Any Good Link Building Techniques Left?

Are there any good link building techniques left? Here's what I'm currently implementing in my strategy:

1. Relevant Guest Posts

2. Relevant Blog Comments

3. Local Directories

4. PDF Doc Sharing

5. Social Media Accounts

With all the recent updates, it seems that a lot of old link building techniques are just plain old dead (bookmarks, forum profile links etc).

Look up greg's linkpush method.

Been doing something similar and so far so good with all the updates.

Private Blog Networks and Web 2.0 Blog-s are your answer for Tier 1 All the other things that you mentioned that are "dead" can be used as tier 2 or 3 successfully on tier 1.

You can try out Press release Submission ( PRweb , SBwire and free PR directories )

I dont think the tier system will be as effective as it used to be. Google can easily trace links to their source. So even if you have a KICKASS tier 1, but if its backed by shitty links....well its pretty obvious. Plus, I have seen a few of my sites tank that were being linked with some quality WEB 2.0's tank with Penguin, so that's out of the question.

Info graphics, icon packs, PAD submission with real software (not crappy screensaver)...

Look around for "Link Bomb Report". It is one excellent ebook/document made several years ago and describes all possible link building methods. Most of them still works.

Social bookmarkings,web2.0 blogs, private networks, video sharing, web2.0 profiles, yahoo answers, press release and even so many more. Try to get some quality web2.0, press releases and private network links.

zee007 said:

I dont think the tier system will be as effective as it used to be. Google can easily trace links to their source. So even if you have a KICKASS tier 1, but if its backed by shitty links....well its pretty obvious. Plus, I have seen a few of my sites tank that were being linked with some quality WEB 2.0's tank with Penguin, so that's out of the question.

Click to expand...

I really hate it when people blame their backlinks when an update comes for their websites de-ranking. Tiered systems STILL WORK!
Your site most probably got tanked because of over-optimization issues, content, poor on-site SEO or too many incoming exact match anchors. That is what the last 2-3 Major Updates were all about.

I will consider reading these links.

Backgroundcheck said:

I will consider reading these links.

Click to expand...

Yes these links have good values.

you can try social bookmarkings on each new post dayli

Press releases , and yeah don't miss link from audio share sites as well.

I agree, a tiered system does work, but ONLY if you do properly and that requires a LOT of time and effort. I think Scritty has a pretty good system in place. Personally, I rather spend the same amount of time getting a high quality guest post instead, which is way more update proof than building a tiered system.

I mean how hard is it for Google to spot a bunch of non-authority WEB 2.0's pointing to a website? Especially those that have been built a few months ago. A kid can spot those a mile away. Now if you have aged WEB 2.0's already getting some decent organic traffic, than you're talking business.

THUNDERELVI said:

I really hate it when people blame their backlinks when an update comes for their websites de-ranking. Tiered systems STILL WORK!
Your site most probably got tanked because of over-optimization issues, content, poor on-site SEO or too many incoming exact match anchors. That is what the last 2-3 Major Updates were all about.

Click to expand...

zee007 said:

I agree, a tiered system does work, but ONLY if you do properly and that requires a LOT of time and effort. I think Scritty has a pretty good system in place. Personally, I rather spend the same amount of time getting a high quality guest post instead, which is way more update proof than building a tiered system.

I mean how hard is it for Google to spot a bunch of non-authority WEB 2.0's pointing to a website? Especially those that have been built a few months ago. A kid can spot those a mile away. Now if you have aged WEB 2.0's already getting some decent organic traffic, than you're talking business.

Click to expand...

The tiered system is actually a very natural looking one. New pages are created every day that link out. The websites they link to also have some outgoing links, and it keeps on going like that.

Using the exact same anchor text, on the other hand, would be a huge footprint that would get you slapped for sure.

The idea of a tiered system is still as sound as the day it was conceived. The execution is where it can get tricky since there is some room for error.

Insert link everything where is real traffic.

High pr domains are still owning

zee007 said:

I agree, a tiered system does work, but ONLY if you do properly and that requires a LOT of time and effort. I think Scritty has a pretty good system in place. Personally, I rather spend the same amount of time getting a high quality guest post instead, which is way more update proof than building a tiered system.

I mean how hard is it for Google to spot a bunch of non-authority WEB 2.0's pointing to a website? Especially those that have been built a few months ago. A kid can spot those a mile away. Now if you have aged WEB 2.0's already getting some decent organic traffic, than you're talking business.

Click to expand...

It just requires content and organization nothing else. If you can not write content, you have two options: outsource unique articles or outsource super spun articles and then re-edit the last ones so they are 100% unique and make sense. I can assure you this last option will take you much much less time than writing the articles yourself and its like 100x cheaper!
You can automate making web 2.0 (but manually is again the best option) by using Imacros simple scripts if you can not afford bots.

And for the last time, Google is an algorithm, not a kid. Even a kid has intelligence, but algorithms don't. They try to simulate it, which is different. If what you say is true, that means that no one would rank their sites with web 2.0 anymore and they had to find those "aged" authority web 2.0 that exist already to link out or create some and wait for a year or something before linking lol.
But no, you can ask thousands of people and they will tell you contextual in-article links from authority HQ web 2.0 STILL work!
But you can't use more than 20% exact match anchors anymore, else the "kid" will notice a mile away.

There are a lot of possibilities to build links - just read a few topics with complex linkbuilding from marketplace. If you want to have results for a long time you can't focus just on 2-3 methods., because you would be in danger with any update.

Google always covers popular methods. For sure they will focus on tiered linkbuilding, web 2.0s, networks, etc... but if you use these and other methods really smart you are much more safe.

the more softwares u have, the more methods ope ndoor for u

THUNDERELVI said:

It just requires content and organization nothing else. If you can not write content, you have two options: outsource unique articles or outsource super spun articles and then re-edit the last ones so they are 100% unique and make sense. I can assure you this last option will take you much much less time than writing the articles yourself and its like 100x cheaper!
You can automate making web 2.0 (but manually is again the best option) by using Imacros simple scripts if you can not afford bots.

And for the last time, Google is an algorithm, not a kid. Even a kid has intelligence, but algorithms don't. They try to simulate it, which is different. If what you say is true, that means that no one would rank their sites with web 2.0 anymore and they had to find those "aged" authority web 2.0 that exist already to link out or create some and wait for a year or something before linking lol.
But no, you can ask thousands of people and they will tell you contextual in-article links from authority HQ web 2.0 STILL work!
But you can't use more than 20% exact match anchors anymore, else the "kid" will notice a mile away.

Click to expand...

Bro, forget 20%, I used less than 5% (and never exact match)!! And I used unique articles each time for all my WEB 2.0's and I linked out to authority sites, put images, videos and made all the WEB 2.0's manually by hand! Each even had a detailed "About Us" and "Contact Us" page. I reached the first page and then got slammed by Penguin 2.0. And this happened for 2 different clients of mine. One local and one nationwide. I analyzed Ahrefs and Majestic and both showed the target keyword with an anchor text ratio of less than 2%!! So yes, Google definitely has a way of finding out. The only site that survived was a highly authoritative website that received a ton of natural links on a daily basis. What does that tell me? It means that if you have a new-ish website and have 50 WEB 2.0s pointing to it, well guess what, its pretty obvious what you're doing. On the other hand, if you have a website that already has hundreds and thousands of backlinks and you point some smartly created WEB 2.0's, its not a big deal. I mean think about it, how natural is it for a BRAND NEW website to have WEB 2.0's pointing to it? Extremely unlikely.

Bottom line? Do not start pointing WEB 2.0's on brand new websites. Start with the more natural looking links (like local directories etc). Build some basic authority and then MIX in some WEB 2.0's.

Just my 2 cents from experience.