A Good and Bad Web 2.0?

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by bigwhite, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. bigwhite

    bigwhite Regular Member

    Sep 27, 2011
    Likes Received:
    I'm looking for someone to give me a link to a good Web 2.0 and explain to me what they did.

    Then I am also looking for someone to provide me with a Bad Web 2.0 (Created by a bot, spun text, etc).

    If someone could explain these to me a little bit more. I would appreciate it. I get the whole concept, and I understand the value, I am just wondering what a Good and what a bad one looks like. I am thinking about manually setting up some web 2.0's and I am just curious if its worth me buying all original articles.

    This is for a White Hat Authority/Brand site which is why I will not be using a bot. I want to keep this as natural as possible.
  2. veheme

    veheme Elite Member

    Jan 18, 2012
    Likes Received:
    There's not really a good and bad web 2.0 because a link is still a link.

    The way I see it, you are trying to differentiate one who is clearly a spam and one that is not a spam? If this is the case then what you are looking for is "stickability".

    "Stickability" refers to the web 2.0 staying there for a long time which means that the link will also stay there for a long time. This relies on the web 2.0's likability in terms of content, how many OBLs, a unique BIO, a unique picture and everything else that a human blogger would have put in.

    Bots can easily create them but they don't stick around. Why? Because they are easily detectable (crap content, always have 1-2 outbound links, prof has no bio, no picture, no information about author etc.)

    As for the time frame, this is your basis (based from my experience in creating hundreds of web 2.0's). If your web 2.0 lasts for more than 3 days, it is "sticking" (for at least a week or two). If it lasts for more than 2 weeks, it is going to be there for many months.