• On Wednesday, 19th February between 10:00 and 11:00 UTC, the forum will go down for maintenance. Read More

PBN using for better link juice

Status
Not open for further replies.

askary

Power Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
516
Reaction score
124
If i have 5 money sites and 20 pbn, what variant will be better: link from each pbn to each moneysite, or divide into 5 groups and use 4 pbn for 1 moneysite?
 
All 20 sites pointing to the same 5 might be a footprint, someone will come and clear this up for you.

Anyway I know people us "buffer" sites so all their pbn sites are not directly linking to the money site.

You make a little web 2.0 pointing to your money site then you point some your pbn to that web 2.0 and pass the juice that way.
 
Your problem can be worked out mathematically.

Lets say each PBN site linking to a money site has an identical ranking power of 'Z', this will never be the case in the real world.

If all 20 sites were pointed at each money site, meaning they had 5 articles linking to 5 sites the ranking power delivered to each site would be:

20*(Z/5) = 4Z

If 5 sites had 1 article (and no other pages) linking to 1 money site (this doesn't happen in the real world but I'll get to that) the ranking power delivered would be

4*(Z) = 4Z

(edited)

On the surface it looks like both approaches are the same unfortunately this isn't the case. In the real world you pad out your PBN sites with filler articles and hopefully other outbound links to other sites to mask your intentions. This all detracts from your 4Z ranking power making it far less than 4Z. Therefore mathematically I would suggest using all 20 sites is the better approach in terms of ranking power. For the purposes of simplicity I've discounted any link juice degradation via internal links. The added advantage of using all 20 sites is that it overcomes any variations in the PBN sites themselves, if you were unfortunate enough to group together 5 weaker sites then that particular money site would suffer.

Another consideration is the footprint implications of linking to 5 identical sites from 20 sites. If anyone can see a flaw in my logic I'd be happy to hear it.
 
Last edited:
Your problem can be worked out mathematically.

Lets say each PBN site linking to a money site has an identical ranking power of 'Z', this will never be the case in the real world.

If all 20 sites were pointed at each money site, meaning they had 5 articles linking to 5 sites the ranking power delivered to each site would be:

20*(Z/5) = 4Z

If 5 sites had 1 article (and no other pages) linking to 1 money site (this doesn't happen in the real world but I'll get to that) the ranking power delivered would be

5*(Z) = 5Z

On the surface it looks like you would be better off using 5 sites to 1 money site but unfortunately this isn't the case. In the real world you pad out your PBN sites with filler articles and hopefully other outbound links to other sites to mask your intentions. This all detracts from your 5Z ranking power making it far less than 4Z. Therefore mathematically I would suggest using all 20 sites is the better approach in terms of ranking power. For the purposes of simplicity I've discounted any link juice degradation via internal links. The added advantage of using all 20 sites is that it overcomes any variations in the PBN sites themselves, if you were unfortunate enough to group together 5 weaker sites then that particular money site would suffer.

Another consideration is the footprint implications of linking to 5 identical sites from 20 sites. If anyone can see a flaw in my logic I'd be happy to hear it.

Let me guess, you went to college? :)
 
Your problem can be worked out mathematically.

Lets say each PBN site linking to a money site has an identical ranking power of 'Z', this will never be the case in the real world.

If all 20 sites were pointed at each money site, meaning they had 5 articles linking to 5 sites the ranking power delivered to each site would be:

20*(Z/5) = 4Z

If 5 sites had 1 article (and no other pages) linking to 1 money site (this doesn't happen in the real world but I'll get to that) the ranking power delivered would be

5*(Z) = 5Z

On the surface it looks like you would be better off using 5 sites to 1 money site but unfortunately this isn't the case. In the real world you pad out your PBN sites with filler articles and hopefully other outbound links to other sites to mask your intentions. This all detracts from your 5Z ranking power making it far less than 4Z. Therefore mathematically I would suggest using all 20 sites is the better approach in terms of ranking power. For the purposes of simplicity I've discounted any link juice degradation via internal links. The added advantage of using all 20 sites is that it overcomes any variations in the PBN sites themselves, if you were unfortunate enough to group together 5 weaker sites then that particular money site would suffer.

Another consideration is the footprint implications of linking to 5 identical sites from 20 sites. If anyone can see a flaw in my logic I'd be happy to hear it.

buddy, youve written so many words only to disgrace yourself?

just which better 20 to 5 or 4 to 1
 
buddy, youve written so many words only to disgrace yourself?

just which better 20 to 5 or 4 to 1

My god... what's up with these rude noobs?

OP - this guy spent time responding to you, in detail.

I suggest you check your attitude at the door, lest you get no more replies to your questions in future.
 
Randomize it. 10 of your PBN sites could link to 3 money sites, 12 could link to 3 money sites, 5 could link to all 5 money sites, etc. If you studies sets in school, you'd understand what I mean. Two sets can have the same elements (intersection of sets) but not all the elements of the universal set. In the same vein, 12 of your PBN sites could link to a few money sites but not all, and another 10...you get the idea.
 
buddy, youve written so many words only to disgrace yourself?

just which better 20 to 5 or 4 to 1

Before I answer your question AGAIN, I'd like to make a suggestion, although SEO is by no means 'rocket science' a certain level of literacy is required to get ahead, there are numerous sites on the internet that will help you with your inability to read...no such luck with your attitude though.

As I plainly said, based on my logic above "This all detracts from your 5Z ranking power making it far less than 4Z. Therefore mathematically I would suggest using all 20 sites is the better approach in terms of ranking power."

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
It depends on the niche you are in. If it is competitive enough, 4 pbn links will not give you a good increase in rankings. Personally, I use 20 PBN websites to link to 3-4 money websites. Than i build a new PBN and link it to another 3-4 money websites.
 
There'd be 4 pbn sites per money site not 5 :p

You're right! Good catch. It would therefore make the the second option even worse at 4Z (identical on the face of things), making 20 sites to all 5 the even better option for the other reasons discussed.
 
Randomize it. 10 of your PBN sites could link to 3 money sites, 12 could link to 3 money sites, 5 could link to all 5 money sites, etc. If you studies sets in school, you'd understand what I mean. Two sets can have the same elements (intersection of sets) but not all the elements of the universal set. In the same vein, 12 of your PBN sites could link to a few money sites but not all, and another 10...you get the idea.

oh my god, i just ask what is better for trust flow, not about your fantasia and assumtions, just divide or not divide. only abou my case above. do you really cant understand?
 
Last edited:
My god... what's up with these rude noobs?

OP - this guy spent time responding to you, in detail.

I suggest you check your attitude at the door, lest you get no more replies to your questions in future.

so f*ck away, and dont write in my topic, pappy. this guy wrote fully crap not about my topic
 
Before I answer your question AGAIN, I'd like to make a suggestion, although SEO is by no means 'rocket science' a certain level of literacy is required to get ahead, there are numerous sites on the internet that will help you with your inability to read...no such luck with your attitude though.

As I plainly said, based on my logic above "This all detracts from your 5Z ranking power making it far less than 4Z. Therefore mathematically I would suggest using all 20 sites is the better approach in terms of ranking power."

Good luck.

are you kidding me? where did you get your 5z? in each case 4 pbns link to moneysite on average
 
During Penguin 3.0 I was forced to restructure my network completely, in the past we functioned as a typical public blog network, eg linking to dozens and sometimes even 100's of different money sites from the same domain. This led to penalties, Google identified the PBN links as spam.

I took heavy measures by turning my network completely upside down, took a large part of the network down, started to use excerpts on homepages and archive pages to avoid having links to tons of irrelevant topics on the same page and what not.

However I took it to the extreme, I decided to delete almost every link I build and instead dedicate domains to clients, eg 2 rock solid PR4's and 3 PR3's per client, which costs me about $600 worth of domains per client (with a good number paying only $100-$130/month that was about the max I was able to afford) as I also need to make a profit. Either way most of the domains I could reuse so it's not like I had to pay it all from my pocket, but still it was a very expensive joke that cost me ten thousands of dollars (lost income + investments in more domains), but it was worth it.

The end result however:

- All or nearly all clients recovered, great
- All or nearly all clients ranked lower than before, not so great, ranking #12 instead of #8 sucks (though still much better than ranking at #35 of course)

Lesson learned

So I decided to make some changes...

I turned the dedicated PR3 domains (of which each client received three), into a 3 OBL network, eg linking to 3 clients per domain and I decided to give each client links from 9 shared domains instead of 3 dedicated domains.

Result: Everyone kept improving in rankings and has reached their old positions and is still climbing.

Next to follow are the PR4 domains, those are niched and will soon link out to multiple clients as well.

Conclusion:

It's a huge waste of a domains link juice to link out to only 1 website, you're loosing out on a ton of capability, don't trust the math, it simply doesn't work that way.

Apparaently Google uses a way more sophisticated math model to transfer link juice.

Great post. I'm curious, you obviously went to great lengths to avoid getting penguin slapped and your PBN noticed, were you or are you sticking to roughly the original theme of the domain or completely repurposing them?
 
are you kidding me? where did you get your 5z? in each case 4 pbns link to moneysite on average

You plainly saw my correction above and made this pointless post...either way, this is my last post to you. Your brand of ignorance is worthy of my ignore list.
 
You plainly saw my correction above and made this pointless post...either way, this is my last post to you. Your brand of ignorance is worthy of my ignore list.

i will miss you so hard
 
I meant were you repurposing the content theme of the domain to contain roughly the original subject matter, for example you bought a site originally about cars and wrote posts that were relevant to cars + your client...but I think you answered my question anyway.

I'm not following you about only using pages rather than posts though. Surely the aim of those redundant pages such as 'contact' is purely for appearances for the Google crawler, to avoid looking like a PBN site? Completely agree with you about the sidebar widgets though. Don't quote me on the exact figures here but the original Google algorithm patent right at the start had a 20% link degradation number, so that if one page linked to another internally 20% of the link juice power was lost.

Your resource page idea is interesting but there's a few things. Your resource page would link to unrelated and non niche relevant domains whilst providing little contextual content presumably, this would you back to the original problem that you started using excerpts for wouldn't it? I see what you're getting at about losing minimal link juice and linking to authority sites at the same time though.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top