Using 10 tiers

[bedede]

If we use less sites on a tier, google will have less data to decide to slap the site.

So I'm researching about slightly different kind of method. See below.



In the image, there are 2 backlinks for each site, except leafs.

2 might be very low yes but if we increase number of tiers a lot, what would happen? Have you heard of any similar experiments?

(2 links for each site)^(10 tiers) = 1024 sites in all tiers. 3^10=59049

That would mean a huge link juice loss cuz of many tiers but it also means it will be much harder to detect, because google can't afford to trace back to 10 tiers for all sites. It requires extremely huge amount of resources which Google prefer not to spend.

 

[lord1027]

I see a huge footprint. Doesn't look natural at all to me. Maybe go for 4-5 tiers and randomize the the number of lower tiers, let's say between 2-4, that would probably reduce the risks.

 

[bedede]

It is a foodprint but it is very hard to detect because google can't afford to trace back to 10 tiers for all sites. It requires extremely huge amount of resources which Google prefer not to spend.

 

[HomensdaLuta]

i'm trying to do similar thing creating buffer sites for the main site and making only quality contextual links for the buffers, like 6 links but only quality for each. I'm also posting like 1 article a day for each 2.0 lets see how it goes, good luck op.

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

Going 10 tiers will not be of any noticeable benefit... I've done considerable testing there and you are wasting a lot of energy and time going past 4 - 5 tiers. The link juice just does not travel with any "octane" that far.

Think of it as water going though a series of bends in a pipeline... it loses power every time it hits a new bend or turn.

Link juice does the same thing when it comes to tiers.

Keep experimenting though... testing is the backbone of almost any successful SEO process.

 

[lord1027]

It is a foodprint but it is very hard to detect because google can't afford to trace back to 10 tiers for all sites. It requires extremely huge amount of resources which Google prefer not to spend.

You might be right. I'm curious if anyone else tried going so deep before, I'd like to hear their opinion.

 

[bedede]

Going 10 tiers will not be of any noticeable benefit... I've done considerable testing there and you are wasting a lot of energy and time going past 4 - 5 tiers. The link juice just does not travel with any "octane" that far.

Think of it as water going though a series of bends in a pipeline... it loses power every time it hits a new bend or turn.

Link juice does the same thing when it comes to tiers.

Keep experimenting though... testing is the backbone of almost any successful SEO process.

Thanks for the input. Could you share details of your similar experiments?

In theory it should not lost value ever. Maybe you are looking at this wrongly. Google can't connect 1th and 20th tier resourcewise. So it probably trace back to x number of layers and calculate a value for a site for limited number of layers.

I refer whole sites in the tiers as network. Each network consist of smaller networks except leafs. So each site in 5th tier carries link value of a network of 5 tiers in a 10 tier network. Each site in 4th tier carries link value of a network of 6 tiers... So it doesn't matter if google don't care about 20th tier.

Obviously they decrease effect of a link when number of tiers increase. In theory we don't have to care about it.

 

[DiggitySEO]

You're going to loose so much link juice through the tiers that there's not going to be anything left over at the top.

Through many tests, I've found that you can be completely safe by creating 2 tiers between your money site and your spam. Money < T1 < T2 < Spam. But to be safe, I always opt for 3, just to cover the next generation standards.

Back to your configuration, I like your thinking but the footprint is too large. You have to think about indexing as well. With 2 links per branch, the entire network of 512 connections is going to either have 0, 1, or 2 links.

If you have an indexing problem and 0 leafs are connected, then an entire branch is cut off.

If you have 1-2 links, then you have a network that has a majority of connects 1-2 links, which is fishy for sure.

When you use a high number of connections (lets say 10), you increase the chances of the parent node to be indexed. Each node also will have a random amount of links coming into it, between 1-10.

 

[mecawi]

It is a foodprint but it is very hard to detect because google can't afford to trace back to 10 tiers for all sites. It requires extremely huge amount of resources which Google prefer not to spend.

Google can trace this in 0.0098 seconds,

but you can try, maybe works, maybe not, i dont know how long it will take to pass all those link juicy before google slap you

 

[webhostingman]

Why go for 10 tiers when you can do equally get the job done with 2-4 tiers.

 

[IamKing]

With Tier2 itself we can see good results if we plan the links correctly. Sometimes we can go for Tier3 for extra link juice. That's enough to get best results

 

[gamerdude3000]

I think BassTrackerBoats makes a good point, after 4-5 tiers the amount of extra juice your going to get is negligible.

 

[davids355]

Sounds a bit overboard to me. You could try it as an experiment though. Depends how much effort it takes you to set up.

 

[Gyuman82]

Or you could not build shit links.

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

In theory it should not lost value ever.

I can't answer as to theory; I can answer as to testing though and the multitude of tiers sounds good but has no effect. We tried it on a bunch of sites with different levels of competitiveness and no go... it does not make any difference all those tiers.

You're going to loose so much link juice through the tiers that there's not going to be anything left over at the top.

Is 100% correct.

 

[jackl]

Or you could not build shit links.

This.

Seriously it's much easier to make good backlinks.
If you get a manual review it's prob just as easy to find 10 tiers then 3 for them.

I do think you have a point, if G knows how many tiers your backlinks have.
If you have 1000 backlinks and all of them have 4 tiers, then I guess it's pretty easy for them to see you're building links.
So maybe a bit of randomization will help, but not like it'll get you through a manual review....

 

[ritesh]

Going 10 tiers will not be of any noticeable benefit... I've done considerable testing there and you are wasting a lot of energy and time going past 4 - 5 tiers. The link juice just does not travel with any "octane" that far.

Think of it as water going though a series of bends in a pipeline... it loses power every time it hits a new bend or turn.

Link juice does the same thing when it comes to tiers.

Keep experimenting though... testing is the backbone of almost any successful SEO process.

Well one thing with Tier links is that it takes considerable time to show up the results. In my experiments result started showing only after a month. The reason I can attribute is google takes some time asses the power of each tier.

The experiment I conducted had only Contextual links and went till tier 6.

1) After Tier 2 all the links were made in form of attribution. (Wikipedia format citing external links at bottom of page)
2) All the tiers did not grow exponentially instead followed a random number and different tiers were randomly connected.
3) Total 3k links were built across all 6 tiers. (Tier1 - About 100 links)
4) Content WordAI spun manually meshed content.

Competition: Intitle + inurl - 800k
Average First page PR 4.8

Ranking after 1st month- Most of the kws hit top20.

Again there is no harm going for number of tiers you just have to make it look natural. One more thing I noticed is the moment I started using Trackbacks/blog comments/guest books/images comments in Tier2 there was a huge drop in ranking.

 

[Smeems]

In theory it should not lost value ever.

You couldn't be any more wrong. Look at how PageRank (actual PageRank) works and its diminishing returns effect.