Hellow World, To create a standard tiered linking structure with tier 1 being high quality manual content, and tier 2/3 being semi-automated, does it matter if the tier 1 is made on a publicly available platform (e.g. web2) or can we pack more power with a paid tier 1 on a semi-private platform (let's say a huffington post)...? Both ways: 1) The actual page with the content is going to be PR0 initially with no ranking power. 2) Both the sites/platforms usually have tremendous authority (for e.g. tumblr vs huffington, both have massive authority) So will it matter whether we create free public tier 1's, or a link at one of the pricy platforms like mag sites, huffington post, usually seen in the BST sections...? (Assumption: The paid tier 1 link is NOT on a high PR domain or PBN, it is assumed to be on an authority site but on an internal page with no current ranking power) Anybody tried this type of Tiered linking with paid tier 1 links?
If you can afford the cost go with both free and paid, you will have backlinks that most of your competitors will never have!
I have really nothing to base this on but I "feel" that the private one will provide more value. My theory is that public web 2.0s are being spammed by the thousands everyday where HuffPo links and pages are much less frequent.
Posting on sub-domains and root domains is two different things, if you can get article on huffington it will have more authority than simple tumblr blog.
I have manually created my Tier 1 with parasite websites and then spammed em with automated links. Besides which I have purchased guests posts to add to it, I have a small PBN that is powering it as well.
Hmm, so it seems there isn't a consensus apart from the usual "test it and check for yourself!" I guess I'll do a small case study with 2 websites targeting the same keyword and same content/style/on page factors, and see which one fares better, should be interesting...
dude subdomains are treated by google as different domains. abc.com/xyz will have better value than xyz.abc in the case you're referring to
I would not worry about whether it is paid for free when considering the question you are asking. Instead, look at the domain authority (also remember subdomain authority) and domain trust flow and then benchmark what the expected page authority and page trust flow will be.
Thanks for your input, but nowhere did I mention subdomains... but anyway, thanks. I guess yeah, ultimately what "should" make sense is (assuming NO subdomains) the root domain's authority/niche and whether the platform/site is abused by free posts/spam...
I second this. If I have a choice, I will go with editorial links for tier1 ( such as an article posted on huffpost ) because : 1. The links are often permanent 2. Spammers do not get to destroy the site 3. If done right, such posts can be ranked for long tails, which can bring in traffic too.
The better your tier 1s, the more secure your rankings would be. Tier 1s form the foundation, and hence, if you dont pay attention to them and simply build further tiers, the moment you lose them, your entire pyramid would be futile.
Why PBN are better is the reason that they have established authority (I mean you buy one with great links), other than that is only my guess but here it goes. Why web 2.0 give less boost is because they are a sub domain, not a real one. ANd of course the downside is your web 2.0 might get deleted, even though you didn't spam, while you pbn can't, also customization of your pbn is another plus
It doesn't really matter if it's free or paid - you can get a post on a crappy network (which you'd pay for), or a guest post on a real site that will send traffic on its own. All that matters is that your post looks like someone wrote it with the intention of other people reading it. If you make a wordpress subdomain blog that only has 1 post and is never updated, that doesn't really yell quality, even if the actual post is good. If you are thinking long term, keep in mind someone, at some point will most likely review some of your links .
