citylightz
Registered Member
- Oct 13, 2010
- 88
- 20
nikolaalx - Please explain what you mean by there is a difference as to when a site got hit.
Thanks
Recover from Penguin Recipe
- Thread starter fel3232
- Start date
nikolaalx - Please explain what you mean by there is a difference as to when a site got hit.
Thanks
TheLinkGuy
Power Member
- Nov 20, 2010
- 634
- 130
sorry but this just screams BS......
all sites came back by some shitty backlinks? no. way. maybe from the change of on site but im not believing the links you mentioned pulled out sites penalized by penguin
all sites came back by some shitty backlinks? no. way. maybe from the change of on site but im not believing the links you mentioned pulled out sites penalized by penguin
beakerhat
Registered Member
- Apr 25, 2012
- 83
- 5
Thanks, something new I learned today. I fixed the keyword density of my articles and even the template of the entire website, but did not ping them. Funny that still there was no sign of them anywhere on Google.
Two days ago, I inspected the urls using Google and found out that they all had the old template in the preview. It happened because of not pinging them. Crawler has become slower after the Penguin update.
Two days ago, I inspected the urls using Google and found out that they all had the old template in the preview. It happened because of not pinging them. Crawler has become slower after the Penguin update.
This does appear to be BS. Some people need to stop this preaching of lower your kw density to 1% or less. That is complete BS being thrown around. I work in the real estate niche and post penguin I still see sites with 5%+ kw density "on-page" ranking higher than they were before and above better sites.
After checking their backlink profile, I see they don't have BS articles or low-quality links or 1000s of wiki's or web 2.0's.
In fact 1 site had 3 links, 2 from blogs and 1 from that omni-present authority site (*** _ _ _ _pedia) that gives you no-follow links.
Still 5%+ keyword stuffing on page? Yeah, it still works and Scam-oogle is allowing it.
I also heard G00gle is capping impressions on some websites to 1000 max per day for some algorithmic reason. Look into the stats pre- f'n ice-bird and post ice bird. I think we are all gonna cream in our pants when G00gle falls (s0meday). It's kind of like hating super teams that buy players like Yankees, Lakers, etc
After checking their backlink profile, I see they don't have BS articles or low-quality links or 1000s of wiki's or web 2.0's.
In fact 1 site had 3 links, 2 from blogs and 1 from that omni-present authority site (*** _ _ _ _pedia) that gives you no-follow links.
Still 5%+ keyword stuffing on page? Yeah, it still works and Scam-oogle is allowing it.
I also heard G00gle is capping impressions on some websites to 1000 max per day for some algorithmic reason. Look into the stats pre- f'n ice-bird and post ice bird. I think we are all gonna cream in our pants when G00gle falls (s0meday). It's kind of like hating super teams that buy players like Yankees, Lakers, etc
Dear Sir, I respect your opinion.
My stats are actually great and improving by the day. I could not be happier.
I only posted here to share MY personal experience. I am not selling any kind of links or service.
Proceed at you own risk.
Also, what works for me, might not work for others....
I'm down with this, and am optimistic, i have also had sites slowly coming back but I havent been as aggressive as ive been a pussy to date, but im about to stpe on the gas.
I do have a question.. with your links i read about the 30% and then mix it up, I am assuming this was on your web 2.0 linking to your money, what links do you put on the wikis etc linking to the web 2.0, are they also 30 and mix or do you use a different strategy? Also on your edu.s was that 30 and mix? cheers!
I do have a question.. with your links i read about the 30% and then mix it up, I am assuming this was on your web 2.0 linking to your money, what links do you put on the wikis etc linking to the web 2.0, are they also 30 and mix or do you use a different strategy? Also on your edu.s was that 30 and mix? cheers!
For everyone being sceptical about the method, I have read it on other sites as well so I think it does work, I am trying it out myself now. HOWEVER, let me tell you now that Wikis are wising up quickly to all the spam submissions being sent their way. I bought some lists of wikis from Fiverr and I had a list of 20000 wikis, only about 6000 of them managed to be found by Ultimate Demon, and when you submit, a crazy amount of them do not work due to the login or submit pages not being found. If you want to submit to 20 000 wikis today, you will have to submit 4 different types of content, and then you might just have a success rate of about 10% for the actual submission.
I am still trying it though, I can't think of anything else to do. The problem, as someone pointed out though, is that there is a difference if you start out with let's say 200 links, of which the majority anchor texts are money keywords. If you build 50 or 70 URL or brand type keywords from web 2.0 properties to your site, you would have diluted your anchor text quite a bit.
However, if you started out with 1200 links, of which 600 are dead (due to blog networks being deindexed) and the rest are high keyword density and low URL, then you have a double whammy problem. Google doesn't like dead links (over 50%) and some people (Dori Friend, I think, or was it Micrositemasters?) think that this is one of the penalty indicators; and the remaining links (600 or so) are too much for 50-70 web2.0 links (even all naked url) to have an effect w.r.t. diluting the anchors - that is just what I think, still have to try though. For this particular site this might have to be done more than once....
I am still trying it though, I can't think of anything else to do. The problem, as someone pointed out though, is that there is a difference if you start out with let's say 200 links, of which the majority anchor texts are money keywords. If you build 50 or 70 URL or brand type keywords from web 2.0 properties to your site, you would have diluted your anchor text quite a bit.
However, if you started out with 1200 links, of which 600 are dead (due to blog networks being deindexed) and the rest are high keyword density and low URL, then you have a double whammy problem. Google doesn't like dead links (over 50%) and some people (Dori Friend, I think, or was it Micrositemasters?) think that this is one of the penalty indicators; and the remaining links (600 or so) are too much for 50-70 web2.0 links (even all naked url) to have an effect w.r.t. diluting the anchors - that is just what I think, still have to try though. For this particular site this might have to be done more than once....