Hi,
I want your opinion on something.
Most link pyramid methods I have learned or even used go something like this.
Use high quality aged domains as tier 1s(3-5), and use WEB2.0s as tier 2 (20-30 - use readable spun articles ), then use spammy articles sites or wikis as tier 3 (100-), then use indexers as tier 4. There are some variations but it seems it is kind of a standard.
However - I have learned that Japanese SEOs don't do it - or cannot do it since there aren't many tools or article submitting sites etc. there aren't many web 2.0 sites in Japanese either. While I was researching (I'm doing SEO in Japanese now), I noticed that some experts make their tier2 sites as the same quality as their tier1 sites.
They use high PR high quality websites as tier 2 and link to tier 1s.
What they do is they make one tier2 site specifically for one tier1 site.
(So it's not even a pyramid.)
Money site<--Tier1 A (high PR) <-- Tier2 A(high PR) <---Tier3As (some web 2.0s)
Money site <--Tier2 A (high PR) <--Tier 2 B (high PR) <--tier 3Bs (Some web 2.0s)
and goes on.
In a way, it seems this method is wasting high PR domains using them as tier 2 instead of tier 1.
So I asked one of the experts who recommends this method about this.
He replied saying something like
(1)If one tier2 site has only one outbound link to one of tier1 sites, then it has almost the same affect as linking directly to your money site.
(2) The less tier1 you have, less risky. Even if you have "unnatural" link profile, if the numbers of backlinks aren't many, Google cannot be sure if this is "unnatural" or just a coincidence.
(3)You can also do SEO on these tier1 sites with related but less competitive keywords.
What do you guys think? Basically he says if you have 10 tier 1, split it into half and make it 5 tier1 and 5 tier2, and one tier2 gives link to only 1 tier1 site.
I am not 100% sure about this - I still feel that if I have 10 high PR sites, I'd rather link directly to money site. But what he says kind of makes sense in a way it is much safer and tier1s would be much stronger than having many PR0 web2.0s with spun articles as their tier2s.
Also, he has a lot of good results using this method (or so he claims).
What do you guys think?
Thanks.
I want your opinion on something.
Most link pyramid methods I have learned or even used go something like this.
Use high quality aged domains as tier 1s(3-5), and use WEB2.0s as tier 2 (20-30 - use readable spun articles ), then use spammy articles sites or wikis as tier 3 (100-), then use indexers as tier 4. There are some variations but it seems it is kind of a standard.
However - I have learned that Japanese SEOs don't do it - or cannot do it since there aren't many tools or article submitting sites etc. there aren't many web 2.0 sites in Japanese either. While I was researching (I'm doing SEO in Japanese now), I noticed that some experts make their tier2 sites as the same quality as their tier1 sites.
They use high PR high quality websites as tier 2 and link to tier 1s.
What they do is they make one tier2 site specifically for one tier1 site.
(So it's not even a pyramid.)
Money site<--Tier1 A (high PR) <-- Tier2 A(high PR) <---Tier3As (some web 2.0s)
Money site <--Tier2 A (high PR) <--Tier 2 B (high PR) <--tier 3Bs (Some web 2.0s)
and goes on.
In a way, it seems this method is wasting high PR domains using them as tier 2 instead of tier 1.
So I asked one of the experts who recommends this method about this.
He replied saying something like
(1)If one tier2 site has only one outbound link to one of tier1 sites, then it has almost the same affect as linking directly to your money site.
(2) The less tier1 you have, less risky. Even if you have "unnatural" link profile, if the numbers of backlinks aren't many, Google cannot be sure if this is "unnatural" or just a coincidence.
(3)You can also do SEO on these tier1 sites with related but less competitive keywords.
What do you guys think? Basically he says if you have 10 tier 1, split it into half and make it 5 tier1 and 5 tier2, and one tier2 gives link to only 1 tier1 site.
I am not 100% sure about this - I still feel that if I have 10 high PR sites, I'd rather link directly to money site. But what he says kind of makes sense in a way it is much safer and tier1s would be much stronger than having many PR0 web2.0s with spun articles as their tier2s.
Also, he has a lot of good results using this method (or so he claims).
What do you guys think?
Thanks.
Last edited:
