Creating Manual Web 2.0s

[adam11soccer]

Im wondering how I can properly create manual web 2.0s. I've made 2.0s on wordpress and weebly and blogspot. Will google be able to track that I've created all these myself. I plan to make these mini authority sites with alot of posts, then social bookmark all the posts from those tier 2. Are there any problems with this? Thanks in advance.

 

[Adam718]

That's one of the best link building methods there is. Use different IP's to make each web 2.0 property and you should be fine!

Good luck!

 

[SkyrocketSEO]

In a few months this Web 2.0 linking will be slaped by Google, wait and see. You think they're not reading the forums?
And, how is this White Hat SEO?

 

[Jyeshtha]

I think, he hasn't mentioned to which sites he linked those web 2.0s to, so maybe google will not hit the whole portal just for one site. And again, he didn't buy the links, instead he created them himself. At least they will think of their own blogspot and of course wordpress cos of the authority. All these sites help big G in generating some revenue indirectly, so no harm unless he follows Adam718's advice of using different IPs to make it more natural along with different usernames and anchor diversity, forgetting that he himself created them and make the SE giant assume someone liked his site and linked it to their web 2.0.

In a few months this Web 2.0 linking will be slaped by Google, wait and see. You think they're not reading the forums?
And, how is this White Hat SEO?

 

[kappa84]

In a few months this Web 2.0 linking will be slaped by Google, wait and see. You think they're not reading the forums?
And, how is this White Hat SEO?

You know it for sure, right? :7:

 

[rugbyjack2005]

In a few months this Web 2.0 linking will be slaped by Google, wait and see. You think they're not reading the forums?
And, how is this White Hat SEO?

Seriously or are you just trolling? I think it's going to be quite the opposite especially with all the hype about author rank. There is nothing wrong with writing good articles and putting a link in them back to your money site as a reference where applicable. What's more likely is that the good web 2.0 sites will tighten up on what they accept and spammy web 2.0s will be taken down...

There is nothing to suggest a particular type of link will cause a penalty and why would there ever be. Penalties are given for unnatural link building and link profiles. E.g. low link diversity and anchor text diversity will cause a penalty. Rubbish links just get taken down or deindexed

 

[SkyrocketSEO]

E.g. low link diversity and anchor text diversity will cause a penalty. Rubbish links just get taken down or deindexed

So, if you create 200 WEB 2.0 links just to increase the number of your backlinks that's not rubish?
The same thing was with the "high quality" article directories. "We only accept quality articles..." bla bla bla...And where are those sites now? Low link diversity is cause a penalty today and it will cause in the days,months,tears to come...but, that's not connected with WEB 2.0 Everybody is doing WEB 2.0 now but that's gonna stop, this thing can't last forever, you're not offering any relevant information, you're just building links, who cares about those links. Sure, Opera (for example) have a PR9 so what? No one will visit your profile, noone will click on your link, no body gives a damn about your profile unless you;re the CEO of Opera.

 

[Bribebox]

In a few months this Web 2.0 linking will be slaped by Google, wait and see. You think they're not reading the forums?
And, how is this White Hat SEO?

Yeah and I am the Queen of England :18:

 

[mogs03]

Yeah and I am the Queen of England :18:

And I am the king! How come I did notice that you are here:drinking2

 

[aldis]

So, if you create 200 WEB 2.0 links just to increase the number of your backlinks that's not rubish?
The same thing was with the "high quality" article directories. "We only accept quality articles..." bla bla bla...And where are those sites now? Low link diversity is cause a penalty today and it will cause in the days,months,tears to come...but, that's not connected with WEB 2.0 Everybody is doing WEB 2.0 now but that's gonna stop, this thing can't last forever, you're not offering any relevant information, you're just building links, who cares about those links. Sure, Opera (for example) have a PR9 so what? No one will visit your profile, noone will click on your link, no body gives a damn about your profile unless you;re the CEO of Opera.

so bad I couldn't neg rep people twice... kid you've got no idea what you're talking about. Read, learn, inform yourself and then come back with useful information.. we don't need your useless posts in here.

 

[rugbyjack2005]

So, if you create 200 WEB 2.0 links just to increase the number of your backlinks that's not rubish?
The same thing was with the "high quality" article directories. "We only accept quality articles..." bla bla bla...And where are those sites now? Low link diversity is cause a penalty today and it will cause in the days,months,tears to come...but, that's not connected with WEB 2.0 Everybody is doing WEB 2.0 now but that's gonna stop, this thing can't last forever, you're not offering any relevant information, you're just building links, who cares about those links. Sure, Opera (for example) have a PR9 so what? No one will visit your profile, noone will click on your link, no body gives a damn about your profile unless you;re the CEO of Opera.

The quality of the content was never mentioned. If you create 200 web 2.0s with rubbish quality, the likelihood is they will just get removed. While the search engines can't tell if the content is good or not, site moderators can and they just take it down.

 

[apoorv]

Well, no, Google itself won't be able to tell those apart however, generally, if you spend some time changing things around, the quality of a web 2.0 done manually tends to be better, and to a human eye, that would reflect.

The other good benefit of it is that these web 2.0s stick for a long time, so if you have a website you see existing for years, I'd take that route. Recently, from all I've seen, sites are dropping *some* rankings if the link churn is high; I wouldn't be surprised if that took off though.

 

[RBKing]

I know very little but, I agree that too much of anything can be a problem and make your efforts noticed. I think backlink diversity is the key.

 

[adam11soccer]

Thanks for the posts. How can I use different Ip's if im not using a program to build my web 2.0s? Btw im not using rubbish in my created 2.0s. They are all quality and I dont plan on making 200, maybe like 15.

 

[adam11soccer]

Bump for some help

 

[bilbo]

Bump for some help

bump for help what?

think your thread has been answered.....or is there more

 

[adam11soccer]

Sorry my bad. This was my second question

Thanks for the posts. How can I use different Ip's if im not using a program to build my web 2.0s? Btw im not using rubbish in my created 2.0s. They are all quality and I dont plan on making 200, maybe like 15.

 

[20years]

It will work just fine as long as the content is good and doesn't look overly spammy.

 

[Joker7]

Thanks for the posts. How can I use different Ip's if im not using a program to build my web 2.0s? Btw im not using rubbish in my created 2.0s. They are all quality and I dont plan on making 200, maybe like 15.

If your planning on making just 15 web 2.0s, find 15 different web 2.0 platforms and you can use 1 IP for all. Google can't see the IP. The IP change is only to prevent the web 2.0 platform from banning you

 

[adam11soccer]

Thanks alot

If your planning on making just 15 web 2.0s, find 15 different web 2.0 platforms and you can use 1 IP for all. Google can't see the IP. The IP change is only to prevent the web 2.0 platform from banning you