considered an attack if the OP is legit.

The answers to these questions benefit EVERYONE. Why would you guys be upset at me trying to get MORE useful information for ALL OF US?

This isn't an argument.
This is how you get information to LEARN. By asking questions.

(Thank you, I was very worried that you were going to pull a you and tell me all about how shit can't be turned into baby food, demanding where I came up with that preposterous fact.)

First of all, this thing isn't about whether or not a specific number of links is directed to a particular page. It's about what happens when a LARGE NUMBER of links is directed to a particular (in this case, established) page, in a short amount of time, with little variation.

Basically, if somebody tried to tank your website in this fashion... Which they do, go find them... Would it be successful or not? A topic that, much like your case study, has been speculated upon for a long time. But nobody has sacked up and done it. That is what he's doing.

While your case study is cute with its low number of steady links/day (usually suggested NOT to get sandboxed/penalized). This one is not related at all, it is not detailing the SEO effects, we are not worried about how many actually go live, whether he's indexing them or anything, not how many of them get picked up by Google. NONE OF THAT. This is an established site here, we're not investigating the sandbox.

Here is what I care about with this case study:
1.) Do you have an approximate number of blogs that you're submitting this too? Check.
2.) What does your anchor text look like? Check.
3.) Are you varying the URL at all? Check.

See that? That's ALL. Why? Because again, I am not worried about ANY SEO factors of this study whatsoever, I'm not worried about ONE. SINGLE. THING. besides the final answer... YES or NO.

"Was your authoritative, established website negatively affected due (solely) to a huge, sudden increase in links."

Yes ("I was here, now I'm here, all because of a large number of poor quality links") or no.

Again, this is not a study to find out how many links it takes exactly, not interested in how he indexed the links or even if he did or not. Could care less. This is basically a case study on reputation management, not SEO. This is the technique many people discuss using to penalize competitors all the time, but nobody has yet gone out and seen if it's true or not.. Now, if somebody did this to you, would you email them demanding exact numbers and indexing techniques?

Or would you just take it as "wow, that was a lot of low quality back, non-varying back links in a short amount of time."? Because that would be the sensible answer.

So if you would like to know the exact numbers, which all sounds like a giant waste of time crunching them all for a yes or no question... Go do your own case study.... About reputation management on an established domain, not the sandbox on a brand new domain (which anybody who's ever owned a brand new domain [maybe a few people on BHW already?] could already tell you how it works.) Don't sit here and act like this guy, who is doing a favor for a bunch of strangers, is an asshole because YOU do not understand what's going on here.

If you don't then just follow along until you get the hang of it or maybe even ask a couple of questions so that somebody might explain what's happening.

(BTW, it's very, very simple to compare two lists and remove duplicates. Excel can do this very easily and there are enough free tools out there that do it, Excel does not even need to be an option.)

 

[JFoulds]

Very interesting findings...I currently have a PR4 authority website which is a few years old hosted up that I don't do much with anymore, I may see if some cheap link blasting can get it ranking back for some decent keywords again!

And no, don't worry guys, I don't mind if this gets the site sandboxed as I have other projects I'm working on at the moment I'd just be interested to see if I get similar results

 

[Kickflip]

First of all, this thing isn't about whether or not a specific number of links is directed to a particular page. It's about what happens when a LARGE NUMBER of links is directed to a particular (in this case, established) page, in a short amount of time, with little variation.

Basically, if somebody tried to tank your website in this fashion... Which they do, go find them... Would it be successful or not? A topic that, much like your case study, has been speculated upon for a long time. But nobody has sacked up and done it. That is what he's doing.

You can't "tank" a website by commenting on 10,000,000,000 blogs alone. Simple as that. That isn't part of Googles algorithm. We don't need a test to see that. We know that as a fact. The only thing that Google can take into account, is the amount of Live Backlinks that it knows exist. If someone is trying to get your site penalized, they WILL worry about how many LIVE links, because that is all that matters.

If someone was trying to tank your site, they would use completely unrelated keywords, not a relevant keyword to your niche. So I don't see how this information is useful at all in what you are trying to learn from it. You also don't know how many links the site had from the beginning, and "huge increase in links" is completely relative to the site being blasted. If the site already had 5,000,000 links, then 50,000 links in 3 days isn't a huge amount.

Edit: According to the OP, he DOES want to know how many links it took to get to #1-3, so it is important to him to know how many links went live:

If at some point I manage to pull off SERP 1-3, ill know how many back links it took

Even if we assume the OP is telling 100% the truth.

How can you guys claim to get ANY useful information from this thread without knowing how many links went live? Even a ballpark figure. Without knowing how many links are live, I just don't see ANYTHING useful here. If we assume he is telling the truth, it could be as low as 5,000 and could be as high as 500,000. That is too large of a difference to draw useful conclusions.