Interesting how people actually buy at those prices, not trying to flame or anything but a PBN would be a better choice at those rates tbh. I'd pay no more than 10$ per web2.0 unless it was massive.
You can set up a PBN @ 15$ per domain for the first month and only 1-5$ per month (per domain) for the following months while having total control, making sure no one can delete your domain (which can happen in web2.0's) and I'd say the links are naturally worth more than links from web2.0's
I agree with that, but, to play Devil's Advocate, I think the
lack of control over a Web 2.0 is in many ways a feature, not a bug. Any idiot can fill a domain with piles of spam and even malware. You can't do that on a Web 2.0 because, post-Panda, the host will terminate your account. Thus, there's a limit on the volume and nature of spam that will be found on a ________.tumblr.com site. (We all know exceptions, but I'm talking big picture, you can't say Tumblr is a dump for spam content.) I think Google knows that and rewards it accordingly. I've tested Web 2.0s versus PBNs and often Web 2.0s came out on top. I think that, the more prone a Web 2.0 is to terminate your account, the
better it is for SEO purposes.
Consider the number of indexed pages:
- LinkedIn: About 123,000,000
- Wikipedia: About 122,000,000
- Wordpress: About 117,000,000
- Blogspot: About 98,100,000
- Weebly: About 52,400,000
- Tumblr: About 46,100,000
Pretty impressive for a site that's mostly pictures. Many folks here will disagree (for good reason) and say PBNs are way better, I'm just giving my $0.02.
Back to OP,
@bluecoder , if I were you I'd register the good ones and sell them. I just bought some from
@Nargil earlier this week, at prices that
@spectrejoe thinks are a rip-off.
Hell, send me a list of your best, I'll check them out and buy some.
