[Method] Let's talk about Web2.0 - Rank Number 1 With Buffer Sites!

Ghoast · Mar 22, 2012

Here's the lowdown on Web2.0 if you didn't already know:

One factor of ranking your page on Google are backlinks.

Millions of spam backlinks from Xrumer and Scrapebox won't rank your new sites any more 90% of the time.

So what we have to do is create a layer of 'buffer' sites. These are mostly blogs and web2.0 which we create decent content on and then contextually link to our money site..

We need to build lots and lots of links to the web2.0s so that these sites become 'relevant' in the eyes of google and can pass on link 'juice' to our money sites..

So how do we do this?

Here's how I want this to work, I'm going to write my method and then I want to hear yours:

I like to backlink these sites either using articles in article directories or another layer of Web2.0

Then I find that it's safe to get out the spam software (Xrumer and Scrapebox) and start to build thousands of links to this second tier and then create a possible 3 more tiers made up of Xrumer, Bookmarking and Scrapebox

MONEY SITE
^^^^^^^
Web2.0 Buffers
^^^^^^^
More Web2.0 or Articles
^^^^^^^
Forum Profile Links
^^^^^^^
Social Bookmarks
^^^^^^^
Blog Post Comments
^^^^^^^
INDEX BOTTOM LAYER

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to hear your methods and ideas/info on Web2.0..

Let us know:

How many you create
How much content you put on each
Where you get the content from (spun/unique)
How you link to your web2.0
How many more tiers you put below your web2.0
How you link to your money site (anchor text diversity)
The type of tiers you add below your web2.0 (blog comments/forum profiles etc)

Hopefully we can have an awesome discussion and all learn something. At the moment there is too much speculation going on around web2.0 and buffer sites

- Let's try and end the guessing game and put together a good resoucrce on exactly how to rank sites using primarily Web2.0 buffer sites - it's totally possible, now let's put all our experience together and produce a definitive guide!

brutang · Mar 22, 2012

I like to create 1 web2.0 across a ton of different sites. I'll add the list below, I've had links live on them for 8 months now.

1. 1 per domain per niche for money site, then 3-5 per mini promo site I own.
2. One 500-1500 word article.. good quality, unique.
3. Unique, odesk or write it myself/outsource.
4. I wait at LEAST 2 months before I link my 2.0 to my site. I also wait 5-6 weeks before I touch my 2.0s with a single backlink.
5. 1-2
6. Depends - sometimes primary anchor, sometimes raw URL as anchor.
7. Bookmarks, Angela/Paul, private blog network (aln), Senuke etc. Toss these in an indexing service like Xindexer which is kinda like a private blog network for yer backlinks.

I do this in many tiers. For example, for my main money site I have this whole setup ending up at my money site. Then I own quite a few promotional, aged PR domains that I simply use as a money site, but instead of affiliate
links and whatnot I link to my real money site and repeat the whole process for each. They rank well

Some 2.0s

http://wordpress.com
http://tumblr.com
http://blogger.com
http://weebly.com
http://squidoo.com
http://jimdo.com
http://posterous.com
http://blog.com
http://hubpages.com
http://livejournal.com
http://insanejournal.com
http://hpage.com
http://devhub.com
http://blogster.com
http://webspawner.com
http://webstarts.com
http://snappages.com
http://wikispaces.com
http://edublogs.org
http://wikidot.com
http://webs.com
http://webnode.com
http://multiply.com
http://yola.com
http://fc2.com
http://www.lifeyo.com
http://www.webgarden.com/
http://www.nabble.com
http://www.spruz.com/
http://www.myblogsite.com/
http://www.ideamarketers.com/
http://articlefield.com/
http://www.pen.io
http://www.edicy.com/
https://wetpaint.com
http://www.blurty.com/
http://www.lookuppage.com/
http://help.com
http://independent.academia.edu/

veheme · Mar 22, 2012

"lots and lots of links to the web2.0s"

Not necessarily.

The tier 1 which is composed of the web 2.0's do not have to be lots and lots. Web 2.0's in itself is weak since the new page/account you have created will have minimal link juice coming to it from the domain name. More link juiceif it is websitename.com/youraccount and no link (or minimal) juice if youraccount.websitename.com.

When it comes to web 2.0's, you should take care of them like how you take care of own sites which are used for paid link/spam. You want them to give off good juice to your money site? Build links to them. Without this, your web 2.0's would probably be the same, or a little bit superior to the PR0 article directories with contextual backlinks.

In my case, my tier 1 would be 2.0's while the tier 2 of article directories would point to the money site + the tier 1. High quality bookmarks would also be pointed to all of them.

If you have noticed this, I did not put in spam links (blog comments, profile links, xrummer/scrapebox blasts) because I always lean on quality more than quantity. Moving ahead, this is the pattern I want to do and how to rank sites especially with the awesome results I am seeing.

florflor · Mar 22, 2012

Who knows, Google could slap these next.

After all, how many real sites have a ton of Web 2.0s pointing towards them? Not many.

94726 · Mar 22, 2012

florflor said:
Who knows, Google could slap these next.

After all, how many real sites have a ton of Web 2.0s pointing towards them? Not many.

Probably more 2.0s than profile links or blog comments.

2.0s are kind of a fail safe.

veheme · Mar 22, 2012

florflor said:
Who knows, Google could slap these next.

After all, how many real sites have a ton of Web 2.0s pointing towards them? Not many.

Google doesn't have to. The domain owners themselves are slapping accounts here and there. They also have their own measures to check if the account is meant for spam or not.

acotut · Mar 22, 2012

veheme said:
Google doesn't have to. The domain owners themselves are slapping accounts here and there. They also have their own measures to check if the account is meant for spam or not.

Indeed,if a web2.0 will be hit hard by spammers,it will simply be devaluated from google

florflor · Mar 22, 2012

Impulse said:
Probably more 2.0s than profile links or blog comments.

2.0s are kind of a fail safe.

All those methods suck.

I think it's a matter of time before Google devalues even more.

Next time they won't just devalue the links, they'll look for a footprint and then deindex the site.

What kind of legit sites have tons of web2, blog comments and profile links? None.

I would use web2 for their traffic value and diversification over hundreds of accounts rather than for SEO backlink value. But that's just me.

BombaRuLz · Mar 22, 2012

Here is my strategy:

Money site
^^^^
Web 2.0 blogs each with 3 spinned articles (from 30 to 40 blogs). The articles are 90% unique but are not readable. They have no grammar mistakes and i make sure they have my keywords in it (2.5% density, 500+ words). I uploaded images and put some videos on all of them (it's very important). The images are optimized, with changed file name and dimensions (if you don't change them google will see it as duplicate)
^^^^
High PR Web profiles, Article Directories and Social bookmarks pointing to the web 2.0 blogs. Used fiverr for this, great results.
^^^^
Forum Profiles pointing to Web profiles and social bookmarks. Xrumer gigs.
^^^^
Scrapebox blast on everything except the money site. 400,000 successful Unchecked = probably 50k live links, don't know for sure.
^^^^
Combine all backlinks and go on bulkping.com. Make mass ping and i make rss feed containing all backlinks. I put that .xml rss feed in the menu "ping" where there is an option "ping every third day of the month".

= Awesome results.

I tested this on 30k exact monthly searches and with single pyramid like this i went on second page and after 1 week i'm on 3rd page (before the blast it was dancing, usually it was 100-200 place).

OldSalt · Mar 22, 2012

florflor said:
All those methods suck.

I think it's a matter of time before Google devalues even more.

Next time they won't just devalue the links, they'll look for a footprint and then deindex the site.

What kind of legit sites have tons of web2, blog comments and profile links? None.

I would use web2 for their traffic value and diversification over hundreds of accounts rather than for SEO backlink value. But that's just me.

If you're using multiple Web 2.0s, how would google see a 'footprint'? Even if we didn't use proxies or multiple email accounts, it's not like G could tell which IP or email address was used to create them.

ContentCreation · Mar 22, 2012

florflor said:
All those methods suck.

I think it's a matter of time before Google devalues even more.

Next time they won't just devalue the links, they'll look for a footprint and then deindex the site.

What kind of legit sites have tons of web2, blog comments and profile links? None.

I would use web2 for their traffic value and diversification over hundreds of accounts rather than for SEO backlink value. But that's just me.

What kind of links do these 'legit sites' have then?

florflor · Mar 22, 2012

OldSalt said:
If you're using multiple Web 2.0s, how would google see a 'footprint'? Even if we didn't use proxies or multiple email accounts, it's not like G could tell which IP or email address was used to create them.

No I mean for backlinking. Many web2s pointing to a site does not look natural. Google couldnt' care less how the accounts were created.

These methods are all good but I would never build an authority site with them.

crazedspyker · Mar 23, 2012

florflor said:
No I mean for backlinking. Many web2s pointing to a site does not look natural. Google couldnt' care less how the accounts were created.

These methods are all good but I would never build an authority site with them.

what would you build them with then? It's nice to offer an alternative if you're going to bash the OP's method. Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

veheme · Mar 23, 2012

florflor said:
Many web2s pointing to a site does not look natural. Google couldnt' care less how the accounts were created.

These methods are all good but I would never build an authority site with them.

Case studies? Proofs? Legit data?

So if I have many web 2.0's pointing to my site, it would not look natural? If there are many, many web 2.0's that are pointing to Oprah's site, it does not look natural?

I don't think Google is that stupid to simply penalize sites since they have many web 2.0's pointing at them.

Ghoast · Mar 23, 2012

Nice to see people are already sharing methods - it's so interesting to see how individual's methods vary. We're all more or less doing the same thing and we're mostly seeing some great results. Thanks to everyone who contributed already!

@florflor - you can't just say, 'this method doesn't work' without telling us what does! Don't leave us in suspense! Tell us what the alternative/different method is - that's why we're here..

trevorhoang · Mar 23, 2012

i follow a method posted on this forum that uses badly unreadable spun content to be used for creating web2.0s. I have success with keeping these web20 alive for months now and i blast them all with SB for link juice.

lanbo · Mar 23, 2012

This method 100% works, I've been building a link wheel of web 2.0's then blasting them with hundreds of thousands of forum links:

Ghoast · Mar 23, 2012

lanbo said:
This method 100% works, I've been building a link wheel of web 2.0's then blasting them with hundreds of thousands of forum links:

That's another interesting question - wat are people's thoughts on interlinking web2.0 properties.. I've personally never wanted to do it because I think it leaves a massive footprint - I mean it's not really that natural to have all your backlinks associated with each other is it??

finerpleasures · Mar 23, 2012

Web 2.0's work, i've had site on page 5 on google jump to page 1 no 5 in 24 hrs. With web 2.0, o only add 1 link in the article and my anchor appear 50% of the time.

No pinging of any sort until the entire campaign is complete. Collect all spammy links and ping, add to rss submit. Wait.

elvis1973 · Mar 23, 2012

Ghoast said:
That's another interesting question - wat are people's thoughts on interlinking web2.0 properties.. I've personally never wanted to do it because I think it leaves a massive footprint - I mean it's not really that natural to have all your backlinks associated with each other is it??

agreed. the BST that is selling the weebly/tumblr interlinking service seems popular though, Im going to test it out on a site i have never done anything with.

[Method] Let's talk about Web2.0 - Rank Number 1 With Buffer Sites!

Power Member

Junior Member

Elite Member

Senior Member

BANNED

Elite Member

Elite Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Supreme Member

BANNED

Senior Member

Senior Member

Elite Member

Power Member

Power Member

Elite Member

Power Member

Regular Member

Power Member

Main Menu

Marketplace

Making Money

BlackHat World