SEO relevancy amplifiying method [GIVEAWAY]

[Kanye West]

This is more effecient than PBNs, if you used the same cost, this would give you overall more trust power.



No, as long as you keep it by Google rules. Making two websites and linking them to another website that you own isn't against Google rules. Neither are transistors.



No. Your own domains and different hosting.

More explanation

I would like to bring the attention of everyone who is reading to one more explanation if you still don't understand what SEO transistors are. I want to bring you to a time that happened long time ago. When Yandex and Google only were created. Do you know who we should thank for backlink rank power? The idea to use links to rank website was proposed by the father of founder of Yandex Ilya Segalovich in a normal talk in the kitchen. His father was a geophysicist and Ilya always listened to him and shared his ideas of advancing his search engine. So came to life SiteRank. Then only the quantity of links was counted. It was a long time till PageRank was created by Google, which didn't only look at links that came in, but also at links that pointed to the links that came in. In the new SEO business that was evolving it was extremely easy to manipulate results with bought links. And then was the time when SEO experts created a ring loop. The simplest ring loop is made of three websites linking to each other with the same anchors.

Three sites are created and at the start they have very little trust. Let's say that in the start, every site has a trust power of 1. And every link gives out 10% of it's trust. Let's see now what happens every update. Everyone thinks that every update the websites will give away 10% of their trust power to each other and in the end the trust power will stay the same or that somehow the trust power keeps increasing and increasing. That's not true. There is no magic and the websites don't only get trust from other websites. The secret is that a link can get compensation trust from search engines in the following cases :
1) For aquired total traffic from Google.
2) For user feedback. Such as CTR, raitings, time on site.
3) For related outgoing links (In our case, every website from the loop gets bonus trust for doing this. Since every website is related and every link they give out is to a related website)
That's how universally trust gets created. Let's play it out and see what happens exactly.
Google Update 1)
1) Every website gave away and received 10% trust from each other.
2) Every website got bonus trust from Google for giving out related links to each other.

Google Update 2)
1) Every website once again gives away 10% of it's trust and receives 10% of it back. However this time, the total amount of trust traded between each other is higher, since every website now also gives away 10% of it's bonus trust from Google.
2) Every website once again receives bonus trust from Google.
3) Because every site now gets extra bonus trust, the rankings of the websites also rise, which causes the websites to get even more trust.

SERPs affect averagely 75% of a website's traffic. And this went on in a loop till the websites hit the first spot or the rise in the website's trust wasn't enough to move a single serp anymore. Maybe years later it would move a few serps, but that was just it. The luch of SEO experts that used this was used up when Google started targetting loop circles. Since they had enormous power, much more than a transistor, they invested a great deal of time of tracking down them.

I went back to time and explained this so that you could guys understand how positive feedback link trust works and that a SEO transistor works in the same way, however without a loop. Frequently, we all dealt with it. If your microphone was too close to your speakers it would result in a positive feedback loop which would make the sound at max volume scream in your ears like hell. That's why the possiblity of using positive feedback link trust without getting banned is important and why these structures are important. Without them it wouldn't work and if you used a circle, you would get banned.
Here's just an example of how an SEO transistor works and that it's very similar to a circle loop, but it's not that and Google doesn't target this :

The positive feedback trust link happens inside Google's algorithm and is caused by the different structures of the websites. However the amplification power inside a transistor is limited unlike inside a circle loop. It's limited by the purity of the sctructures and the purity of the semantic power of the websites. How worse are these parametres, how worse will the amplification be. With my tools and knowledge I've personally created stable transistors with a maximum amplification power of 10x. It can be higher, however then the transistor will become unstable. That means that there runs a risk that one of the transistors will fall out of the SERPs, causing the other one to do so as well.
One of the reasons why transistors are cost effective is because
1) They work like PBNs, they aren't some blog posts or something like that, the links give out maximum trust that is possible to give out. Blog posts have a lot of other posts and a lot of other links, which would cause the outgoing trust to your link to be lowered in favor of other links. That's exactly the reason why PBNs work.
2) Two websites produce as much power as six - ten would. Once again the amplification power depends on a lot of factors and how much work you would put into the websites.

There need to be further tests done to find out the cost-effectiveness of transistors, however in my opinion they are the most cost-effective thing, if you create dozens of them.

From your point of view PBN's are not against Google neither. Transistors are like PBN's non organic links which should look organic as possible. This includes hiding footprints or am I wrong?

So to be able to use this method you have to build websites with articles which aim for a more general search term (with more monthly searches) by using many highly semantic connected LSI's?

Receiving would be always commercial and giving always informative because the money site is always commercial right?

Isn't it possible for Google to nerf the compensation trust for this exact pattern or is this too fundamental to be nerfed? If I think about ways to nerf this method some ways come to in my mind. For e.g. disabling the transfer of compensation trust only so that the website is getting a compensation which can't be shared.

Additional to my last question: Why does/will Google not target this method? If this works out it gets saturated and Google will try to nerf it.

 

[conrulez]

You are playing the "what if" game.

That is a RECIPE for DISASTER in SEO. There are many many different ways to exploit search engines. Some are long lasting and others are short lived. If you do it right , you can make LOTS of money with any of them.

Stop looking for what is wrong or what "could" be wrong. Get up and go test this. Stop asking "why". Why is a question that always looks to place blame (or credit) for something. Ask HOW and WHAT...as in How does this work and What is the outcome if I do X,Y, or Z?

You are too worried that this is too good to be true and google will find out and penalize you. You will NEVER succeed in SEO with that attitude. In fact you will drive yourself insane. So my advice to you is either develop an attitude of action where you test stuff and analyze results, or just quit and do something else. The "fear of google" attitude is prevalent among many people these days. You have lots of friends in that group. The successful people don't live anywhere near there though. They ignore ALL naysayers and only focus on their own tests and results.

This guy has given people a LOT to test here. People need to read it through at least 2 to 3 times and then get busy testing. And you should put your own twist on things as well. You never know...You could discover a way to amplify it 10X higher than it might already be.

From your point of view PBN's are not against Google neither. Transistors are like PBN's non organic links which should look organic as possible. This includes hiding footprints or am I wrong?

So to be able to use this method you have to build websites with articles which aim for a more general search term (with more monthly searches) by using many highly semantic connected LSI's?

Receiving would be always commercial and giving always informative because the money site is always commercial right?

Isn't it possible for Google to nerf the compensation trust for this exact pattern or is this too fundamental to be nerfed? If I think about ways to nerf this method some ways come to in my mind. For e.g. disabling the transfer of compensation trust only so that the website is getting a compensation which can't be shared.

Additional to my last question: Why does/will Google not target this method? If this works out it gets saturated and Google will try to nerf it.

 

[conrulez]

Tar729,
THANK YOU for the highly informative and insightful information. Very well done. The fact that you have to constantly use translators makes it even more impressive to me (just my opinion).

I for one will take all of this and test it to the hilt in numerous different ways. I already did a few things of what you have explained here but this is MUCH deeper.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH and best of luck to you.

 

[fatjack'sblackhat]

I'm going to try getting two sites and ranking my 3rd site for a certain keyword, is the following a wise plan?

1. Make one website with a five pages that are basically articles that encompass a large set of ideas sort of related, but by a big stretch. Link all articles to homepage, but not the homepage to the articles. Make the articles by citing trusted sources. Create a "knowledgebase"

2. Make a second site that has a homepage linking to its 5 or 6 articles all titled with the exact match for keywords that are more refined to the niche, but also commercially based. The keywords I want to rank for mixed in with some closely related commercial keywords but not necessarily the ones I am targeting for my 3rd site. Will not cite anything. Complete solicitation articles. Create the "market".

3. Link site one's home page to site 2. Then link site 2's homepage to my 3rd website.

4. Wait as the updates amplify both of my new sites in tandem and BOOST my 3rd site.

5. Profit??

 

[Kanye West]

You are playing the "what if" game.

That is a RECIPE for DISASTER in SEO. There are many many different ways to exploit search engines. Some are long lasting and others are short lived. If you do it right , you can make LOTS of money with any of them.

Stop looking for what is wrong or what "could" be wrong. Get up and go test this. Stop asking "why". Why is a question that always looks to place blame (or credit) for something. Ask HOW and WHAT...as in How does this work and What is the outcome if I do X,Y, or Z?

You are too worried that this is too good to be true and google will find out and penalize you. You will NEVER succeed in SEO with that attitude. In fact you will drive yourself insane. So my advice to you is either develop an attitude of action where you test stuff and analyze results, or just quit and do something else. The "fear of google" attitude is prevalent among many people these days. You have lots of friends in that group. The successful people don't live anywhere near there though. They ignore ALL naysayers and only focus on their own tests and results.

This guy has given people a LOT to test here. People need to read it through at least 2 to 3 times and then get busy testing. And you should put your own twist on things as well. You never know...You could discover a way to amplify it 10X higher than it might already be.

I'm already successful in SEO even though this term is relative. I'm a go getter and it sucks to always be commented for asking questions if the OP asks for it. I'm aware of overthinking etc. Every SEO has to break through certain think patterns at the beginning.

If I can get the information why not? We have OP who seems like to know his profession quite good. I won't implement this method anyway by this weak. So I can just ask and chill.

 

[tar729]

From your point of view PBN's are not against Google neither. Transistors are like PBN's non organic links which should look organic as possible. This includes hiding footprints or am I wrong?

So to be able to use this method you have to build websites with articles which aim for a more general search term (with more monthly searches) by using many highly semantic connected LSI's?

Receiving would be always commercial and giving always informative because the money site is always commercial right?

Isn't it possible for Google to nerf the compensation trust for this exact pattern or is this too fundamental to be nerfed? If I think about ways to nerf this method some ways come to in my mind. For e.g. disabling the transfer of compensation trust only so that the website is getting a compensation which can't be shared.

Additional to my last question: Why does/will Google not target this method? If this works out it gets saturated and Google will try to nerf it.

If you create a PBN only to rank your main website then it is against Google's rules and you do have to hide your footprints. My point is that PBN's don't have to be against Google's TOS, just make them real, real blogs for real visitors, and Google won't ban them. Same with transistors. If your PBN isn't going to be real, it's only a question of time before Google develops a system effecient enough to find them and ban everyone using them. If you have a lot of time and you want to create a transistor that would only work for a few months before getting penalized, then hide your footprints. Otherwise, I prefer to make my websites for visitors and not for the Algorithm. This way I will not be ashamed to show it to a manual check by Google's team. Apart from that, this tactic is much better because to rank a money website you really only need to make once around 6-7 transistors and just update them constantly.

Yes, using LSI method.
No, receiving in this scheme is the informational and the giving is the commercial.
No, If you asked the stranger which way is right and he pointed you to the right one, wouldn't you want to say "thank you." for that?
Why wouldn't Google want to do the same thing? For Google it isn't simply say thank you or say nothing, he has to thank everyone for pointing links to the right websites to maintain the balance of the trust distribution system. From the point of view of Google, this is just a good trade, he asks for information, you point him, he pays you for it. These are the fundamentnal rules of trade and you can't break them in internet just as much as you can't break them in person. These are the rules of the system.

This fundamental principle of bonus trust can not be removed, it exists in Google and Yandex already a very long long time. It is one of the biggest quality factors of a link. It wouldn't be profitable for Google to remove it.
I'll say you even more, it's profitable for Google to have these transistor systems in their search engine. Even if someone back there makes profit off of them. Try to understand, Google has very few methods to weigh the quality of all links and this is one of them. And transistors are almost perfect from the view of the maximum amount of trust that a link can pass on. Which means they are the highest quality links. They help Google categorize all other links into lower quality. Currently the epitome of quality of links for both Google and Yandex are partner links. Most of the time partners of businesses don't put links to their partners on their homepages for nothing and only through the top people working there. Since there's a huge amount of moderation here, Google trusts these links a lot. And there exist very few of these links, Google needs more. It doesn't matter to them wherether someone who uses them will make 10 times more money, they themselves will make 100 times more from links like these compared to spam links. That's why transistors are completely safe.

Tar729,
THANK YOU for the highly informative and insightful information. Very well done. The fact that you have to constantly use translators makes it even more impressive to me (just my opinion).

I for one will take all of this and test it to the hilt in numerous different ways. I already did a few things of what you have explained here but this is MUCH deeper.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH and best of luck to you.

Thank you and your welcome.

I'm going to try getting two sites and ranking my 3rd site for a certain keyword, is the following a wise plan?

1. Make one website with a five pages that are basically articles that encompass a large set of ideas sort of related, but by a big stretch. Link all articles to homepage, but not the homepage to the articles. Make the articles by citing trusted sources. Create a "knowledgebase"

2. Make a second site that has a homepage linking to its 5 or 6 articles all titled with the exact match for keywords that are more refined to the niche, but also commercially based. The keywords I want to rank for mixed in with some closely related commercial keywords but not necessarily the ones I am targeting for my 3rd site. Will not cite anything. Complete solicitation articles. Create the "market".

3. Link site one's home page to site 2. Then link site 2's homepage to my 3rd website.

4. Wait as the updates amplify both of my new sites in tandem and BOOST my 3rd site.

5. Profit??

You should read all of my posts again. You have some mistakes in the structure.

Also the keywords have to be related, otherwise the purity of the system will be compromised and you will get a less amplifying effect. The only way to see how strong keywords are related, is through a semantic graph. Russian services can create such a thing using a lot of websites and bots to scrape information off of search engine keywords. I have yet to see anyone here though who can create such a thing.

 

[Robby54]

So I'm assuming using related keywords found through a Bayesian Probability system would work?

 

[tar729]

So I'm assuming using related keywords found through a Bayesian Probability system would work?

Yes, but it isn't optimal.

 

[Kanye West]

If you create a PBN only to rank your main website then it is against Google's rules and you do have to hide your footprints. My point is that PBN's don't have to be against Google's TOS, just make them real, real blogs for real visitors, and Google won't ban them. Same with transistors. If your PBN isn't going to be real, it's only a question of time before Google develops a system effecient enough to find them and ban everyone using them. If you have a lot of time and you want to create a transistor that would only work for a few months before getting penalized, then hide your footprints. Otherwise, I prefer to make my websites for visitors and not for the Algorithm. This way I will not be ashamed to show it to a manual check by Google's team. Apart from that, this tactic is much better because to rank a money website you really only need to make once around 6-7 transistors and just update them constantly.

Yes, using LSI method.
No, receiving in this scheme is the informational and the giving is the commercial.
No, If you asked the stranger which way is right and he pointed you to the right one, wouldn't you want to say "thank you." for that?
Why wouldn't Google want to do the same thing? For Google it isn't simply say thank you or say nothing, he has to thank everyone for pointing links to the right websites to maintain the balance of the trust distribution system. From the point of view of Google, this is just a good trade, he asks for information, you point him, he pays you for it. These are the fundamentnal rules of trade and you can't break them in internet just as much as you can't break them in person. These are the rules of the system.

This fundamental principle of bonus trust can not be removed, it exists in Google and Yandex already a very long long time. It is one of the biggest quality factors of a link. It wouldn't be profitable for Google to remove it.
I'll say you even more, it's profitable for Google to have these transistor systems in their search engine. Even if someone back there makes profit off of them. Try to understand, Google has very few methods to weigh the quality of all links and this is one of them. And transistors are almost perfect from the view of the maximum amount of trust that a link can pass on. Which means they are the highest quality links. They help Google categorize all other links into lower quality. Currently the epitome of quality of links for both Google and Yandex are partner links. Most of the time partners of businesses don't put links to their partners on their homepages for nothing and only through the top people working there. Since there's a huge amount of moderation here, Google trusts these links a lot. And there exist very few of these links, Google needs more. It doesn't matter to them wherether someone who uses them will make 10 times more money, they themselves will make 100 times more from links like these compared to spam links. That's why transistors are completely safe.



Thank you and your welcome.



You should read all of my posts again. You have some mistakes in the structure.

Also the keywords have to be related, otherwise the purity of the system will be compromised and you will get a less amplifying effect. The only way to see how strong keywords are related, is through a semantic graph. Russian services can create such a thing using a lot of websites and bots to scrape information off of search engine keywords. I have yet to see anyone here though who can create such a thing.

Thank you for your detailed explanation. It really clears out the most. I have one thing left.

The first site (receiving) is informative and points to the second site which is commercial to have a natural relationship between these sites.
But then the commercial site is pointing to the money site (which is commercial most of the time). So here is a commercial -> commercial relationship. This would only work if the first commercial site is using other keywords than the second commercial site, the money site since pointing a link to a competitor is unnatural.

Is this right? Thank you for your patience!

Edit: Making websites for the user includes that the giving site is also linking to other websites? In my opinion this should be included to have a authentic looking website.

 

[THUNDERELVI]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. It really clears out the most. I have one thing left.

Is it right that the first site (receiving) is informative and points to the second site which is commercial to have a natural relationship between these sites?
But then the commercial site is pointing to the money site (which is commercial most of the time). So here is a commercial -> commercial relationship. Why should someone point a link to a competitor? This would only work if the first commercial site is using other keywords than the second commercial site the money site. Thank you for your patience!

The commercial site could have articles related to buying keywords and points to a store for example (money website), which is completely natural and how you promote most commercial keywords via PBN-s anyway.

 

[fatjack'sblackhat]

You should read all of my posts again. You have some mistakes in the structure.

Also the keywords have to be related, otherwise the purity of the system will be compromised and you will get a less amplifying effect. The only way to see how strong keywords are related, is through a semantic graph. Russian services can create such a thing using a lot of websites and bots to scrape information off of search engine keywords. I have yet to see anyone here though who can create such a thing.

I looked at your examples. I was just thinking that citing trusted sources might help the first site. I see in your example you don't do this. Have you ever tested citing trusted sources for the information you put into your articles? Would it even matter?

 

[THUNDERELVI]

I looked at your examples. I was just thinking that citing trusted sources might help the first site. I see in your example you don't do this. Have you ever tested citing trusted sources for the information you put into your articles? Would it even matter?

Citing other sources would give the trust away to other websites and not just to the homepage. The whole point is the receiving structure gains power from internal pages, but if the internal pages share the power with other external pages as well (other cited trusted sources), then it ruins the whole thing.

 

[seoscientist]

To create the diagram attached in your 1st post, it seems i cannot use a wordpress blog.

It has too many redundant links. It seems to have only 1 homepage link in every post?

Can I use nofollow links? How does Yandex look at Nofollow links?

I am still confused with Google nofollow links after many experiment. They seem to give linkjuice but at the same time google insist that Linkjuice are dispersed with Nofollow links.

 

[seoscientist]

It really makes simple SEO into amazingly complicated I really love articles like this...

Don't spam the thread by copying another one's message... (refer to 1st page)

 

[boleklolek]

I dont see how is this different from pbn? besides that you link like this:

pbn 1 ------- > pbn 2 -------> money site

It dilutes power of the link from pbn 1, right? But also create relevancy because there is same content (I dont mean duplicate content) on all 3 sites about same niche, so instead of thinking "im losing that link from pbn 1" you think " google 'awards' me with more power for linking to the same niche site" thus making the link stronger - right?

I don't get how would it be more powerful than pbn.

And also 99% of people doesn't make their pbn real site's because simply they don't have resources ($$) to do so and it is very hard to manage only big agencies can allow for such a thing, sure everyone can make them look as legit as possible, but I don't see how google representative reviewing a site that is made for linking to your money site ( even if pbn is really really really good made ) would believe it is not pbn? that guy must have be an idiot or some kind of retard because I can spot pbn within blink of an eye and im not even pro, and really Ive seen a lot of hiden pbn's (they were not hiden so good because I found them tho )

^ same shit applies to the sites you are talking about because it is the same that was a little bit offtop but still relevant because you said sites should be legit looking not for alghoritm but for people.

 

[xinga]

.

but I don't see how google representative reviewing a site that is made for linking to your money site ( even if pbn is really really really good made ) would believe it is not pbn? that guy must have be an idiot or some kind of retard because I can spot pbn within blink of an eye and im not even pro, and really Ive seen a lot of hiden pbn's (they were not hiden so good because I found them tho )

Because lots of companies got multiple websites? It's the most normal thing ever. What makes a "pbn" stick out is the fact that it is essentially a crap website no1 would ever use and your selling it as it was an authority site.

In fact i'd even go one step further, that having no private network is highly unusual! 2 years ago I was working on a huge project where a daughter website pointed 500.000 (!) specific backlinks towards the main website. Google didn't mind and still doesn't.

 

[xinga]

Now I very carefully read the whole thread, but I just can't make sense of it.

This is what I understood
If you want to rank for "little black dress" you have to built 3 websites:

Site 1: Name: My little black dress (no links from Homepage to articles)
Article example: My favorite short little black dress; Title linked to the homepage; some random wikipedia link to "history of the black dress"

Site 2: Buying black dresses (Links from homepage to articles)
Article example: Buying short little black dresses for cheap; no link to homepage, no other relevant links

Site 3: The black dress factory

You will do a homepage link from site1 -> site 2 and another homepage link from site 2 -> site 3.

They you wait for magic to happen.

Essentially you are saying, and please correct me, this kind of structure will only be superior to a standard pbn, if you pick those keywords according to a semantic graph. Meaning, i'd have to pay someone to pick them for me. So, you?!

Also..what happens when you get plenty of inbound links on Site 1? Wouldn't it be unnatural to disavow them all. Also..wouldn't there come a point when actually taking that link juice would be better than the amplification?

 

[myopic1]

Firstly, what an intriguing post, thanks for sharing. I'm about to put this into action on a test site, so it'll be interesting to see the results before I get too excited by this. That being said, it's one of the most original pieces of writing I've seen on BHW in a number of years. The silence of some of the 'big players' around here speaks loudly but maybe that's a leap (maybe people just don't know what to make of it).

I have the following questions for you:

1. How long would you say before two websites reach their full potential - so maximum semantic compensation in your words?

2. I think someone else asked it above but it seems your link structure wouldn't allow for a Wordpress blog, so on your sub-pages of 'website 1' are you getting rid of the website menu completely so that the only link back to the homepage is from the content?

3. On 'website 1', when you link to the page that contains all of the links to the sub-pages, where exactly are you putting this link to make it so 'irrelevant'?

 

[Deleted member 719276]

Go test it, you will be disappointed.

 

[myopic1]

Go test it, you will be disappointed.

Are you implying that you already have? Or are you dismissing this without testing it? It's too juicy a possibility to dismiss out of hand and I can't find a flaw in the logic... but each to their own.