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

Isn't blasting web2.0 sites rather than your money site a waste of time/detrimental?

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by Ranko Jones, Apr 6, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ranko Jones

    Ranko Jones BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    146
    I know the main idea is to avoid get penalties on money site for buffer purposes but aren't you just creating traffic/backlinks for the web2.0 places rather than your own thus wasting time with the backlinking?

    And worse won't these sites be ranking above your own for the same keywords if you were using the same ones in the serps?

    I am reading http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo-tools/175845-scrapebox-best-practices-enough-enough-3.html (near end of page 2 I think the relevant posts are) thread and a few people have raised the issue which is what drew me to write a thread about it and noone seems to have answered it conclusively there thusfar.

    So what's the deal?

    Won't you just be boosting the web2.0's up- I don't see how the linkjuice would pass over to your money site?
     
  2. Blaatje

    Blaatje Power Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    NL
    The linkjuice you receive from backlinks to your web 2.0 should flow on(assuming web 2.0 = do-f0ll0w) to your money site, which should result in higher SERP.
     
  3. dannyhw

    dannyhw Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    980
    Likes Received:
    462
    Occupation:
    Software Engineer
    Location:
    New York City Burbs
    It's better to have your buffer sites rank above you than to not be ranked at all, or to blast directly and get sandboxed.
     
  4. adbot

    adbot Power Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    541
    Occupation:
    IM
    Location:
    New York
    links dont necessarily mean traffic and the idea is not to rank your 2.0 site for your keywords. Its all about the link juice. you want your links to the money site to be from as relevant sites as you can and very targeted anchor text. It really doesn't matter what you throw at the 2.0 sites, just blast them with whatever.

    Think about how many times you see a high pr site being outranked by a pr zero site. The high pr site has more backlinks, but they may not be targeted to that specific keyword. Same applies to the 2.0. Hope that made sense.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. Ranko Jones

    Ranko Jones BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    146

    Not too much tbh :D

    Well at least with the relevancy thing.

    So in one sense do we want to make the web2.0's close enough to our niche to be relevant but not so close as to use the same keywords to outrank our money site? Or by targeted would just having your keyword in the anchour text be enough?

    When you 'blast' the web 2.0 site, does it blast the whole site- i.e increase the whole of say squidoo's rank or just the specific page you are pointing the urls to? I.e. does the linkjuice boost up just for that page or does it get 'diluted' through the whole site?
     
  6. midnight_focus

    midnight_focus Power Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    480
    Location:
    blogger
    Why would you choose the same keywords for the web2.0? The idea is to make a web 2.0 relevant to your niche, there are 100s of keywords other than that used on your money site that are related to the niche
     
  7. pyronaut

    pyronaut Executive VIP

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    This is sort of where I used to take my thinking. I would create one landing page, and optimize it. Say back in the day, XBox 360 Red Ring Of Death for lack of a better keyword. So obviously my one page landing page can only be optimized for a couple of keywords (Since there is usually only going to be 1 h1 and 1 title tag).

    So what I would do from there, is build a ring of web 2.0 websites around it for similar keywords, but not the same keyword and try and get them ranking. If I got them ranking for "smaller" keywords that then fed onto my main one, it was a win win.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  8. Monrox

    Monrox Power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    579
    Ideally you own both the buffers and the money site (under different personalities of course). Then you can use web2s simply as a source by dropping a single link on each, just like any other site. But it gets complicated fast.

    So the web2.0 stuff is a good starting point for beginners and / or the poor man's choice as 100 satellites cost ~$1000 / year. And in some niches they are suitable for bringing direct traffic but these niches are pretty saturated already.

    When you have experience in staying undetected you are indeed likely to be wasting your time with them.
     
  9. J1218

    J1218 Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    401
    The whole idea is you're "powering up" the web 2.0 satellites so that the links from them carry more weight. Google likes to see stronger links pointing to your money sites, so if you make a Squidoo lens and get 1,000 links to it, and then that Squidoo lens is pointing to your money site with proper anchor text, Google will see that link as much more powerful than if it was a Squidoo lens with 0 links coming in.

    Now if you build 10 web 2.0 sites and link all of them to your money site, and blast each one with 1,000 links, now you have 10 very powerful links pointing to your site.

    It's also good for avoiding getting penalized. If you build a new site and throw 10k shitty, low quality links at it the first week, it will probably raise a red flag. The web 2.0 sites are much safer to blast though because they are aged and already have thousands of links pointing to them.

    The goal isn't to get the satellites ranking themselves, it's just to power them up so the links are worth more. So ideally you don't want to use the same anchor text you're trying to rank your money site for when you build links to the satellites. If you're doing blog comments for example, just use some fake name for the anchor text to the satellite. That way you know you won't be competing with yourself.
     
  10. clyde

    clyde Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    1,131
    FWIW, I only blast Web 2.0 to get them indexed.

    Nothing to do with "passing juice".
     
  11. J1218

    J1218 Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    401
    Blasting them does help with getting indexed too yes, but it also helps with passing link juice. 1 powerful link is much better than 100 shitty links, you should know that.
     
  12. Ranko Jones

    Ranko Jones BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    146
    Is there any proof that blasting the links will increase the juice of your bakclink to the money site?

    Like I asked before do the links count for that specific article of yours are are they just diluted through whatever web 2.0 site as a whole. If the latter I'm sure web 2.0 sites in question have many thousand backlinks already such that a couple of crappy scrapeblasters would make a negligible difference.
     
  13. J1218

    J1218 Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    401
    Well look at it this way: Why do you think getting a link from a high PR page is worth so much more than a link from a page with no PR? The high PR page got that way because of the authority of all the links coming into it. Therefore, those links are "powering up" the high PR page which then links to you and gives you a much more powerful link than the page with no PR and barely any incoming links.

    If you build links to the individual article on a web 2.0 site, then they count for that specific page. So if you make a Squidoo lens at Squidoo.com/yourarticle, and then you blast that exact page with links, they will funnel through that page and to your site, assuming it's do-follow.

    Web 2.0 sites do already have thousands of links pointing to them, but they are all spread across the many different pages. You need to just worry about getting links to the particular page that is linking to your site, because when you first build it, there will be no incoming links to it yet. The links aren't diluted because it's not like you're sending links straight to the Squidoo homepage and trying to funnel them through your article and then to your site.

    And at the very least, the links will help the satellite site get indexed. If it doesn't get indexed or crawled, the link is essentially worthless.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  14. socialmediaking

    socialmediaking Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    237
    Occupation:
    Making The World Mobile
    So are you saying to build the web 2.0 sites with links to our money site, but then to build backlinks to those web 2.0 sites. Would rss submitting do this? I use XgenSEO and it does this after it creates the social sites.
     
  15. J1218

    J1218 Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    401
    Yeah, always build links to your web 2.0 sites. I do social bookmarks, RSS submissions, and Scrapebox blasts usually. Also ping them, but you probably already knew that.
     
  16. allinet

    allinet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Computer and Laptop Service Specialist
    Location:
    Lockport, IL
    Home Page:
    Be careful with the money site. I really liked the advice given above by adbot.
    Also recommend no more than 2 links from a 2.0 to the money site. Link to other 2.0 sites you have with your long tails and each 2.0 linking to the money. Goes without saying to use the best on page SEO techniques. KW's in titles, anchor, content etc...
     
  17. LeopardSeal

    LeopardSeal Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    6
    Pretty much agree with this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.