can someone clear this up for me?

I hear that web 2.0 backlinks have less link juice, is this inherent as in google regards web 2.0 backlinks of lower quality or is this because as time goes on the increasing amount of outbound backlinks decrease the link juice from a high da/pa website.

Is this what happened to GSA SER links?
from what i understand GSA SER used to work better but the quality degraded over time, is the reason behind this because of the previously mentioned mechanism?
or did this happen because the standard GSA SER links where being used for low quality sites and now these have a lowered reputation?

what is the specific definition of a low quality site?
not following google's guidelines?
wrong niches?

can someone clarify this for me?

I do not know about GSA, but in simple model, low-quality website is website that people doesn't like, search engines tries to tune their algos to be able to rank websites according to that. Search engines have hundreds of parameters to qualify domain/page authority, it's pretty complicated system, but it actually works.

In case you mentioned, the scenario could be like that:
- GSA websites become oversaturated with generated pages
- many spammy pages affecting overall stats for websites - loyal members leaving, bounce rate becomes higher, time user spends on a page becomes lower, etc
- it is forming a negative snowball for the overall website authority and rankings
- links you get from the website become less effective

buffdude said:

I hear that web 2.0 backlinks have less link juice, is this inherent as in google regards web 2.0 backlinks of lower quality or is this because as time goes on the increasing amount of outbound backlinks decrease the link juice from a high da/pa website.

Click to expand...

None and both.

Web 2.0 just like any other site, has an intrinsic Juice. People tend to blast 2.0 because they increased artificially and massively the authority of those "subsites". Also they did not risk anything, because those subsites were not susceptible to penalizations. So essentially the "trick" was, benefiting from good links from a blast, and disregarding spam penalties from bad links. Imagine that you blast 10K links, 200 good links and 9.8K shitlinks. If you did this with your own domain, the possibilities of spam where 100%, while on a 2.0 you will benefit 100% of the 200 good links, while dismissing the 9.8K shit links increasing the authority of the 2.0 automatically.

But now there are two problems:
1. G is taking into account the bad links also, therefore the 9.8 won't do any good to your 2.0 making it a less effective technique as before
2. Also be aware, that the 200 good links, will become bad links over the time, because, other blasters will take advantage of them over the time

So essentially, blasting has become a very poor technique nowadays. Still works but less than a 5% as it used to work and mostly based on chance of getting a good % of right links.
Although, you can still build some 2.0, if you want to linkbuild semi-automatically (by building your own link pool, not blast lists). Some 2.0 still profit from domain authority (not all, because I trully believe that some sites like blogger or wordpress.com have been tagged as 2.0 by G and now they don't transfer any of the domain authority). But in the forum there are multiple 2.0 that are constantly being published, and they can be a good option to build your tier 1, and sometimes, to parasite.