1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Web 2.0 SEO theory on its effectiveness

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by gorang, Jun 18, 2011.

  1. gorang

    gorang Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    Occupation:
    SEO Consultant - Marketing Strategy
    Location:
    UK
    How effective do you believe buffer sites actually are?

    What specifically is it which makes for a good web 2.0 buffer site?

    How effective and what kind of results do you think we would find if a domain had a maximum of 10 links all from 10 web 2.0s which have each been blasted by many SEO tools?

    Do you think those 10 web 2.0 links alone could prove to be very effective?

    Or is the more direct conventional method of blasting an aged money site more effective?

    What do you guys think would happen?
     
  2. PandG

    PandG Newbie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    SEO
    Location:
    China
    i am trying to built a web 2.0 link wheel.
    afterward i'll come here to share.:)
     
  3. felixgoh

    felixgoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    57
    If you are building tons of cheap links like profiles/comments, I would definitely use a buffer sites. Only quality, manually done links are pointed directly to money site.
     
  4. gorang

    gorang Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    Occupation:
    SEO Consultant - Marketing Strategy
    Location:
    UK
    What i'm saying is, how well could 6 web 2.0s rank a website on their own.

    No other links pointing to the site apart from 6 web 2.- properties whcih have been spammed to hell.

    I'd like to see what the results would be so we can measure their effectiveness.
     
  5. felixgoh

    felixgoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    57
    There is no exact blueprint on what work for 1 keyword would work for another keyword. It depends on the competition level you are facing for each individual keyword. But if you are using only 6 web 2.0 properties and building low quality links to it, chances are, it will only be sufficient to rank for an extremely easy keyword.

    I know my response kind of deviate from what you are effectively asking but it would be more logical to have a diverse link profile rather than just 6 web 2.0 properties that have been spammed to hell.
     
  6. gorang

    gorang Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    Occupation:
    SEO Consultant - Marketing Strategy
    Location:
    UK
    Personally, I blast my sites with profile/comment spam directly. But a lot of people swear by their web 2.0 sites.

    So I want to find out just exactly how good they can be.
     
  7. pietpatat

    pietpatat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    223
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I have tested this with 2 different sites on the same keyword.

    First I had a new site that I blasted directly with all kinda backlinks ( Scrapebox, AMR, Senuke, xRumer ). It got to #2 for a couple of weeks, than got sandboxed for a couple months and now it's back on #17. It would probably be alot higher if I kept blasting while it was sandboxed but I din't feel like it as I got no $ or visitors from it when it was sandboxed.

    When that site was sandboxed I created a new site trying to rank for that same keyword ( about 1 month ago ). Only this time I used web 2.0 as buffer. So I created ~20 web 2.0 blogs manually with spun content and a youtube video embedded. Than I blasted the web 2.0's only with Scrapebox & AMR. And currently the site is at #7, and even some of my web 2.0 blogs are ranking on the 2nd and 3rd page.

    I've have yet to use Senuke and xRumer on my 2nd sites buffer but I definitely like this method better for a couple of reasons;
    1. Less chance to get sandboxed ( yes you can get out of the sandbox, but it still sucks not getting any visitors and $ for a couple of months ).
    2. Web 2.0 blogs are ranking, getting visitors and making money. On devhub.com you can add adsense and amazon affiliate wich already made me $16 in the first month ( not much but it makes it worth creating these blogs manually ).
    3. I feel like I have created a solid 'groundfloor' seo structure for my site. And now I can build some more backlinks to my website without being affraid to get sandboxed again ( thinking about AMR directly to my main site ).
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  8. gorang

    gorang Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    1,650
    Occupation:
    SEO Consultant - Marketing Strategy
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this post.

    I suspected exactly what you've typed but I just needed to hear from someone who had done it.

    I can imagine that directly blasting your site has an initially larger and probably better impact on your website at first, but building web 2.0s will actually be be better in the long run.

    Why don't you create a nice case study people like me can follow?
     
  9. pietpatat

    pietpatat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    223
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I might do that in the future, I'm currently to busy with my own projects. But you can do it yourself, after all that's what SEO is all about; experimenting. It would be awesome if there was a subforum or site with just SEO case studies.