Hi Everyone!
I only just got up and saw quite a few questions. I'll get onto answering them in a bit.
Time for a coffee and a ciggarette first though!
Ye totally, keep the anchors nice and low. I don't go above 10% and even that I consider high these days!
Build the links as fast as you can, and don't stop at 250,000 either just throw everything you can at it!
I couldn't care less about platforms, I click the lot and crank my VPS's and PC's in the house up to 10!
![]()
Nice thread. But personally speaking, I would never do churn and burn for a lead gen site.
I build out huge sites, 300-500 pages big. I fill them with tons of deeply spun, geotargeted content and silo everything neatly.
Then I slowly drip feed network links and usually within 2-3 months they will hit #1.
The one thing I have found from my testing... it is VERY DIFFICULT to hit the #1 spot with a thin site. I've used new domains, aged domains, and I have GSA
on a dedi server churning out 1-3 million links a day. Like your own case study, you didn't even hit the top 3. No offense, but that's where all the action is at. And
if you're going to put the work in.... you might as well do it proper.
You basically cracked #4 just to bounce back to #8. And I don't mean to sound cocky, but I don't see you cracking the top 3 no matter how many crap links
you spam.
I have sites ranking #1 some for 16 months now. The leads just flow in. No headaches. No redirecting. None of the bs.
I forward all the leads to a broker and we collect commissions on sold jobs. If a job sells for $25,000, we get 6-14% depending on the margins.
Also, I'm a bit lost at you're whole redirecting strategy. If you keep redirecting sites the penalty is just going to follow you. It's inescapable and not worth the time.
My only point is, if you really want to make it big in lead gen, do it proper.
Do big sites like the big boys. Use network links and hide those bitches from your competitors. This way your sites last years and years.
Actually, nevermind. I feel like I'm comparing e-penis's here and don't want to take away from the OP's thread.
I'm going to do my own write up on this topic in a couple of days.![]()
Nice thread. But personally speaking, I would never do churn and burn for a lead gen site.
I build out huge sites, 300-500 pages big. I fill them with tons of deeply spun, geotargeted content and silo everything neatly.
Then I slowly drip feed network links and usually within 2-3 months they will hit #1.
The one thing I have found from my testing... it is VERY DIFFICULT to hit the #1 spot with a thin site. I've used new domains, aged domains, and I have GSA
on a dedi server churning out 1-3 million links a day. Like your own case study, you didn't even hit the top 3. No offense, but that's where all the action is at. And
if you're going to put the work in.... you might as well do it proper.
You basically cracked #4 just to bounce back to #8. And I don't mean to sound cocky, but I don't see you cracking the top 3 no matter how many crap links
you spam.
I have sites ranking #1 some for 16 months now. The leads just flow in. No headaches. No redirecting. None of the bs.
I forward all the leads to a broker and we collect commissions on sold jobs. If a job sells for $25,000, we get 6-14% depending on the margins.
Also, I'm a bit lost at you're whole redirecting strategy. If you keep redirecting sites the penalty is just going to follow you. It's inescapable and not worth the time.
My only point is, if you really want to make it big in lead gen, do it proper.
Do big sites like the big boys. Use network links and hide those bitches from your competitors. This way your sites last years and years.
Actually, nevermind. I feel like I'm comparing e-penis's here and don't want to take away from the OP's thread.
I'm going to do my own write up on this topic in a couple of days.![]()
i'm glad this works for you, but this seems a bit overkill to me..
first off, the structure:
spam -> domain c -> domain b -> $ site
i suppose the purpose of this is like a "PR laundering" filter? i always thought that redirects do filter link juice by default. maybe you've tested this against the new update, where we now need to filter through 2 redirects? please elaborate.
and do you point domain b to a random site like wikipedia? i get how domain c won't be indexed because it's 301'd to domain b. but now domain b is "naked" so to speak and vulnerable to being indexed. unless you 301 it to youtube/wikipedia/*insert random authority site* before you redirect it to $site. or maybe you 301 the whole lot right from the start?
i have quite a few twists in mind depending on your feedback re the 301s acting as filters. if 2 301s=link juice purifier, we're in for a world of rank n bank.
anyway thanks for posting this up. i love case studies!
- Put this domain within it's own hosting account.
- Add a robots.txt file.
- Disallow everything.
- Wait till the domain is completely deranked on Google.
Feels like 2011 again! Great share OP. Can't believe the 301 is still effective. From your experience, is it just the homepage of the money site that ranks? How do the other pages do?
I believe the idea of using Domain C is a safety measure. I think it safeguards against domain B getting exposed and then you have to keep buying aged, authoritative domains. Just any old brand new domain.Why two domains with 301 redirect? Is it not enough only domain A and domain B, and then blast domain B?