SEO relevancy amplifiying method [GIVEAWAY]

LeanLow said:

I have this one great tactic that I'll share with y'all. If someone talks about something related to SEO (algos, PBNs, strategies etc) I look at how much money does that person make, if the person makes an amount of money of where I want to be at, I listen very carefully, if the person doesn't make any money or makes less than me then I discard. With all the noise on the internet this tactic saved me probably thousands of hours.

Click to expand...

Yes, because earnings screenshots can not be faked at all... Your technique is truly flawless, I will start listening to everyone now who claims to make millions in SEO (ceosam comes in mind first) and of course disregard anyone else because they don't give a fuck about showing how much they are earning to a random dude on the Internet. Very logical thinking bro, you must be ranking really high in Google with that kind of logic, keep up the good work!

Why Google discontinued PageRank and why DA/PA or TF/CF is not very accurate (Part 2)



So let’s go back to the weight on a link and how it is calculated, that very same numerical value of usefulness that determines the power of a link that effects the positions your page in SERPS. All search engines use the same methods to calculate the value of a link in the same way but the quality of data gathering and analysis can differ.

With time the precision and quality of data analysis improves but the factors being analysed remain the same and, most likely, will always remain the same. This is because this factors and metrics of usefulness are fundamental and are based on fundamentals of human interaction in any society.

Let’s look at them in more detail:

A factor usefulness of a link for a user can be determined by the links click through rate. Obviously, if an anchor is relevant to the donor and receiver pages the click through rate will be greater. The position of a link within the donor page also makes a difference. So when users visit a donor page and click on a link they are hoping to find potentially useful information. Therefore, CTR is a great indicator of how relevant and useful the link is, or at least perceived to be.

On the other hand, CTR can only indicate perception but not the actual relevance. If, for example, you visit a site selling hardware and tools and click on a link with anchor “electric drill” and land on the page about dog food, most likely you will be disappointed and confused. Therefore, the second metric of usefulness is the relevancy of the anchor text to the content of the receiver page. However, if the content of the donor and receive pages are very similar the user is unlikely to receive much benefit. Even if the receiver page is more relevant to the anchor then a donor page the user will not receive the information they seek and quality of their search will suffer.

With this in mind, search engine algorithms attempt to not only measure the relevancy of the anchor to donor and receiver pages but also to determine the differences in the information presented there. It is at this point that the ability of a search engine to accurately measure the usefulness of a link directly depends on the ability of the algorithm to extract meaning from both donor and receiver documents

If some of you still think that Google is unable to understand the meaning of a page, I will not try to prove you otherwise here. I will just say that this is not the case. I might at some point cover this topic in more detail and talk about semantic graphs and automatic translation algorithms (that by the way use the very same technology rather than simply replace words with translations individually).

Another important metric while measuring the quality of a link is traffic on the donor page. No matter how relevant the link is it is not very useful if the donor page has no visitors. However, it must be said that SE algorithms do not measure actual traffic but estimate it based on the position of a page within SERPs. Any data Google might have related to actual traffic of a page are not used as a ranking factor. This information forms the main body of statistical data which is used by the search engines to improve automated learning and correct any inaccuracies in traffic estimates.


Of course, this process of weighing up and assigning a numerical value to each link is a very complex process and currently the margin for error is still quite high. However, over time it will improve.

Needless to say, DA/PA and TF/CF are not related to this metric in any way, shape or form which makes those indicators incomplete and somewhat outdated.

In Russia SEO specialists already have tools that allow them to measure links’ weight using the logic and methods described above. No doubt this technology will make its’ way here too but it might be few years before it does.

I hope this helps.

GWM3rd said:

The one thing that all of the advanced strategies in the world won't help you with is user engagement. Click data is Google's bullshit detector. If your content sucks and your visitors pogo stick, you're site will never rank.

Click to expand...

So first you lost me when you said your bullshit detector is amazing, the guy on the page before caught this joker on skype trying to sell this bs for $800. Now you're saying Click data is Google's bullshit detector which is nonsense, I guess you haven't researched many really competitive commercial terms where shit sites are banking because of mostly links and exploits.

THUNDERELVI said:

Yes, because earnings screenshots can not be faked at all... Your technique is truly flawless, I will start listening to everyone now who claims to make millions in SEO (ceosam comes in mind first) and of course disregard anyone else because they don't give a fuck about showing how much they are earning to a random dude on the Internet. Very logical thinking bro, you must be ranking really high in Google with that kind of logic, keep up the good work!

Click to expand...

Well, I can see that you are not making a lot. You know why ? Because you assumed that I make a judgement based on screenshots or claims.

P.S. OP is a joke.

LeanLow said:

Well, I can see that you are not making a lot. You know why ? Because you assumed that I make a judgement based on screenshots or claims.

P.S. OP is a joke.

Click to expand...

How is the OP a joke? He has shared enough and completely explained why it works, he has a service which is apparently established in the Russian community and he wants to branch out to the English one, he's even had a translator prepare his own replies so that there's minimal confusion in translation.

To dismiss a guy simply because he said "if you want access to his semantic service + further information/coaching then I charge" is completely irellavent to the information he's shared here in this thread already for completely nothing.

As far as I can understand, he's provided a strategy that is effective but acquiring the correct details to plug into it is what he provides with his service, he isn't forcing anyone to pay, he's provided enough info for us to go out and test test test on our own for a conclusion or simply pay the man his fee and he'll spoon feed you what he knows.

It seems he specialises in semantic software and has fine tuned a software that would yield the optimal results when added to this method, it doesn't mean it's the only way to do it, it just means it's probably more powerful.

LeanLow said:

Well, I can see that you are not making a lot. You know why ? Because you assumed that I make a judgement based on screenshots or claims.

P.S. OP is a joke.

Click to expand...

I don't care what the OP is and I don't care what you think how much money I make. I never bragged and I never will, those people that do 99% of times do so to sell you something and they don't earn shit. In this forum, I have learnt more from people that never tried to sell anything and never revealed how much money they make rather than people who post screenshots all day long. And lol, how can you make a judgment then otherwise? You are anonymous on the internet, what do you do, hire private investigators to track down people on BHW and learn if they are for real or not?!

ComputerJunkie:"he's provided a strategy that is effective"
you are a joke too... a bigger one

ah... but Yevgeni said he is top5 in Russia, so we must believe him... and Google is copying Yandex and so on...
ohh..plus his "bullshit detector" (ty ibmethatswhoib) came when "he was at toilet, watching a calendar with big tits" ( according his Dec interview)

do a simple research and you can find more about his work, websites etc...

or save time and simply learn about Silo websites

florinovic said:

ComputerJunkie:"he's provided a strategy that is effective"
you are a joke too... a bigger one

ah... but Yevgeni said he is top5 in Russia, so we must believe him... and Google is copying Yandex and so on...
ohh..plus his "bullshit detector" (ty ibmethatswhoib) came when "he was at toilet, watching a calendar with big tits" ( according his Dec interview)

do a simple research and you can find more about his work, websites etc...

or save time and simply learn about Silo websites

Click to expand...

So you're saying I'm a joke now? Just read the information he has provided and the theory behind it and then do some major Google SERPS research, there are sites ranking with his theory and to be honest everything he has explained I've actually seen with my eyes and work in the niche I've been in for the last 8 years, there aren't a lot of people that do this strategy from what I've come across but that's a good thing and I pitty fools like you.

The sites I've seen 8 years ago are still ranking to this day in the same positions and best of all they have seemed to survive every single update.

I'm not holding a gun to your head forcing you to believe and I won't lol, I hope more people dismiss this and the thread just wastes away to oblivion for all I care, I just want to give credit where it's due, people like you don't know your arse from your elbow and just post rubbish instead of possibly thinking that there are smarter ways of gaming the system.

Google, Yandex, Baidu, Bing, Yahoo what do they all have in common? There all search engines and they all want to be the best at what they do and there's no point in reinventing the wheel, if something works they will use it.

I'm not entirely sure who is ahead of who technology-wise but I know that Russian SEOs are very smart, oh I don't know why that thought comes to mind, perhaps it has something to do with a massive network of sites used to rank sites, some still work even today, plus just look at what the guy has posted, the information is all there and the reasonings as to why it "could/should" work excluding the semantic core keywords that basically channel the ranking power, as far as I'm concerned it is still a great way to build trust to a moneysite, which you will not get by spamming with a back linking tool.

Relevancy + Trust = high sustainable serps.

Also, I believe he said he doesn't actually know much about SEO.. An idiot like you will take that as "z0mg he's not seo artist I sm3ll bS oMAGAd" but he is a software developer/engineer that has supposedly seen blueprints of how a search engine works, he could possibly understand the internals 100% by reading the source and then trying to interpret that for an SEO but not the entire aspect of SEO in general.

He has given us SEOs another approach for building high relevant + trusted link sources which is damn difficult to get nowadays especially for the price of a couple new domains.

ibmethatswhoib said:

So first you lost me when you said your bullshit detector is amazing, the guy on the page before caught this joker on skype trying to sell this bs for $800. Now you're saying Click data is Google's bullshit detector which is nonsense, I guess you haven't researched many really competitive commercial terms where shit sites are banking because of mostly links and exploits.

Click to expand...

They are getting to page 1 through links and exploits, but they are staying on page 1 because their sites are getting the job done in terms of click data. They may be a shit sites, but they engage visitors and convert at rates acceptable for its ranking position in the SERPS. If they have lousy user engagement, Google would bounce them out of the SERPs. Now if they've figured out a way to fake click data, they are on to something. Just because a site looks like shit doesn't mean that it's a bad website. Look at Craig's List. If visitors are terminating their search on a shit site, the site will continue to rank.

Are you actually saying that click data doesn't matter? Really? You've never heard of how Google uses pogo sticking? Maybe you haven't read Google's patents: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US146703304
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,769,751.PN.&OS=pn/7,769,751&RS=PN/7,769,751

Click data from SERPS (Google uses plenty of other click data) is really only valid on page 1. Anything ranked below page 1 won't have enough click data to evaluate. Semantic content and links get a site to page 1 for a search term. Solid click data keeps it there. If you've got a highly profitable commercial keyword group, you could fake click data with Mechanical Turk or some other service. I don't believe click data can be faked electronically. Chrome can detect mouse movements which are pretty tough to fake electronically. No mouse movements=robot.

Think: how does Google know if it's producing high quality results that satisfy user queries? How does Rankbrain know how to adjust the weighting of various metrics to produce high quality results? The only possible electronic feedback that Google can use is from click data that measures user engagement. Google gets the data from Chrome and from secure search from other browsers. I've seen some very interesting case studies that looked at the data that Chrome sends back to Google. Google can also measure conversions on a website. They don't need Google Analytics for that. The click data they pull in from browsers is more than enough.

I'm also pretty sure that Google uses chrome to find new sites they haven't indexed yet. We have a 40,000 page Magento development site that resides on a sub domain that's a duplicate of our production site. (Dev.mysite.com). The developers didn't block bots or password protect the site (oops). The developers swear they didn't do anything to get the site indexed, and I believe them. Nevertheless, the site got indexed. I figured it out when our production site rankings started convulsing. The developers do use Chrome as their browser. Just sayin'...

This thread is probably one of the best since I have been here. A lot of this is way above my head but i do believe in it.

The big names are silent which says something. I believe either this is above their head or they don't want any one else to know which is easy to understand.

Long time lurkers who seem very knowledgeable and are passionate are vouching. From what i know the people with the low post count are the ones to learn from.

I have lost way more on here than OP wants for his services which doesn't even seem like that much of a gamble at this point.

I will be getting it very soon. Very small investment for something that could have very huge payouts for me personally.

Everyone knows that the Russians are the ones to Blackhat the crazy pharma keywords.

Here we go!

bigballin6161 said:

This thread is probably one of the best since I have been here. A lot of this is way above my head but i do believe in it.

The big names are silent which says something. I believe either this is above their head or they don't want any one else to know which is easy to understand.

Long time lurkers who seem very knowledgeable and are passionate are vouching. From what i know the people with the low post count are the ones to learn from.

I have lost way more on here than OP wants for his services which doesn't even seem like that much of a gamble at this point.

I will be getting it very soon. Very small investment for something that could have very huge payouts for me personally.

Everyone knows that the Russians are the ones to Blackhat the crazy pharma keywords.

Here we go!

Click to expand...

Well said! On all counts.

The hostility the OP is getting is interesting too, ranging from people who feel aggrieved that he would dare provide potentially valuable information for anything other than free...to the outright dismissive, based on no testing or rational counter argument. To be fair to the guy, I read a lot of technical SEO blogs and do extensive research to stay on top of this game and some of the filler information that this guy is providing hasn't set of my bullshit meter.

Regardless of whether this technique works, the OP has shown a level of patience that is quite admirable. There's a number of people on this thread that could rightfully be told to 'go fuck yourself' but he hasn't done that, maybe because that would be bad for business but still

myopic1 said:

Well said! On all counts.

The hostility the OP is getting is interesting too, ranging from people who feel aggrieved that he would dare provide potentially valuable information for anything other than free...to the outright dismissive, based on no testing or rational counter argument. To be fair to the guy, I read a lot of technical SEO blogs and do extensive research to stay on top of this game and some of the filler information that this guy is providing hasn't set of my bullshit meter.

Regardless of whether this technique works, the OP has shown a level of patience that is quite admirable. There's a number of people on this thread that could rightfully be told to 'go fuck yourself' but he hasn't done that, maybe because that would be bad for business but still

Click to expand...

Well said. The weak minded attack what they don't understand. The haters don't have the mental capacity to understand highly technical SEO.
If the OP wants to make a few bucks, what's wrong with that? I've seen a lot of theory that makes a lot of sense, and the OP clearly knows highly technical SEO. That being said, I haven't seen any proof that this stuff works. It could be pure snake oil like most of the crap being peddled in the black hat forums these days. All I can say is that the OP clearly knows his shit.
The one thing I learned from black hat SEO is that there's more money selling weapons than winning the war. I do corporate enterprise SEO now. It's more fun to play with other people's money, LOL.

Here's the deal - to make the semantic linking thing easier to understand. Let's take all of the trust, citation, semantic relevance, etc. and dump it into a big bucket called "link juice". Now let's say that there's a page about "lawn mowers" that has a hypothetical 1000 points of link juice. It gets to use all 1000 points to rank itself, but it can also pass on 900 points via links to other websites. This page then links to 9 other pages, and passes 100 points to each of these other pages. (Let's forget about block level linking for a moment). Let's say that one of the links goes to a page about "sewing" sending 100 points of juice. But, since the pages are not semantically relevant, the sewing page only gets maybe 10 points of actual link juice to use. The rest gets dumped on the floor. 90 points of link juice goes "poof". Almost as important, if the target page was semantically relevant, it would send some link juice back the other way in reverse, maybe turning the 900 points of link juice on the lawn mower page into 920. Since the pages aren't semantically themed, this does not happen.

Silos can be used in 2 ways - using the child pages to rank the head term (by inserting a contextual link from the children back to the parent), or using the parent and children to rank the children by contextually linking the children, and the parent to the children.

This is why silo architecture is so powerful. By only interlinking relevant page pages internally, you are not only conserving link juice, but you are also getting the bonus of the pages sending link juice backwards on a link. These are "authority nodes", and Google rewards them heavily. Link together enough semantically themed content, add in some powerful, semantically themed back links, and your site will hit a tipping point where you can rank pages and semantically themed keywords at will. The tipping point is different for every semantic keyword grouping based on competition.

It would appear that the OP has discovered a way to isolate and magnify this effect, capitalizing on Google giving new websites a little extra link juice. To some degree, he is creating sites with the 2 different types of silos and using them to magnify link juice to his siloed money site. I've done some modeling on this using spread sheets, and the multiplier effect the OP is describing is very possible.

I've dumbed this down a lot, so cut me a little slack on the analogies. There's a lot more going on here than I can explain in a short post, but this is the gist of it.

I get the theory now I'd like to see it in operation.

GWM3rd said:

Here's the deal - to make the semantic linking thing easier to understand. Let's take all of the trust, citation, semantic relevance, etc. and dump it into a big bucket called "link juice". Now let's say that there's a page about "lawn mowers" that has a hypothetical 1000 points of link juice. It gets to use all 1000 points to rank itself, but it can also pass on 900 points via links to other websites. This page then links to 9 other pages, and passes 100 points to each of these other pages. (Let's forget about block level linking for a moment). Let's say that one of the links goes to a page about "sewing" sending 100 points of juice. But, since the pages are not semantically relevant, the sewing page only gets maybe 10 points of actual link juice to use. The rest gets dumped on the floor. 90 points of link juice goes "poof". Almost as important, if the target page was semantically relevant, it would send some link juice back the other way in reverse, maybe turning the 900 points of link juice on the lawn mower page into 920. Since the pages aren't semantically themed, this does not happen.

Silos can be used in 2 ways - using the child pages to rank the head term (by inserting a contextual link from the children back to the parent), or using the parent and children to rank the children by contextually linking the children, and the parent to the children.

This is why silo architecture is so powerful. By only interlinking relevant page pages internally, you are not only conserving link juice, but you are also getting the bonus of the pages sending link juice backwards on a link. These are "authority nodes", and Google rewards them heavily. Link together enough semantically themed content, add in some powerful, semantically themed back links, and your site will hit a tipping point where you can rank pages and semantically themed keywords at will. The tipping point is different for every semantic keyword grouping based on competition.

It would appear that the OP has discovered a way to isolate and magnify this effect, capitalizing on Google giving new websites a little extra link juice. To some degree, he is creating sites with the 2 different types of silos and using them to magnify link juice to his siloed money site. I've done some modeling on this using spread sheets, and the multiplier effect the OP is describing is very possible.

I've dumbed this down a lot, so cut me a little slack on the analogies. There's a lot more going on here than I can explain in a short post, but this is the gist of it.

I get the theory now I'd like to see it in operation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, good explanation, even for an IQ challenged individual (Not meaning you lol) but I wouldn't have even wasted my time trying to make these people understand.

The % of amplification these transistor pairs can have, if I understood correctly is determined by the core semantic keywords you've distinguished for your core set of money keywords you're trying to rank for, hence the sales pitch for his service he has been apparently providing within the Russian SEO industry, how true that is, I do not know but that doesn't mock the theory itself.

Thing is, as I've said previously, I've seen my competitors using this method but I'm not really willing to spend $800 for a set of optimal semantic core keywords for "Site1" just to test the method out to its' full potential, That doesn't mean I'm not going to make my own findings with a set of semantic keywords I've researched myself though, but I do fear that perhaps the core to this method or "ranking power" is from the semantic core keywords in relation to your actual money term keywords? Who knows, either way, I'm already in the process of testing 5 pairs of transistors (10 domains), I'm just really curious of to how much weight these transistors can carry and build up on their own as I work in a really competitive niche.

Wouldn't it be great if these beauties did hold x10 more weight than lets say a mediocre PBN link simply because of the amplification and reimbursement of trust these pair of sites are given due to their site structures, Anyway, in essence this method in theory lets the search engine do the ranking for you, you set the site up and sit and wait for a refresh I believe this happens every couple of weeks from the trends in ranking shifts I see on my personal projects, each time this happens, these transistors should be getting charged up while I'm scratching my arse, now that would literally be no hands seo.

Salacious! But not snake oil.

The virtuous congru of opposing link structures. No telling how many cycles it will give. Possibly works best with some external input, to help it along.

Smells like enterprise SEO...

Oh, the horror! Big box using money sites like PBNs. If you have a gander in the wild, they probably hide in plain site.

I wonder why something so simple has to become so complicated (perhaps the motive is to get some attention?).

There's no need for intricate link structures, site 1 links to his dog and his dog links to his brother.

Get links from relevant sites, period! A good example of a high quality relevant link is a guest post link from a decent blog in your niche.

You can do this with PBNs by building an authority site and building niche-specific PBNs for it or building several micro-niche sites in one niche and building a niche-specific PBN for them.

All sites gain authority with time, whether they're giving out or receiving.

If you register a new domain, build a new site on it, and let it sit, assuming it starts out with a #200 ranking, it might be at position #45 in a couple of months, without any new content or backlinks (not even natural links, not a single one).

So, sorry to burst your bubbles folks, there's nothing new here.

Apparently, all you have to do to get attention here is pick a widespread strategy and explain it in a complicated fashion with technical terms.

So my question is, when there are different niches, say a private PBN that's like about Dogs for one post, then power drills on another, then candles on another post but not a paid public PBN. Does it diminish the power of the links even though a whole post was deticated to a subject. So, the whole site is about different subjects, but the post linking to a dog related post is dog related, does that still have the same power? I'm sure it's speculation, but would love to hear people's opinions on that.

this ain't very accurate, ranking depends on authority (credibility and trust), and popularity, the easiest way to get authority, is to validate your diploma through google docs (this can be done by validating to an established google supported authority site, i.e. to work for an authority site for a period of time, working for sites that mandate diploma and certifications validation, such jobs can be found, and you can work for free for sometime, it will pay you tons later), then use the google docs as a publishing platform under the account,which was validated under your diploma, this way search engines will be notified that this particular article is an authoritative article, i.e. reference ready... this is the only way to gain authority for articles... an article written by experts in each field will rank higher than amateur articles... i.e. a medical article written by an authorized medical doctor will always rank above all medical content written by non professionals regardless of the site... and the same applies for every single field... to mention, you have two types of authority, personal authority and site authority, personal authority is enough to get your posts top, but if you have authority site and multiple authority authors, then your site will be a ranking rocket... the fastest way to rank a product is to publish from your authority account as a pdf doc through google... it will give you instant top 10 ranking. Moreover, the home page always gain authority from sub pages, as i mentioned an authority site builds with authority authors or staff.... in a healthcare domain, authority site (authority home page) means a healthcare provider, loaded with medical doctors, whereas the sub pages will gain from the home page and from the authority of the author.

ibmethatswhoib said:

So my question is, when there are different niches, say a private PBN that's like about Dogs for one post, then power drills on another, then candles on another post but not a paid public PBN. Does it diminish the power of the links even though a whole post was deticated to a subject. So, the whole site is about different subjects, but the post linking to a dog related post is dog related, does that still have the same power? I'm sure it's speculation, but would love to hear people's opinions on that.

Click to expand...

Everyone can confirm that Multi-Niche blog works. Thats why most of the PBN sellers are still in business and seeing good reviews. My pbns are built in this manner too and they work.

The key question is whether Tar's transistor method with focused semantic terms work better?

From my experiences and official research : http://backlinko.com/search-engine-ranking, the answer is likely no.

Referring unique domains, anchor text and onpage are still the primary ranking factors.

If all you need is some new domains to beat your competitors, then our Multi-Billion-Google will likely patch it up.

No reason why an aged PBN with hundreds of backlinks will lose out to a new domain. Yes the new domain posts will age but so does our PBN posts right? Not to mention the backlinks age too.

I really like Tar's method if PBNs were as expensive as in 2011.(few hundreds for a high pr domain)

Now? The whole thing looks like an "unique" idea to sell his own product.

There are probably many ranking with the transistor's method but I am sure even MORE are ranking using PBNs with hundreds of backlinks.

josedata said:

Salacious! But not snake oil.

The virtuous congru of opposing link structures. No telling how many cycles it will give. Possibly works best with some external input, to help it along.

Smells like enterprise SEO...

Oh, the horror! Big box using money sites like PBNs. If you have a gander in the wild, they probably hide in plain site.

Click to expand...

LOL. Never used a PBN on an enterprise site, but link buys - absolutely. You'd be shocked at the mega sites you can buy contextual links on. I had a 5 figure budget! I bought some individual links for $2500, and holy crap are they worth it.

I have discovered reputable, well known competitors using what looked like SAPE links on tier 2. Word around the campfire is that there are a lot of big brands that cheat, but they've got the budget and savvy to avoid penalties. You're not going to get penalized for buying links on a site like nytimes.com (I didn't buy from them, but equivalents). Plus, if you've got a trust flow over 60 you can get away with murder. Google has definitely stacked the deck in favor of big brands. SEOs at major brands don't worry about negative SEO. If you're a brand, you could get bombed with negative links, and Google will ignore it.

I just started a new gig, and for the first time in my SEO career back links are not the problem. The site's TF/CF is 58/52 and is 100% natural. Our company is used as the backdrop for a number of reality TV shows including 2 episodes on a prime time show hosted by a current presidential candidate. We have brand mentions out the gazoo. We are going to be featured on a major network morning show in Times Square next week, and the station's call sign ends in 'C' and we are getting a link. I explained how important back links are to the owner, so he picked up the phone, called the network, asked for a link and got it. Sick, sick, sick. The owner guaranteed me a link going forward every time we do a TV show, and we average one every 2-3 weeks. I've found at least 7 instances where our site shows up at the top in Google's knowledge graph for commercial search terms with greater than 20,000 searches. The site is grossly underperforming because of major, but easily fixable internal issues. My target keyword list has over 200 keywords that get over 18,000 searches per month. Without any tricks, we should be able to get every one of our keywords into the top 3 and quadruple our organic traffic simply by executing the fundamentals. We only have one competitor with better link metrics. I got lucky. I stepped in shit. I got hired to do a tuneup on a Lamborghini. I digress.

I'm a technical SEO geek who gets his jollies reading Google patents and experimenting with expensive SEO toys, and I believe it's only cheating if you get caught. It's all about risk and reward. If I were to do anything underhanded at a major website it would never point directly at the money site. If we ever got penalized, my career is over.

In the current environment, black hat SEO is brutally hard. The days of blasting and ranking a site with GSA SER are over. PBNs are effective, but building a good one that's semantically themed is expensive and resource intensive. In my current corporate niche, a black hat affiliate site could never crack page one for a major head term. Google would never let it happen. Blackhatting is effective at informational terms, but brutally hard at transactional terms.

The black hat guys that are making money these days are awesome, and I would hire one in a minute. Google has made SEO really, really hard. The good black hats make the best white hats.

I've been lurking here for years, and this OP really got my interest because I am a huge proponent of Silo Architecture and this approach appears to be a highly refined evolution. The effects I've seen with silos are likely a subset of this technique, assuming the OP is telling the truth. Once I get the mess cleaned up, I am definitely going to do a little experimenting.

I've been working on a vanity SEO blog I've been keeping out of Google's index. When I get it where I want it, it's fodder for my resume. If you want the URL, PM me.