How can ranked in top 10 without any blacklink?
- Thread starter kenkenms
- Start date
-
- Tags
- blacklinks rank
BLIXX
BANNED
- Mar 26, 2012
- 390
- 505
They're either enjoying the Google honeymoon (if new), their links have yet to be acknowledged by your tool of choice; or, they have links on smart(er) blog networks that have disallowed 3rd party crawlers (which means their links will never show up in SEO tools).
ija61
Senior Member
- Mar 2, 2011
- 976
- 644
Sorry but if I put a link on a website that doesn't allow bots to crawl it how G know that I have a link on that page and give me benefit for that?
knopper
Senior Member
- Dec 24, 2008
- 1,093
- 704
The private blog networks only block these search engine tools or sites not Google Bot.. (common sense)!
BLIXX
BANNED
- Mar 26, 2012
- 390
- 505
One can set different rules for different bots via ones robots.txt file. Allowing Googlebot only, for example.
SEOSupport
BANNED
- Apr 9, 2012
- 166
- 115
It's common to see site's do this. Normally what's happening is a basic 301 redirect, whereas they simply redirect a spam or penalized site, to their new/rebranded site, flowing all link juice to the newly launched site. A new site will normally rank better too, due to the owner not having had time to spam the hell out of it, and use stupid strategies...
Nothing more. It's a greyhat technique and works very very well....
hope this helps a little bit! Goodluck along your awesome journey!
Nothing more. It's a greyhat technique and works very very well....
hope this helps a little bit! Goodluck along your awesome journey!
BLIXX
BANNED
- Mar 26, 2012
- 390
- 505
1.) One does not redirect "sites." One redirects domains.
2.) 301 Redirecting a penalised domain passes link juice, yes, including link-based penalties.
3.) Redirects show in SEO tools under normal circumstances.
It's an ignorant 'technique' is what it is.
You ought to change your username, Friendo.
SEOSupport
BANNED
- Apr 9, 2012
- 166
- 115
1.) One does not redirect "sites." One redirects domains. Really?
2.) 2.) 301 Redirecting a penalised domain passes link juice, yes, including link-based penalties. No penalties are passed. Who taught you this? I've personally performed many case studies that prove otherwise.
3.) Redirects show in SEO tools under normal circumstances. And?
I completely agree, although unlike you I came to this thread to provide some insight for the OP.
Why did you come here -- to troll?I'm not your friend and no thanks mate!
This isn't my thread and I don't flame other peoples, so please quit trolling the forum, looking for fights, and speaking foolish, non-helpful b.s. you only dream of becoming the amazing seo, that I've become. Jealousy is not going to help your business succeed, if you have questions, post a new thread.
thanks
OP: Sorry, I came here to help you. I won't post here again, as I see my information is not wanted.
Last edited:
BLIXX
BANNED
- Mar 26, 2012
- 390
- 505
"SeoSupport,"
I was the one who actually answered not only OP's question (accurately, I will add); but also answered a different, but related question by another poster (again, accurately) -- All inside of 6 total thread posts. Where I come from, we call that 'helpful.' Your response, on the other hand, was ignorant. Where it was not ignorant, it was applicably nebulous and was clearly intended to coax an authority of which you are not deserving.
1.) Yes, it is domains that are 301'd, not sites.
2.) The only way to avoid the eventual, sooner-or-later transfer of a link-based penalty on a domain is to perform an appropriate content transfer of the site to a different domain, not a page-by-page 301 redirect since this passes both positive and negative juice, including link-based penalties.
3.) OP's tools would indicate redirects were there any. He explicitly indicated that the site "had no backlinks". Your 301 theory is irrelevant, therefore.
Anyway, homeslice, it's nothing to go full ghey over. I highly doubt you're the first dood to get on the Internet and pretend that he's something he's not.
Now give us a kiss,
BLIXX
I was the one who actually answered not only OP's question (accurately, I will add); but also answered a different, but related question by another poster (again, accurately) -- All inside of 6 total thread posts. Where I come from, we call that 'helpful.' Your response, on the other hand, was ignorant. Where it was not ignorant, it was applicably nebulous and was clearly intended to coax an authority of which you are not deserving.
1.) Yes, it is domains that are 301'd, not sites.
2.) The only way to avoid the eventual, sooner-or-later transfer of a link-based penalty on a domain is to perform an appropriate content transfer of the site to a different domain, not a page-by-page 301 redirect since this passes both positive and negative juice, including link-based penalties.
3.) OP's tools would indicate redirects were there any. He explicitly indicated that the site "had no backlinks". Your 301 theory is irrelevant, therefore.
Anyway, homeslice, it's nothing to go full ghey over. I highly doubt you're the first dood to get on the Internet and pretend that he's something he's not.
Now give us a kiss,
BLIXX
WrightWilliams
Power Member
- Jan 3, 2012
- 540
- 198
1.) One does not redirect "sites." One redirects domains. Really?
2.) 2.) 301 Redirecting a penalised domain passes link juice, yes, including link-based penalties. No penalties are passed. Who taught you this? I've personally performed many case studies that prove otherwise.
3.) Redirects show in SEO tools under normal circumstances. And?
I completely agree, although unlike you I came to this thread to provide some insight for the OP.
I'm not your friend and no thanks mate!
This isn't my thread and I don't flame other peoples, so please quit trolling the forum, looking for fights, and speaking foolish, non-helpful b.s. you only dream of becoming the amazing seo, that I've become. Jealousy is not going to help your business succeed, if you have questions, post a new thread.
thanks
OP: Sorry, I came here to help you. I won't post here again, as I see my information is not wanted.
SEOSupport complains about trolling in threads that he is trolling with fake/misleading information. Pot, Kettle, Black - dude.
I just briefly looked at this.
The domain's not new enough to be in the Google "Honeymoon". The keyword you're targeting is low competition, so my guess is that they are buying links from a blog network that blocks backlink-tracking bots.
The domain's not new enough to be in the Google "Honeymoon". The keyword you're targeting is low competition, so my guess is that they are buying links from a blog network that blocks backlink-tracking bots.
Last edited:
imperial444
Elite Member
- Jan 13, 2011
- 1,799
- 436
301 redirect - that's the only reason they still there and up. But you can track them, they won't be there for a long time, it's a fast paced way of rankings
WrightWilliams
Power Member
- Jan 3, 2012
- 540
- 198
There is no redirect here guys. The site is blocking 3rd party crawlers, like SEO Tools, so that only Google can read its backlinks. This is a simple thing to enable on a site so that your competitors do not know how you get your links. Have you tried searching for backlinks to that site using Google itself and not a third party tool?
WrightWilliams
Power Member
- Jan 3, 2012
- 540
- 198
As I suspected, a simple Google search for links pointing to, and within that domain shows it has a massive map of backlinks, including a shit ton of pages within its own site that are optimized for your keywords.
makeitrain85
Regular Member
- Nov 4, 2009
- 237
- 28
lol, please go back to WF.
utterlyadrift25
Junior Member
- May 13, 2010
- 138
- 110
@william
Yes you are right in that you can "disallow" specific crawlers in a robots.txt file but you are wrong in this case because the crawlers could crawl the sites that are linking to the site in question, which means the 'software' would still register links.
Could just be a case of site too small/too new to have been crawled. Could also be super low competition for the keyword. But William has already seen that the site has a shit load of links.
Yes you are right in that you can "disallow" specific crawlers in a robots.txt file but you are wrong in this case because the crawlers could crawl the sites that are linking to the site in question, which means the 'software' would still register links.
Could just be a case of site too small/too new to have been crawled. Could also be super low competition for the keyword. But William has already seen that the site has a shit load of links.