Best arguments for building web 2.0 links manually - let me hear yours.

[ningning]

Despite all the fancy and much discussed automated tools many of us still build links manually.

Why is it that manual link building is considered better quality?

Please post you best arguments.

Here are mine:

1. Much higher success rate
2. Much better stick rate
3. Much more sites available (Automated tools lack support for many sites)
4. Gives you an edge over competitor who use automated tools only
5. It is faster to just build the links than to configure software or build custom templates
6. There is no expenses to tools
7. Better quality properties with custom theme, correctly filled profile etc.
8. No footprints
9. Option to build authority web 2.0 with several posts/pages
10. No falls positive submission confirmations (or falls negative)
11. 100% control

To be fair we should list some downsides too

1. Time consuming
2. Hard to organize

 

[TerryMeshon]

Ive never understood my people would buy software unless their site has no lifespan.

If your in it to win it, do it properly... no bot can do anything as well as a human, at least not THIS human lol....

 

[Webbers UX]

Despite all the fancy and much discussed automated tools many of us still build links manually.

Why is it that manual link building is considered better quality?

Please post you best arguments.

Here are mine:

1. Much higher success rate
2. Much better stick rate
3. Much more sites available (Automated tools lack support for many sites)
4. Gives you an edge over competitor who use automated tools only
5. It is faster to just build the links than to configure software or build custom templates
6. There is no expenses to tools
7. Better quality properties with custom theme, correctly filled profile etc.
8. No footprints
9. Option to build authority web 2.0 with several posts/pages
10. No falls positive submission confirmations (or falls negative)
11. 100% control

To be fair we should list some downsides too

1. Time consuming
2. Hard to organize

Hard to organize? Not at all.

I build web 2.0s with the following way (Manual/made by hand)

1 unique article per web 2.0, each web 2.0 has 1 unique article (with a backlink to your money site, image and video) and 4-6 other "high quality SPUN articles" WITHOUT a backlink in them, but with an image or two. This is just to make the website look legit and quality.

Proper paragraphs, image seo, and so on.


Works great.....

 

[aka sam]

manual is the best way..My reason being :

1. while you make a manual submission...you can put some great pics ..put all the user profile details ..and the web 2.0 will last longer because of it .

2. If you make a web 2.0 with above said qualities ...people who come to visit them...will have more faith on you as compared to a automated web 2.0 site..


Thats my 2 cents.

 

[hip_hop_x]

Your mistake is that by doing it auto you think it will be crap or low quality. With more work you can automate that process and provide great quality as well, good content readable made, great spun article, videos + images.So there's not really any motive why not to go on automation if you can do that. Again quality is everything, not the method.

 

[DamageX]

Mine:

Why do things the easy way, when you can do them manually?

You get the point.

 

[DamageX]

Mine:

Why do things the easy way, when you can do them manually?

You get the point.

 

[cloakndagger2]

Pros and cons for both,you can create quality web 2.0's on auto pilot if you know what you're doing.Placing one article up will do nothing.You realise you can update automated web 2.0 don't you.I do both,If you learn to spin properly,use commonsense there is virtually nothing between a manual web 2.0 and an high quality automated one.
There is a guy here who is pretty hot on the spinning,look for a video by matthew woodward,learn,implement,enjoy.If you have say 20 web 2.0's by manually spinning at sentence and paragraph level and spinning videos etc you can create easily 50 unique articles,quality articles.No one will know the difference between your manual web 2 and your automated one.
As I say I do both but to imply manual is the only way to produce quality web 2's is wrong.

 

[gz_cp]

duplicated

 

[maecenas23]

The most common cons are all related to time consuming
All the pros are related to better control.

From these 2 points we can develop an entire theory.

 

[tranza]

You can automated the process, everything you can doing a browser can be automated, just dont use common seo tools (senuke all that craps).