Real blackhatters!

[Scritty]

Websites in niches that used to take 5000 links to promote I can now rank with a couple of hundred good ones.
I use content profiles rather than links these days. The time to build 5000 links and the time to create 200 content profiles - well the profile creation does take a little longer, but it works, and they tend to last longer.
Mass linking tends to suffer from link decay - link entropy - whatever people are calling it these days.
GSA links for example - even cherry picking the sites still struggle to keep 50% of the links over 180 days. With multiple sites it's like painting the Golden Gate Bridge or plate spinning.
As soon as you finish your last site you need to rush back and top up the links on your first
Profiles? Rarely lose 1 of them.

I don't doubt the OP is right in certain circumstances. In fact I'm certain he is. Just not sure it's the best way. Might be... but I'm not convinced.

 

[culver]

In the near future Google is going to make the need for links unnecessary.

 

[SEOnetic]

I don't thinks so. I know hundreds for T1 and thousand for T2 enough as i had the experience.

 

[TheN20]

Are we back to 2008-2010 again?

There you go, another guy who has been convinced by following google's order.

 

[TheN20]

I don't thinks so. I know hundreds for T1 and thousand for T2 enough as i had the experience.

I have the same experience, hundreds of t1 and way more for the t2 works. But it highly depends on the competition, if the competition is hard you're far away from the first page with that amount. Unless you have some crazy high authority link mixed in your linkbuilding.

 

[TheN20]

Websites in niches that used to take 5000 links to promote I can now rank with a couple of hundred good ones.
I use content profiles rather than links these days. The time to build 5000 links and the time to create 200 content profiles - well the profile creation does take a little longer, but it works, and they tend to last longer.
Mass linking tends to suffer from link decay - link entropy - whatever people are calling it these days.
GSA links for example - even cherry picking the sites still struggle to keep 50% of the links over 180 days. With multiple sites it's like painting the Golden Gate Bridge or plate spinning.
As soon as you finish your last site you need to rush back and top up the links on your first
Profiles? Rarely lose 1 of them.

I don't doubt the OP is right in certain circumstances. In fact I'm certain he is. Just not sure it's the best way. Might be... but I'm not convinced.

Great output Scritty, have you been thinking about going even further and mix both of those techniques? I don't doubt that the results would be great.

 

[lagger]

Websites in niches that used to take 5000 links to promote I can now rank with a couple of hundred good ones.
I use content profiles rather than links these days. The time to build 5000 links and the time to create 200 content profiles - well the profile creation does take a little longer, but it works, and they tend to last longer.
Mass linking tends to suffer from link decay - link entropy - whatever people are calling it these days.
GSA links for example - even cherry picking the sites still struggle to keep 50% of the links over 180 days. With multiple sites it's like painting the Golden Gate Bridge or plate spinning.
As soon as you finish your last site you need to rush back and top up the links on your first
Profiles? Rarely lose 1 of them.

I don't doubt the OP is right in certain circumstances. In fact I'm certain he is. Just not sure it's the best way. Might be... but I'm not convinced.

What exactly do you mean by content profiles? TIA

 

[timothywcrane]

I think that there is a real diconnect here... period. It is not whether mass linking works or not, but if it works for your sites, and if it does, does that SEO increase last. And what about social signals? I do a lot more spamming than I ever did, but I do not do it for SEO, I do it to attract real eyeballs to social media, pushing likes and fan following, which in turn give big G the A-OK to see me as important, so that it takes fewer high quality links to get my pages to the top of the SERPS. I spam the hell out of the web, but none of the leader sites are connected in any way to my "real" funnel by backlinking.

Hell, I have a virtual PBX calling businesses with robocalls at 2AM and leaving messages where it is legal, so spamming is well and alive. But leaving automated comments on "penis blogs" doesn't cut it anymore, no matter what volume you push it, and when it does, the ROI on it is horrible.

 

[mickyfu]

What exactly do you mean by content profiles? TIA

I am guessing he means profiles which have content, more specifically, niche related profiles. For example I sign up to many gambling related websites where I can make a profile which will allow me to link back to my websites. However I make these profiles active with content, and not some dead xrumer profile which is pure spam.

 

[johnny6667]

I use both methods depending on the comp and how much I care about the site in which I am trying to build.
I personally care about making authority sites which people follow and care about, not trying to sound like a Cutts fag here but I have seen better results in creating a site which people follow and that it builds its own links naturally on its own, and not to mention you have people constantly emailing you to become a contributor and writing articles for you at no expense at all.
The key to my own 'success' in building authority sites is just building social accounts up and being social, Follow and unfollow bots are just perfect, this obviously depends on your niche, if you are blogging and reviewing toilet bows or kitchen knife sets It probably wont work.

Sure i have spam sites which work but I dont see them ranking in the eyes of google in the future algo updates, and I like to tread lightly when it comes to building links to my authority sites for obvious reasons.
The being said I CBF being slapped by google, seen to happen to other people and its just a drag and a huge waste of time IMO.

 

[mickyfu]

not trying to sound like a Cutts fag here but I have seen better results in creating a site which people follow and that it builds its own links naturally on its own

Personally I have not, and by not, I mean nothing like at all, but any way each to their own. My churn and burn sites take far more than any "natural" ten million page WH site I have. But then again, I put most my work into churn and burns.

I prefer to work on churn and burns these days as Google made it this way by allowing competitors to ruin your sites as and when they feel like. To be honest I feel Google approach to dealing with spam is nothing short of idiotic. They have showed many genuine webmasters that they could not give a shit about them, and if their website is unfairly hit with NSEO, then that is their problem, and they must deal with it. Now to me, to get around this problem, it is very simple, and the solution is to build shite sites that I could not give two fucks about. This is how many webmasters feel these days, so how exactly have Google tackled spam? My opinion is not in the slightest, they have simply made it worse. They have made it worse as you now have a bunch of moronic dick heads spamming to kill their competitors, and you now have a bunch of people spamming as it is not worth putting effort into a website for some little dick to come along and ruin. This now makes one ask the question of "Is Google really bothered about web spam, or is it just a front to hide their motives of forcing people to use Adwords to guarantee an income?

 

[lagger]

I am guessing he means profiles which have content, more specifically, niche related profiles. For example I sign up to many gambling related websites where I can make a profile which will allow me to link back to my websites. However I make these profiles active with content, and not some dead xrumer profile which is pure spam.

That was my guess but I wanted to make sure. Thanks

 

[mickyfu]

That was my guess but I wanted to make sure. Thanks

I am not sure, I am just guessing that is what he means. When I work on my white hat bigger websites, it is really the only thing I do.

 

[Martin1971]

LOL these "morons" make more in a hour than you do in one month, these type of threads shows that BHW is turning more and more in to WF, and that is a real sad conclusion

100% right!!!! nothing special here anymore.

 

[RetroT]

That's still risky, I must say.

 

[Scritty]

In the near future Google is going to make the need for links unnecessary.

Which isn't a step forward - it's a step back - chronologically at least.

When I started in SEO links meant nothing and Google didn't exist/
SEO did though, some very arcane tricks used.
Also as recently as January MC stated that they had tried a dummy index without links using other factors and it was no where near good enough and that links would play an important factor for at least the medium term.

So for the next 3-5 years at least - links are here to stay. I too think they might go after that - but that means nothing in terms of SEO.
SEO existed before links were a ranking factor... SEO will exist after.

Scritty