ONLY 60k backlinks/day...What's the problem?

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

...
I can go on all day but I don't have the time. Maybe I will come back later and drop all the bookmarks I have saved for all my
favorite GSA tuts. It's gotta be over at least 40 tutorials but they are the absolute best tutorials I've seen. Most of them from
the GSA forums, then some from here and some from youtube.
-BB

I am sure people will find that very useful. When you have time, please try to do it.

 

[GalaxyRank]

How many links per day to money site is safe ?

 

[zombietechs]

under what circumstances would you need so many backlinks?

 

[trickeren]

Can someone please tell me the advantage of spamming backlinks? I mean, google will consider this as a bad thing right? then why do it?

 

[Bestindabiz]

Trickerin I'm just as confused as you are.

 

[Scritty]

Trickerin I'm just as confused as you are.

Just because Google don't like it - doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It's not a tactic I like or use, but for certain hit and run niches it works a treat. Maybe only for 3 months, 6 months, a year or two - whatever. Some sites have lasted years on nothing but gazzilion spam back links.
Don't believe everything you read on WH sites. Really - Don't.
They'd like you to believe that sites with spam back links have all failed and died - nothing could be further from the truth.
It's true to say many have been penalized, and in very high commerciality niches where Google send the manual teams in - they have pretty much been cleared out - but all over the net, in tens of thousands of niches - spam still wins. It's risky - but it wins.

Likewise many site owners who have never created a link in their life have been penalized through no fault of their own. Fact is Google couldn't give a shit - they aren't the internet police.

Google only want to reduce spam as long as reducing spam in their index encourages more people to use it and so they make more profit.

There comes a point where weeding out long tail key-phrases, tight niches and micro niches costs them more than it returns - so guess what - they don't do it. They aren't paid to do, it isn't their job to do it and no-one asked them to do it. No profit = Don't bother. Not because Google are bad - but because they are a "for profit" shareholder lead private company - not some sort of internet police. They don't do it because past a certain point it doesn't pay to do it.

That point? It's some variation of the famous "pareto" rule "80% of the task can be achieved with 20% of the effort/cost. The last 20% of the task takes increasingly more resources to achieve"
That's paraphrasing it before someone jumps up and down on it and says that's not quite right - I know it isn't. But the meaning is the same.

Good BH SEO's know how to hide in the "hard" 20% and are prepared to take the risks involved. The costs are very much lower though - it just requires a more flexible and responsive business mind, but many (frikking loads) of people on this site live in that 20% margin. There is a lot of money to be made there and very few corporate competitors


I'll finish by saying if you are even remotely worried about spamming links to your site and are after a better chance of long terms success (note "a better chance" not "guaranteed" - no such thing as "guaranteed" no matter what you do) then stick to other methods.

Pick the horse to suit the course

Scritty

 

[madoctopus]

Can someone please tell me the advantage of spamming backlinks? I mean, google will consider this as a bad thing right? then why do it?

What Scritty said, plus:

There is no WH and BH SEO. There's just SEO. WH and BH are bullshit terms and if you read articles about WH and BH the techniques there are just retarded (e.g. keyword stuffing which is so 2005).

Every single apparently WH big player uses some so-called BH techniques. They just do it at a scale and with budgets you can't even imagine. There are people with PBN of thousands of domains. There are people who make in excess of $100k/mo profit so imagine how much they can afford to invest.

For example let's take a $10k/mo revenue situation. That's $120k/yr. Let's say we're willing to spend 25% for SEO growth. That's $30k/yr SEO budget. With that you could do this:

- Buy 300 aged domains with links @ $100 each
- Buy 3333 fresh domains @ $9 each, interlink them to a certain extent and you have a self-powered PBN.

What about somebody who has $10k/mo SEO budget? And BTW there are plenty like that. That means $120k/yr for SEO, which gets you:

- 300 domains at @ $400 each
- 13333 fresh domains @ $9
- or if you want to go extreme - 18000 .net domains at $6.66 (best price I found)

Problem is not even cost. Problem is time delay. You can't just register 18000 domains overnight and put them in a PBN and expect them to work (haven't tested but probably Google flags such a thing). But imagine what you could do over a 5-year period. With a team of people and good automation mindset you could build 100% automated infrastructure that would help you rank for anything. And btw, smart BH/spammers don't target mainstream keywords or if they do it they do it churn&burn style.

 

[tony_d]

The problem is that you're building 60k links/day. There's just no need for that, in this era of SEO.

 

[cwvps]

What amount of links would be sufficient for the best results?

The problem is that you're building 60k links/day. There's just no need for that, in this era of SEO.

 

[tony_d]

What amount of links would be sufficient for the best results?

The old "how long is a piece of string" question - however, 20-50 in most cases for me.

 

[Facebook Agent BM]

WTF !!! 60k links a day
Those links are verified or just sent out?

 

[stiloblack]

Backlinks are not verified.
For churn & burn method i think i need of 750k backlinks/site in total.
In blackhat method 60k backlinks/day is not great goal.
I need more...