Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by elvis1973, Mar 25, 2012.
Very expensive as you said but if the moneys coming in then you are very safe - with that kinda backlink work on your web2.0s they should be ranking really well also
this seems very expensive .can u tell us wot is potential earning of sites now ? i mean wot is % of ROI ?
"i also include a link to a random competitor"
Would you go for SocialAdr as opposed to Synnd?
Good question, JC. I'd think of including links to "unbiased authority" sites like Wikipedia or CNN, but direct competitors - that's never occurred to me.
geez that's quite pricey on the out goings, but loks like a solid plan.
cheer s mate
Just because it seems natural, if it was an independent article about the niche then it is fair to assume that there would be links to sites of the same type, so this would include your competitors.
not looked at SocialAdr yet, but will check it out
It doesnt need to be, if you write your own content and then just have Syndd and one paid service per month, changing it round each month then the total cost would be maybe $300 per month. Like I said all these services are split between all my clients so the cost is divided by the number of clients I have active..currently 4.
Why would you link to your competitors? You're doing the hard work and helping them rank better, that's just absurd.
Im not talking about building hundreds of links im talking 1 link to one random competitor, someone on page 2 even or page 10.
Yeah, but you're still helping them, and you're also diluting the link value passed to your own site. I haven't read anywhere that this could actually help you. We might need a case study about this, but I think you're just unnecessarily helping the competition.
Looks very expensive. That is one of the main reason I avoid monthly SEO services. I think there are very few services that need to be paid every month. I think the only reason there are services that need to be paid every month is because the providers know how much money it can make.
Tools like semoz, keyword tracker, etc are the exception.
However, I'm interested in what you said about synnd, and am going to check it out.
That's a monster strategy going on! However, as mentioned above, it would seem costly to do them all for someone starting out, but certainly ok for client sites who are paying monthly.
One question on this, is there a benefit to doing all of the paid services to your Tier 1 Web 2.0's instead of to your money site directly? Seeing as Web 2.0's have the potential to be deleted / removed / down ... that would then break the Tier 2 links rendering them useless. Although you are using quality unique content on them so may be less chances of losing it.
Elvis1973: if I were to use only one tool between seomoz - $99 per month raventools $99 per month which one you would choose?
The problem with the paid services is that they use spun articles and I don't want anything spun pointing to my money site.
That's a tough one because they are both really great and the onsite reports and error reporting with seomoz is fantastic and great for analysis reporting to clients.
However from an overall features point of view and the fact that you can track more projects for the same cost I would say that raven just pips it
Good detailed post, but have you done all these services just for one site? And how many of your keywords are at #1 if you did, and they ultra hard keywords? I'd pretty much expect the answer to be yes to the second two questions for this kinda overall price tag! lol
I have one site that is page one for most of the keywords they gave me, they vary from low to hard difficulty.
I have another site that was recently slapped by the GWT tools warning, I am now starting to use this method on the site in an attempt to pull it back to page 1, it currently sits on page 6 after getting what appears to be a -50 penalty.
I have only just starting the finance project so results remain to be seen
Im am bascially at the early stages of implementing all this.
This is a brand new method for me, so I intend to report back on how well this works.
Separate names with a comma.