Changes to BH SEO

I can't be the only one to have noticed lately the large and ever increasing number of threads about the Google dance, deindexing etc over the last week. I believe it was about a week ago my whole network of 80ish sites dropped. The common thread was almost all of them were built upon profile backlinks.

They had solid rankings for over a years time and I had done nothing new to them in months. They suddenly dropped off front page for their keywords.

I'd suggest building web 2.0 links (or like mojpoj posted videos, articles etc) pointing to your site and blasting those. Many would argue this is better practice anyways. Okay this is pretty much common sense this thread lost a lot of its intent when I changed this post.

Edited the thread because I hadn't considered a crucial detail; however, I'm still up in the air about what happened to my network. Leaning towards GooglesMostWanted's opinion that maybe the links were slightly devalued and since this is the base of the backlink campaign these sites had that could be the reason. I bought the sites and have more than doubled my 8k investment on them so regardless it worked out well, but obviously I should work on them a bit more.

The basic idea was that a massive number of profile backlinks pointing to sites seems to be causing a drop in rankings based on recent observations from the time when all of mine went down at once about a week ago until now. Could very well be user error on their part and there's something I'm missing for my recent drops.

For sake of discussion, do you guys think Google has done anything to profile links since that panda update, or possibly since then?

I would agree. It's like putting all your money in the stock market. It's better to have a well rounded portfolio.

Web 2.0 profiles
Videos
Articles (well written)
etc...

MojPoj said:

I would agree. It's like putting all your money in the stock market. It's better to have a well rounded portfolio.

Web 2.0 profiles
Videos
Articles (well written)
etc...

Click to expand...

Shortest and best advice I've seen for a long time

I'll have to disagree with you.

I've been blasting my sites with profile links for over a year now and have definitely noticed that they carry less weight since the Panda update but that doesn't mean that we should all stop using profile links.

Point is, Xrumer still works, maybe not as well but profile links and Xrumer are still good to go.

I know that xrumer still physically works in creating profiles. My point is not that these backlinks aren't indexed, it's that they are putting your site at risk.

Link farms are still links right? Google caught onto that. If I'm not mistaken, the basic link wheel was also discovered and countered a bit by Google. What's to say a profile link haven't been? I mean, if a bot can recognize a profile and create the link, Google can definitely recognize that it is a forum profile giving the backlink.

Would the question not then become, would Google change its attitude to seeing these as spammy links instead of true "votes" given by the site about the quality of yours?

Your a cool guy Italian Hawk, I like how you put your sentences together and I also appreciate the information you gave in another thread you started a couple days ago.

This being said, the fear mongering has to stop. Google will not penalize you for creating profile links. If they were to penalize you for such links, they would just devalue the links to your site instead of penalizing your website directly.

I will make it clear what the real problem is with xrumer: The user.

Here is what causes a decrease when getting xrumer profiles done on your money site.
1) Links are completely off-topic, which can cause google to question WHY your site would be on a site about potatoes, when your site is really about cats.
2) No anchor text/Wrong anchor text. This will cause google to question why your site is being linked to as something completely different that it normally is.
3) Malware/Porno sites. You dont wanna be lumped into them on Googles radar.

I've noticed something similar, Italian Hawk. My sites are all over, and the sites I've recently hit with profile/xrumer links are dropping back slightly.

What I have noticed, though, is if you hit something (for this example, a blogspot and squidoo post) consistently, it ranks well. I've been putting up 2.0 sites and hitting those with a full xrumer and scrapebox blast every day and they're moving up very quickly. Even the old ones I xrumered once or twice a few months ago then let alone are moving back up recently as I've been blasting them again.

So, I'm thinking they may be considering link velocity more important as of the last few weeks with these types of links.. if you blast it then sit on it for 2 weeks, they may be dropping you. If you blast it consistently FOR 2 weeks, it might help.

This is only a few days worth of observation, though, so it's still a shot in the dark. Just my input, take it for what you will.

Kickflip said:

I will make it clear what the real problem is with xrumer: The user.

Here is what causes a decrease when getting xrumer profiles done on your money site.
1) Links are completely off-topic, which can cause google to question WHY your site would be on a site about potatoes, when your site is really about cats.
2) No anchor text/Wrong anchor text. This will cause google to question why your site is being linked to as something completely different that it normally is.
3) Malware/Porno sites. You dont wanna be lumped into them on Googles radar.

Click to expand...

This would make sense if it weren't for one aspect. This network of 80 sites hasn't been SEO-d in about 6 months yet still held firm with their rankings. Now one could argue that this would simply mean that this is the cause for my falling in the rankings. I would agree if it weren't for it happening on the same day. So maybe in my case it would be something completely different to explain why I fell.

I guess I do realize that a lot of the cases seemed to appear as though it was the users fault. They said they blasted 4k or so profiles on a new domain. That has to be improper usage.

I think I'm going to revise my initial post a bit.

I'm thinking GooglesMostWanted's devaluing situation is what I'm leaning towards now since the basis for the link campaign is profile backlinks that were created by the person I bought them from. I myself haven't really worked on them in the year that I've had them.

Italian Hawk said:

This would make sense if it weren't for one aspect. This network of 80 sites hasn't been SEO-d in about 6 months yet still held firm with their rankings. Now one could argue that this would simply mean that this is the cause for my falling in the rankings. I would agree if it weren't for it happening on the same day. So maybe in my case it would be something completely different to explain why I fell.

Click to expand...

6 months old profile links? Are you sure they are even all live anymore? I would guess the majority of them are dead/deleted. Profile links really don't stand the test of time. There are WAY too many variables to be discussing 6 month old sites that dont have consistent backlinks built to them.

Are you adding new unique content to the sites on a regular basis?
Are people naturally linking to your site?
Have you checked your list of profile links to see how many are still alive?
Do you have competition for your keywords?
Are the sites which are outranking you better sites than yours?

I can say I have observed the same as well. Any sites which I build links too will drop in the rankings. Only the keywords which links are built for will drop.

Google has definitely made it way harder for blackhatters.

show me a newer site that ranks for a competitive kw, with only profile or comment links today-

Kickflip said:

6 months old profile links? Are you sure they are even all live anymore? I would guess the majority of them are dead/deleted. Profile links really don't stand the test of time. There are WAY too many variables to be discussing 6 month old sites that dont have consistent backlinks built to them.

Are you adding new unique content to the sites on a regular basis?
Are people naturally linking to your site?
Have you checked your list of profile links to see how many are still alive?
Do you have competition for your keywords?
Are the sites which are outranking you better sites than yours?

Click to expand...

I would assume some of them are live. Haven't added unique content since I bought them. Haven't created new links. Haven't checked profile links. There is competition for them. I think my sites are better than many of the sites now above them.

I understand they could naturally fall, but naturally fall pages, 80 of them, on the same day?

Italian Hawk said:

I would assume some of them are live. Haven't added unique content since I bought them. Haven't created new links. Haven't checked profile links. There is competition for them. I think my sites are better than many of the sites now above them.

I understand they could naturally fall, but naturally fall pages, 80 of them, on the same day?

Click to expand...

The thing is, if the backlinking was all done using forum profiles, then probably 90% of the forum profiles for each site were done using the same forums. If Google rechecked those sites on that day, and realized the sites were dead, then they would remove those backlinks from your site.

I have many sites done using ONLY forum profiles too, and they didn't drop. But I have others that I blasted forum profiles to, and they did drop. So it isn't that Google instantly devalued EVERY site that only has forum profile links to it. Those 80 sites will all have the same link pattern, so it would be easy for Google to realize they are junk links.

Your assumption is that its BECAUSE they were forum profile links that they all dropped, but I am saying again, its actually because of HOW the forum profile links were done that would have dropped your sites. If it was because of forum profile links, than EVERY person would drop, not just your 80 sites.

I am highly doubting you had all of the below:
Completely different link pattern for each site.
Different hosting for each site.
Private who is for each site.

Each of those can be a footprint which allows Google to link the sites together, and if they find one site to be junk, and see the same issues with the other sites, bang, all of them go down.

It was probably the same list, like I said, I didn't do them myself and the guy I bought it from I know these were his first black hat campaigns.

Also correct, not on different hosting. I do have private whois on all of them though, but that alone isn't enough I know.