Common Mistakes in Tiered Linking

I think you're making a mistake on this line.

A 0% link dilution means you are the only backlink on the page. A 99% link dilution means you are one of 99 other backlinks.
Click to expand...
You assume the page has 100 links.

With that, I'd say the best practice as of now is to diversify. Links from tier 4 may not have enough power to send to my money site, but they have enough to tier 3 and very tiny amount to tier 2. A bunch of those add up. At least Google would think tier 3 pages are of higher value because of those extra links so they are not thrown out of the index.

We're trying to cover footprints. Randomness count, even if little juice passes in between.
 
Advertise on BHW
honestly, many tiered linking has it's points

1. it launders "dirty links"
2. it enables you to fully dominate page 1 for the right terms
(i have clients that have 7 of the 10 spots on page 1, 1 being their site, 5 being tier1 and the other being a tier 2)
other than the 3 that are a fortune 50 company, amazon (listing their product) and wikipedia, you have to go to page 3 to find a site they do not own

that is DOMINATION
you can't do that with just tier 1 and 2

bear in mind, this is for over 50 keywords that each get over 300 exact match searches per month
(and a few that get over 1,000)
it's in the Tech industry
newegg and toms hardware are both on page 3 for this (behind my client)
 
Last edited:
BLIXX said:
There are 2 different, but related, forms of link juice; direct and indirect.
Click to expand...
Wrong, and you don't know what you are talking about. You've made this all up in your head, and it's wrong.

Nigel Farage said:
...the semantics of the post imply that "indirect link juice" has a special quality that is separate and distinct from "direct link juice" ...it's just a way of hooking a reader into believing that they are reading something new and different instead of the same old information spun into a different form in order to create the illusion of "special expertise" by the person using it.
Click to expand...

BLIXX said:
One can call them whatever one wants to...
Click to expand...

No, they can't. There is a right way and a wrong way. Your way is wrong. The notion that there is "indirect link juice" is a concept you have made up in order to verbally validate your flawed understanding of link juice. Which is fine. You are welcome to be as wrong as you like in your own mind. My concern is that if someone doesn't call you on exactly how wrong you are, and why you are wrong (with the implication that you will probably continue to be wrong into the future), someone that knows less than you and/or cannot recognize what it looks like when someone is blindly, deliberately and/or persistently being wrong might believe what you've said, which would also make them wrong.

I'm just trying to prevent your wrongness from infecting the rest of the population, is all.
 
nigel, he's actually somewhat correct

my source for this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

this is the algorithm for link strength passing
although it has been modified quite a bit over the years, it still stands
please....everyone, before you take part in this discussion
READ THIS, or if you don't trust wikipedia
here are the relevant patents in the us patent database
Code: 
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,285,999.PN.&OS=PN/6,285,999&RS=PN/6,285,999

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,799,176.PN.&OS=PN/6,799,176&RS=PN/6,799,176

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,058,628.PN.&OS=pn/7,058,628&RS=PN/7,058,628

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,269,587.PN.&OS=pn/7,269,587&RS=PN/7,269,587
 
Nigel Farage said:
Wrong, and you don't know what you are talking about. You've made this all up in your head, and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to inform my bank account.

No, they can't. There is a right way and a wrong way. Your way is wrong.
Click to expand...

There are multiple ways to describe how link tiering works that all lead back to why one ought to do it.

The notion that there is "indirect link juice" is a concept you have made up in order to verbally validate your flawed understanding of link juice. Which is fine. You are welcome to be as wrong as you like in your own mind. My concern is that if someone doesn't call you on exactly how wrong you are, and why you are wrong (with the implication that you will probably continue to be wrong into the future), someone that knows less than you and/or cannot recognize what it looks like when someone is blindly, deliberately and/or persistently being wrong might believe what you've said, which would also make them wrong.

I'm just trying to prevent your wrongness from infecting the rest of the population, is all.
Click to expand...

You seem like an unnecessarily argumentative dood who gets really angry when people don't bend over backwards to acknowledge how smart you think you are. Not sure what to say... don't tier your links? It's not clear what it is you're arguing against.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not you like how I've described the benefits, hows and whys of link tiering, you've somehow managed to miss the point twice now and have also managed twice to add nothing of value to the thread aside from a bunch of pseudo-intellectual word vomit. :D You've never even presented an argument; you simply decided to attack one I never made, and (for a reason I know not what) are continuing to nit-pick at that. It's perfectly fine to describe some link juice as direct and some link juice as indirect when describing the benefits of link tiering; so long as it is self-consistent within the description and assists people in understanding the benefits of tiering, which the cooler cucumbers of the thread all agree are indeed there.

I know your type (you're always on forums :D), so this is the part where you tell me I'm just not intellectually equipped to "get it". Which I'll also be sure to forward on to my bank account that is the direct result of my incorrect understanding of link tiering, given that inccorect understanding almost invariably results in incorrect application.
 
kityuen123 said:
OP,

Some guys here suggest using some Document submission site like powerpoint and pdf as their tier one, what do you think about it? Does the link juice pass these backlinks?
Click to expand...

Hey man, thanks for posting!

I don't use this strategy and none of my close SEO friends have mentioned using this either. So I can't really say whether it's effective. Please send me a few examples of these backlinks and I can give you my opinion.

Thanks!

-Nick
 
Strongly disagree with some of the things posted;the most with the "Common Mistakes to avoid in Tiered Linking"!
 
Last edited:
Nigel Farage said:

One thing that no one has mentioned is that spamming your money site risks deindexing. Having nothing but undiluted links feeding juice to your money site looks unnatural, and Google wields a mighty ban hammer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting Nigel!

Yes, this is what I was discussing under the concept of "Backlink Funneling". The problem is that there's really no solid evidence that building low-quality backlinks to your homepage risks de-indexing.

If getting de-indexed was as simple as building 50-100k low-quality backlinks to a website, then you could de-index your competitors for under $100. There's a reason why no one offers that service, and it's because at worst you'll sandbox your competitor (this is rare and would usually only happen if the site was pretty new and had little backlinks), and after the sandbox wears off your competitor would be ranking stronger, probably outranking you. And then you've just built your competitor 100k free backlinks :).
 
volund said:
80% link dilution. 2 links to money site, 8 other internal links. REALLY 2 OBL's and 8 internal links is going to make each link worth 80% less than if there was just 1 OBL??? Seriously? Even a small amount of testing would show that it not even close to being true.

92% link dilution. 2 links to money site, 24 other internal links. Same thing here 2 OBL's and 24 internal links and 92% of the link value is lost??? Again are you really seriously saying this is true??

70% link dilution. 5 links to money sites, 12 other internal links. Just one more example of you pulling numbers out of your ass.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what i'm saying. Read a few Google whitepapers on how link value is transferred, it'll help make sense of these numbers.

Tier 1 properties are still great backlinks and building Tier 2 backlinks is still a good idea. The Tier 1 properties also benefit from the website's link dilution. Meaning that your Tier 1 Property is receiving link juice from the rest of the website. This is the reason why Tier 1 properties are valuable links.

Link dilution starts to work against you when you are building way too many Tier 2 Backlinks, or high-quality Tier 2 Backlinks (just build them direct to your money site), or when you start building past Tier 2.

Link dilution is a fundamental part of SEO. Why do you think a Wikipedia page can have little backlinks and still outrank you? Hint: It's not because Google manually flipped a switch so that Wikipedia ranks well. It's because Wikipedia has an amazing internal link structure that uses link dilution to it's advantage. All the backlink juice Wikipedia receives is diluted throughout the website so that even a newly created page can start to rank for competitive terms. This is exactly why Eli from BlueHat SEO, one of the most respected SEO's, recommends to turn a competing Wikipedia page into an orphan page, so that you minimize the benefit of link dilution to the page.
 
monk13 said:
nigel, he's actually somewhat correct

my source for this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

this is the algorithm for link strength passing
although it has been modified quite a bit over the years, it still stands
please....everyone, before you take part in this discussion
READ THIS, or if you don't trust wikipedia
here are the relevant patents in the us patent database
Code: 
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,285,999.PN.&OS=PN/6,285,999&RS=PN/6,285,999

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,799,176.PN.&OS=PN/6,799,176&RS=PN/6,799,176

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,058,628.PN.&OS=pn/7,058,628&RS=PN/7,058,628

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,269,587.PN.&OS=pn/7,269,587&RS=PN/7,269,587
Click to expand...

This is very useful information that everyone should read it, especially if you don't understand what I mean by link dilution. I particularly like this post: http://www.sirgroane.net/google-page-rank/, because it explains very simply the fundamentals of how link value is transferred. You can look at some examples and see why link dilution is such an important concept to understand when building your website as well as building backlinks.
 
I think the most important take-away from the thread, and as it is with anything on the internet, is to never take anything anyone says at face value. Aside from the fact that anyone anywhere can get on the internet and say anything they want to whenever they want to, I'm pretty sure most people would be surprised about the magnitude of intentional disinformation that's on the web as concerns SEO. As monk13 has done, we all should always try to find sources for the assertions we read online, make our own deductions, then do our own testing.

OP has certainly clarified some things with further posts (thank you!:)). I would like to emphasize one of the points I was trying to make, though, because it could be clearer: tiering one's backlinks is important and beneficial for the same reason why it's important and beneficial to have a relevant PR6 backlink from an authority and trusted site pointing to a money page. If, for example, one has a Wordpress blog that one takes the time and energy (and perhaps cost) to build up to a trusted and authority property, and that Wordpress blog is linking to one's money site for a targeted keyword, you're going to get a lot of mileage out of that link. Aside from content, the only way to make that blog authoritative is with backlinks that are themselves authoritative and as relevant as they can be (i.e. 'quality'). It therefore follows, in this example at least, that link dilution would be a misapplied SEO principle, as the objective is not to pass Tier 2 juice 'directly' to the money site, but to the Tier 1 property so as to increase the value of the link on it. Ultimately, this is why most SEOs believe it beneficial in alot of circumstances to even tier their tiers.
 
Diversity is a huge thing with SEO. Try to avoid using tools like: Xrummer, Senuke-X, AMR and other crappy tools.
 
Great post. I like to build manually build high PR comment links to my second tier properties which are usually controlled by me with less than 2 OBL. This helps with ranking my teir 1 sites for long tail keywords.
 
Falian said:
It's not because Google manually flipped a switch so that Wikipedia ranks well.
Click to expand...

But in fact Google DOES "flip a switch" and articles in Wikipedia rank well. Google has admitted that they "cook" the results when the algorithm fails to produce what they want. There's an entire list of sites that get artificial assistance from Google outside the algorithm.

And previous comments regarding the significance of PageRank are over-stated. Since Panda it is only one of 200 different factors taken into account. I'd also like to restate the point that there are only 20 hits on a Google search of "indirect link juice". NO blog comments, SEOMoz, none of the SEO "heavy hitters" have mentioned this concept. The fact that a con-man's bank account has money in it is proof only that his lies are persuasive, not that they are true.
 
you are correct nigel, in so much that pagerank is no longer the end all be all of link building
authority is much more important than pagerank
it seems that with the more recent updates google has made, if your authority is low, but your pagerank is high it's a red flag

think about it, you won't find a section of wikipedia or cnn that has low authority and high pagerank

and yes, google has said they provide special status to wikipedia and a few other sites as well

as much as i'd love to go along with op's concept of "only build 1 tier away from your main site"
i can't let myself knowingly disseminate false information
(i'd love to spread it because it would make competing against others so much easier, but can't let myself do it, it's just wrong to knowingly misinform others)

there are several network architectures that are vastly superior to what falian is espousing
oldenstylehats went into great detail about them here
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...8010-how-good-linking-strategy-blog-farm.html
not the op of the thread, but oldenstylehats , his posts here are amazingly helpful
screw your pyramids, wheels, and scattershot
build a REAL powerful, STEALTH structure
use the info there and come up with a solid idea

this is the closest i'll ever come to revealing my interlinking concepts
 
monk13 said:
oldenstylehats went into great detail about them here
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/38010-how-good-linking-strategy-blog-farm.html
not the op of the thread, but oldenstylehats , his posts here are amazingly helpful
screw your pyramids, wheels, and scattershot
build a REAL powerful, STEALTH structure
use the info there and come up with a solid idea
Click to expand...

That thread is from 2008 and I find it difficult to believe that there is anything in that thread that is going to be useful today, except as a historical perspective on "how things used to be".
The OP's diagram has the loop closing back onto itself and that invalidates the juice of the entire structure. This is why link wheels are no longer useful, and the current architecture is a pyramid.
And, I don't want to create any conflict, etc... but "oldstylehats" avatar has some text in it that refers to what appears to be a friendly relationship with another BHW member that has a shitlist thread on them for non-payment to a very reputable member here on BHW.

Given that some Members here sell bullshit to newbs that do not know any better, and blackhats frequently run multiple accounts behind proxies and VPS, I look with great suspicion at a lot of this dated, obsolete and just plain wrong information posted by new members that do not appear to be here to learn, but instead seem doggedly determined to appear that they know something despite the fact that they are clearly and obviously wrong, and have been informed of this condition.
 
Nigel Farage said:
But in fact Google DOES "flip a switch" and articles in Wikipedia rank well. Google has admitted that they "cook" the results when the algorithm fails to produce what they want. There's an entire list of sites that get artificial assistance from Google outside the algorithm.
Click to expand...

Haha, well that may be a bad example then. Do you mind linking me to the list of sites that get artificial assistance from Google?

Nigel Farage said:
And previous comments regarding the significance of PageRank are over-stated. Since Panda it is only one of 200 different factors taken into account. I'd also like to restate the point that there are only 20 hits on a Google search of "indirect link juice". NO blog comments, SEOMoz, none of the SEO "heavy hitters" have mentioned this concept. The fact that a con-man's bank account has money in it is proof only that his lies are persuasive, not that they are true.
Click to expand...

Panda only impacts ON-PAGE SEO and Website Quality. It has nothing to do with how link juice is transferred. The focus of this article is on link juice transfer and link dilution, so the whitepapers on PR are very applicable.

As far as "indirect link juice", I don't use that term. I think link juice is spread evenly between all pages, internal and external.
 
Crewchief007 said:
Learn this point friend: SEO is an art and not a science.
Click to expand...

No, I 'm sorry, it 's 0% art and 100% science.

A key difference between art and science is the classification criteria. For example, a piece of art may look like junk to me but could rank #1 amongst others. No universal criterion. My opinion is not wrong or right, and the same goes about theirs.

On the other hand, ranking is purely deterministic. Your target site is either on #1 or it isn't and no one can dispute it. There is an algorithm that decides what ranks where. Sure, it 's a complex one but there 's no magic in it. The only "magic" is that it is a blackbox to us who do not know it. Because we do not know the algorithm in its entirety, we test different methods. Since the algorithm is very complex, there are many paths to achieving victory. That creates the illusion of "art". But it 's simply an illusion since the judge is fully deterministic.
 
During link building i just think that Links are links. If you waste time in finding the quality or some other process then you are just wasting your time. Instead of doing this you should just continue building links to your website. that's the main thing.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top