Which tools can post to Wikis?

nikolaalx

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
231
Reaction score
68
Hey guys,
I have been wondering about which tool can best handle posting to Wikis?

I have been researching Zennoposter and I know you can make your own template to post to almost any website, but still am not certain that it will do the trick.

Can someone advise?

Thanks
 
i only know some custom scripts that can do that
 
Sick Submitter and some custom made tools available as WSO
 
Yes, I totally agree you need to make your own script, cause this not so popular, but as I understood this is a good value links, or I am wrong?
 
it's not popular because the vast majority of wikis out there only allow nofollow links, useless
 
Let me tell you this first...
You can buy zenno and make your template for wikis, and this will work for sure. I know it because i have zenno and have template for wikis. If you are interested in this just let me know on PM.

Second: Every link is valuable, it doesnt mater if it is nofollow or ********, you need both to make it work and stick.
 
Wiki smasher looks interesting. I have magic submitter to do it for me
 
IF zenno can't do it alone, then Zennoposter + an offline automation tool (like winautomation).
 
Second: Every link is valuable, it doesnt mater if it is nofollow or ********, you need both to make it work and stick.

Quoted for truth. I have no evidence to support this but my feeling is that the SE's don't really pay too much attention to rel=nofollow anymore. They're all trying to make use of social media indicators to help shape their rankings; rel=nofollow was put in place almost exclusively to combat wordpress spam, but what's more important to a SE now, ignoring blog spam or taking nofollow links from social media into consideration?
 
Quoted for truth. I have no evidence to support this but my feeling is that the SE's don't really pay too much attention to rel=nofollow anymore. They're all trying to make use of social media indicators to help shape their rankings; rel=nofollow was put in place almost exclusively to combat wordpress spam, but what's more important to a SE now, ignoring blog spam or taking nofollow links from social media into consideration?

That's the same conclusion that I've found. rel=nofollow may not pass "link juice," but I've found that they still help in getting ranked higher -- and that's what really counts.
 
If your goal in posting to wikis is to increase your position in the SERPs, then don't bother with it. If you're trying to get clickthroughs from those wiki pages, then go ahead.

It makes no sense at all to get a tool to post spam links to wiki pages, because nobody is going to click through them.

It blows my mind that people think that nofollow, an attribute that was specifically developed to combat linkspam, is somehow irrelevant when you're linkspamming.
 
Quoted for truth. I have no evidence to support this but my feeling is that the SE's don't really pay too much attention to rel=nofollow anymore. They're all trying to make use of social media indicators to help shape their rankings; rel=nofollow was put in place almost exclusively to combat wordpress spam, but what's more important to a SE now, ignoring blog spam or taking nofollow links from social media into consideration?

Ignoring spam is way the fuck more important to a search engine than trying to prioritize some kind of social media signal. The negative impact on search results from spammy links is orders of magnitude greater than any possible theoretical benefit that could be gained from one signal in hundreds.
 
Posting habits have changed very significantly since the time when rel=nofollow was introduced. SE algorithms have changed countless times since it was introduced. rel=nofollow tags became abused by the seo crowd in order to sculpt PR. Time and again people see sites rising in rank with nothing but nofollow links. To me it seems like it would take a greater leap of faith to believe that rel=nofollow links are treated as google claims they are rather than as essentially a normal link.
 
I have one script and one software that post to Wikis, both quite cheap (less than $50). One quick note - not all Wiki links are no follow, people that say that all Wikis are no follow don't know what they are talking about. It all comes down to building your own list, but then again, that what SB is there for ....
 
Posting habits have changed very significantly since the time when rel=nofollow was introduced. SE algorithms have changed countless times since it was introduced. rel=nofollow tags became abused by the seo crowd in order to sculpt PR. Time and again people see sites rising in rank with nothing but nofollow links. To me it seems like it would take a greater leap of faith to believe that rel=nofollow links are treated as google claims they are rather than as essentially a normal link.

What people have seen these benefits from nofollowed links? Are they the same ones trying to sell you SEO tools and services?
 
What people have seen these benefits from nofollowed links? Are they the same ones trying to sell you SEO tools and services?
No.

I've known more than a few webmasters who've claimed to obtain good results from purely nofollow backlinks. Some built just one or two sites, maybe they got lucky and their rankings had nothing to do with their backlinks. Others who seem to do so consistently with enough domains that it's unlikely to be coincidence.

I see no reason to trust what google claims on the matter.
 
Back
Top