1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Case Study Continued: Tier 2 Link Building

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by xha44a, Nov 19, 2014.

  1. xha44a

    xha44a Power Member

    Dec 2, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Hi All,

    This post has been a long time in the making. If I haven't written it early, I apologize - it's just going to be so long that I almost didn't want to do it. Anyway, play time is over and now I have to share this.

    If you hate learning scroll to the bottom and see the results then hit the thanks button.

    So for those of you who haven't readthe first part of my case study on Tier 2 services here on BHW, Iwould recommend you go back and do so now. Doing so will give you amuch better idea of what's going on, how I got started, how I setupthe Web 2.0's, what content was on them, etc. So don't ask questionsthat are already answered there. Go do your reading. Here it is...

    Epic Case Study: Tier 2 Services from BHW

    This case study, the methodology, how and what I did will build HEAVILY on that case study. That's why I highly recommend you read it - so you can see the full picture.

    Now I took this case study and moved onto part 2 with it. A couple months after my first batch of linkbuilding in that case study, the rankings began to slip. This ispretty normal ? links get deleted, spam gets cleaned up ? so on.So I decided to continue on and make part 2. This time, I planned onusing more upmarket services ? not just $25/package type ofservices. There were some complicating factors, expenses, and allaround upstanding people who helped me out along the way. I'llmention them in a bit.

    Disclaimer: I'm not dissing anyone'sservice here. I understand different services have different uses andmay do better in different areas, than how they did in my test. Irecommend contacting service providers and asking them what theirservice works best for. One service provider didn't really want to bepart of this test (because of how it was structured), but said Icould buy their service since they don't turn down customers.However, for services ADVERTISED as Tier 2 ? this should provide abit of transparency, assuming my methodology is good (you decide). Nothing aboutthis is personal about the services.

    So first thing's first...

    Objective: To test Tier 2services available on BHW and SEO forums, to see which ones providethe most powerful links and the most bang for your dollar.


    • Purchase services all in the same price range. I was shooting for $100-$150 per service. Criteria for the services were a) price and b) able to handle 25 urls & 25 keywords, with no keyword/url pairing required.
    • Give each service a list of Web 2.0s, and the same list of keywords
    • Let them work their magic.
    • Track the results of those keywords ranking in the SE's.

    So now that you have the outline,here's some details. First of all, using Web 2.0's from the last casestudy complicated things slightly. Since the Web 2.0's were aged,they had links to the previously, they had content, etc ? I had tomake sure as best I could that none of those PREVIOUS factors wasinfluencing my current SERPs. I mean ? how would you tell if a Web2.0 is ranking because of the previous links, or the current ones,right? I handled this in a couple ways to try to eliminate any previous influencing factors.

    1) I split the previous groups up equally over the new groups. See image below.


    2) Because Google was very clearly favoring certain platforms over others, I also made sure I divided the platforms up evenly. Every group got some Tumblrs, some blogspots, etc. No stacking the deck - within 1 property of each other the groups were platform balanced

    3)I also tried to balance out the Web 2.0's which were ranking. Before I even threw links at any of the web 2.0's, I manually checked ALL the rankings for each of my keywords, to see what was ranking where. Yes. Manually checked 25 keywords, for 100 web 2.0's. It was great fun. After recording the rankings of those web 2.0's, I also divided them up between the groups. The idea of this was to prevent one group of web 2.0's which were still ranking from influencing the next test.

    All in all, I feel pretty happy that I eliminated any bias from the previous test. I can't prove this of course. One of the service providers was leery of this, and said he didn't want to partake in a test that included old or used web 2.0's, particularly with previous links. He thought new web 2.0's would allow for a more accurate test. He is right. However, I was working with what I had (aged, linked web 2.0's) and this was the best way I could attempt to reduce/eliminate bias.

    Complicating Factors:

    Of course nothing could be simple in this case study. There were complicating factors which I MUST mention now, because they (to some degree) affect the case study results. I want them out in the open so there's no confusion.

    Complicating Factor #1: I kind of messed up ordering 1 service. The service (on the order page) had a place where you enter your keywords, and a checkmark box for including keyword diversity. I figured these were generic anchors, so I said - why not. Apparently one of the side effects was only 5/25 keywords would then be used as anchor texts for my links. Kind of screws up the whole methodology of my case study. Two reasons I didn't feel this was worth dropping this group out. First - the results. Second, this service just closed their doors. No harm mentioning it now.

    Complicating Factor #2: Tumblr set aside some special time to lay a beating on me. They wiped/banned a couple dozen PR1-3 blogs I was running as well as a couple from this case study. Given that Tumblr's were ranking the BEST out of any web 2.0 platform, I didn't think it would be fair to include them in the rankings, especially since one group in particular had lost all 2 of their Tumblr's. So I excluded Tumblr web 2.0's from this calculation.

    Complicating Factor #3: As mentioned before, one of the service providers didn't want to take part in the test. Due to the way I had it setup basically. They said they would gladly take part if it was new web 2.0's but didn't want to take part with old ones. Normally I defer to the service providers when I purchase something as they likely know what their service is best used for, however in this case I badly wanted to test that service and went against their advice and used it in the test. I feel it is kind of unfair to include it when they specifically had concerns about how I was doing the test, but it's in here anyway.

    Services Used

    Now that I have all the boring details out of the way, let's get into the exciting stuff. The actual services I used. Here's the services in no particular order.

    • Group 1 ($100 value) - for this group of Web 2.0's, I used a service on BHW here called Spamfinity. I used the Spamfinity package (not the lite one) and they processed it promptly.
    • Group 2 ($99 value) - for this group of Web 2.0's, I used a service on Wickedfire by Marc_L. Marc_L was kind enough to sponsor this case study, meaning that I did NOT have to pay for the links for this test group. Big shout out to him for his generosity in helping test stuff so we can rank in the big G. On his advice, I went for his Authority blast (Tier 2: Contextual links on 2000 PR 2 and up domains spun using word AI (all do follow), Tier 3: 40,000 Profile/Guestbook/Trackback/Comments etc etc on PR 2 and up domains.)
    • Group 3 ($135 value) - for this group of Web 2.0's, I used a service on BHW here called LinkJolt. While this service is now closed, Unknown_zero the OP was kind enough to agree to sponsor my case study. As a result, I didn't have to pay for these links to these web 2.0's. It was a generous thing to do, and it's people like him that make BHW a place I always come back to. Unfortunately his service is closed, but when it was open I used his Supreme and Basic package (both) on my Web 2.0's. I checked the "diversity" option on this service, which led to complicating factor #1 as mentioned above.
    • Group 4 ($90 value) - for this group of web 2.0's I used a private blog posting service here on BHW by Lover. In order to keep the price in the same range ($100 or more), I had to order 2 of his 750 blog posts service. This was 1500 blog posts, with up to 3 links per post. 4500 links from high PR blogs = I love it. Lover graciously agreed to sponsor my case study, meaning I didn't have to pay for his service. He provided it free of cost, and also kept me focused on this case study to get it finished and published here. Without people here generously sponsoring me to do this case study, I doubt I could have afforded all the packages I bought.
    • Group 5 ($130) - for this group of web 2.0's I used a service called Essential Pumpers from Wickedfire. This provider agreed to sponsor my case study IF I used new web 2.0's as he felt it would be more fair than using existing, aged, linked web 2.0's. While I totally agree with him, I still wanted to give his service a go, so purchased it ($130 value). I kind of feel bad publishing this as he specifically said he didn't want it to be used in this kind of case study, but rather with web 2.0's, but in interests of full disclosure, here you go.


    At the end of the day I judged the effectiveness of the linking package by how well my blog ranked for the keywords I was targeting. I discuss my methodology and the logic behind this more in my first case study. I'm not going to go over the why/where/when/how - it's all discussed there. Let's just get down to the results...

    First up - existing rankings from previous case study (where it was at after all this time). The rankings were pretty much non-existent. I had 55 rankings. This might sound like a lot, but when you consider I had 100 web 2.0's, and was targeting 25 keywords it suddenly looks like nothing. Which it was. The majority of rankings were between #20-40. I had 2 first page rankings. None above #4. Overall, pretty lame. Not terrible though considering the linking packages were like $20/each for that case study.

    Here comes the awesome part.

    After throwing all these linking packages at each group, and waiting 1 month for the links to "sink in" as it were, I calculated the rankings. I scored them as follows. Number of rankings for...

    • #1-3
    • #1-10
    • #11-20
    • #21-30 - and so on all the way up to #100

    I would like to point out I calculated these all by hand, incognito browser, Google.com, all cookies cleared. It really didn't matter as I never have visited my web 2.0's except for 2 years ago when first made. Here's how it was looking...



    Yes. It is totally for real. I totally NEVER EXPECTED this test to be so one-sided. And yet to a large degree it was. Group #4 - the blog posting service by Lover - put out more rankings than all the other Tier 2 services put together. After seeing this I thought - there must be a mistake. I dived back into it to check. I checked the original blog groups to see if I missed something. I came up totally empty handed.

    Some highlights about Lover's blog posting service results...

    • Lover's service (group 4) was the ONLY group that managed to get top 3 rankings. It managed to rack up 10 #1-3 rankings (2 #1's, 4 #2's, 4 #3's). No other service managed to break the top 3.
    • Group 4 racked up a total of 88 rankings. 53% of those were in the top 10.
    • Of a total of 162 rankings in the top 100, 88 of those were from Lover's service (group 4) - works out to 54.3% of the rankings were from his blog posting.
    • There was no relation between previous groups success and their new rankings. The two best web 2.0's from the last service hardly showed up in this service.
    • Some SERP domination was happening. Some keywords my web 2.0's were taking 8/10 ranks on the first page, including #1,2,3. There was no title match or anything - pure link power
    • My methodology (see first case study) was searching exact match. However my terms were ranking for broad match as well where there was a lot of competition.
    I couldn't believe it when I saw this. However after thinking about it, it makes sense. Some of these services were more spam style - thousands of thousands of links. Lover's blog posting service is based on essentially PR. This is some of the quality-vs-quantity sort of thinking in action. Clearly quality (combined with quantity) totally won the day.

    Looking Forward

    Having done this test I can say I was surprised and amazed. Very surprised because I expected Lover's service to tank. In my first case study I found the blog posting services didn't work very well. I found the spam-tons-web-2.0 style links totally dominated. That was my last case study. In this case study my previous conclusions (quantity over quality) kind of totally got blown out of the water.

    Amazed - because I expected so much out of some of these link packages, and while they all showed up to the party, some of them came already hungover.


    If you just want the juicy details, after reviewing everything I would rate these services in this order for value.

    1. Lover's blog posting service. Unconditionally. If you have money for your Tier 2's, get this. It destroys anything I've ever tested.
    2. LinkJolt by Unknown_zero - while this one was kind of skewed by complicating factor #1, it still came in a strong second. It is closed now. Maybe fire him a PM and ask him if he has something similar?
    3. Authority Blast - Marc_L - this came in 3rd - put up the next highest number of total rankings.
    4. Essential Pumpers Link Splash - came in fourth. This service focuses more on diversity/safety as well, so I think that might affect it.
    5. Spamfinity - unfortunately this service came in last. I hate pointing that out, because I'm sure their service works great under different circumstances, but in my test it didn't work so well.

    This case study was a slaughter. I didn't expect this. I almost feel bad publishing it. Yet hopefully it helps some people on here, and provides a huge spur for everyone else to up their game or clarify their services.

    Last Not Least

    A big shout out to the service providers who threw in their packages for free. Without them I wouldn't have been able to complete this likely. The total cost of this case study would have been $554 if I had to pay for it. A little much to spend on Tier 2 links. Without these donors there would have been no possible way for me to afford this. Their donations didn't affect my results in any way. It just meant I didn't have to pay for the links.

    If you liked this case study, press the Thanks button. You know where it is. Also, seeing as I've spent all my money on Tier 2 links y'all are welcome to pay for my Jr VIP. Opening up the floor for discussion now :)


    • Thanks Thanks x 108
  2. jamesjk1

    jamesjk1 Senior Member

    Nov 1, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Thanks for sharing man, this will help me make some better decisions when building links to my web 2.0's.
  3. jon_xx_x

    jon_xx_x Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Nov 15, 2008
    Likes Received:
    The only issue here is who knows how long the results will last. The network could be penalized in a week and it's money down the drain.
  4. vancleve

    vancleve Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Apr 4, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Great case study you have here. Thanks for sharing. I just have a question. Have you pointed the best ranking web 2.0s to your money site? If so, how is your money site ranking?
  5. rschmitz

    rschmitz Regular Member

    Nov 14, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Can you divulge how you set up the anchors?

    Great case study, lovers service is the shit.
  6. blackcoffee7

    blackcoffee7 Junior Member

    Sep 27, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Home Page:
    Wow, great case study! You really made effort to provide awesome results. Thanks a lot!
  7. davain

    davain Regular Member

    Jun 18, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Great post! Very detailed and informative.

    What I would like to know is how long after you purchased the services did you check the rankings?

    I apologize if I somehow missed it in the OP
  8. innosoft

    innosoft Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Nov 25, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Software Developer, SEO
    Home Page:
    thats really helpful! Let me check it out and see how much effective it is.
  9. mindmaster

    mindmaster Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Sep 16, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Home Page:
    Nice case study, although I think it would be more relevant if the web2.0's wouldn't have any previous links.
  10. lord1027

    lord1027 Elite Member

    Sep 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Fantastic work, journeys and case studies are probably the best thing I'm always looking forward to read. A big "Thank you" to the owners who gave away their services for free, case studies are probabably BHW's goldmine :)
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  11. thezeebase

    thezeebase Junior Member

    Aug 6, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Thanks for sharing pal ... it may help me
  12. nivakchot

    nivakchot Newbie

    Oct 16, 2014
    Likes Received:
    So what did you use as tier 1s? Web2.0s? And what did you track with tier 2s? Web2.0 rankings or money site rankings?
  13. Reeshua

    Reeshua Power Member

    Jan 6, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Agree with this. Lover's blog posting service is cheap, however. It's also a good idea to remember the web 2.0s' logins so if the network does get penalized, it's just a matter of simply removing the links from the web 2.0.
  14. rolle

    rolle Newbie

    May 23, 2014
    Likes Received:
    nivakchot Read the previous case study bro. Its not so long. There is a link to it in this post. It tells you exactly what he used and more. Read it all if you want to learn. I know its really helped me
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. rolle

    rolle Newbie

    May 23, 2014
    Likes Received:
    xha44a Amazing. This is gold for me. Thanks again.
  16. fc-dh

    fc-dh Elite Member

    Oct 20, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Den Haag | Netherlands
    Great study, bookmarked it for later read


    That is with everything you do in SEO these days, it is all a risk.... when you have something that works you need to milk it before it is gone
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  17. prab1996

    prab1996 Elite Member

    Jan 8, 2013
    Likes Received:
    your gf's <3 ♥♥♥♥
    Home Page:
    thanks for link to that service. i found that bst some time ago but was never able to find it again.

    those cheap blogposts work better then GSA blasts.
  18. giveandtakes

    giveandtakes Newbie

    May 17, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Looks good, so cheap blog posting services should do the trick for tier 2s then.
  19. everythingred

    everythingred Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Jul 21, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I have ordered Lover's PBN links before to a Web 2.0 and it did rank it but those results don't last
  20. andyf91

    andyf91 Senior Member

    Aug 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Internet Marketing
    I have tried his services many times and most of the time when I use them as Tier 2 they work very good