wtf is a web 2.0? and ?'s about tiered backlinking

So I'm a little curious about the exact definition of a web 2.0 and their use in tiered backlinking.

From what I've seen is that today's SEO formula calls for a single "money site" and then "several tiers" starting with the first tier being composed of these magical "web 2.0" sites.

Then your second tier is composed of some of ther kind of sites and your third and fourth tier, the same thing, with the goal of building thousands if not millions of links to your web 2.0s site to give it "authority".

Then you link your web 2.0 sites to your money site and it ranks like crazy.

So... what's so magic about web 2.0 sites that you can build thousands of links to, but you can't do that to your money site? What are some exact examples of web 2.0 sites?

I have thousands of my own domains that are niche relevant to my money site, so can I use those in my first tier or do I rish having them banned and penalized? What kind of content/platform (Wordpress self hosted site, or Wordpress.com blog) should be used for tier1? Please give real examples if possible.

Why can't Google just track your links and see that you'be built a link pyramid to your money site and then ban you? I mean we can see our own link pyramids using software or just by hand I'm sure they can write software to do this autmatically.

Do you fellow SEO experts take into account "dis-information" put out by Google? Because it seems that Matt Cutts is just 99% full of total horse shot, trying to trick people into failing at SEO so you have to buy their ad sense (which their own white papers admit don't work.)

My advice to people is to just get links from high PR sites, simple as that. But I haven't mastered the black-hat world of link pyramids yet, or even seen that they work. For example Matthew Woodward has some tutorials (selling SEO software too) about link pyramids and tiered linking but then on his site says he doesn't use link building, just follows Matt Cutt's advice, but then says he visits niche relevant blogs a lot and that he spends upwards of 8 hours a day doing this, every day and only makes $10-$20k a month. I don't really call this successful if you are an "SEO" expert in the trillion dollar potential pott of honey that is potentiall available.

So I want to know what are some real examples of web 2.0 and why they can handle so many links while a money site can't?

Thanks in advance.

First Google result for 'what is a web 2.0':
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_2_point_0.html

Blogger, Wordpress, Typepad, Yola... these are examples.

Web 2.0s are resilient, since they're a parasite of very high authority domains.
They serve as a great buffer between your moneysite and whatever questionable links you decide to point at your first tier.
That's the short of it...

You have thousands of sites?
Sounds like you should do some research into the concept of the 'private blog network.'

Blackhat SEO works. Sometimes it only lasts for a short while, but it works. So if they penalize your site, who cares? You can just do it all over again. Sure, it sucks. But you did it in 1/18th the amount of time and 1/10th of the amount of money as your whitehat competitor.

Cutts & co. are full of a lot of shit. Not 100%, but of course they want to encourage people to do things that fit their agenda. Don't pay it any mind, or do. Find your own way. Cutts isn't going to tell you the cheapest and fastest way to get to #1, he's going to tell you how he wants you to get to #8 (behind eBay, Amazon, wikipedia, etc...) in 6 years.

My understanding of Woodward's site is that he's using it as an experiment to test whether or not these whitehat ways work. He's doing well in some ways, so take from that what you will.
However it's unlikely that that site is his only source of online income. If you have the know-how and the resources, why would you pass up more money?

Thanks ArtVandelay!

Yeah I've looked into private blog networks, still looking into this. But why is a private blog network better than a web2.0 that you can spam to heck with links and is free when a private blog costs hosting + domains + maintenance + time to create/design it?

Well, Matthew Woodward says he works like a dog all day long every day. Doesn't sound like I want to follow that advice. Are forum posts whitehat? I always wonder where the crossover is between white and blackhate seo?

Question, so tiered linking is blackhat, does that mean it's risky? So one spends a lot time and energy pumping up their web2.0's in tier 1 to give the PR and authority? What's the chance they get banned? Does the ban transfer to your money site?

Where have you been for the last 4 years?

You have thousands of your own domains? Oh, really? One thousand domains will cost around $10k in just registration fees. So, you're sitting on tens of thousands of dollars just in domains. Sounds like you have boatload of money. Of course you do, since $10-$20k a month is not a measure of success in your book.

So I'm a little curious about the exact definition of a web 2.0 and their use in tiered backlinking.

Click to expand...

Web 2.0 is a generic term for website that you interact with, or interact with other people on. Their value comes from the massive user base that is active on them.

From what I've seen is that today's SEO formula calls for a single "money site" and then "several tiers" starting with the first tier being composed of these magical "web 2.0" sites.

Click to expand...

If you have a site called mymoneysite.com that was 150 years old and had 20 million pages building backlinks to it could get it banned. If it does, my moneysite.com no longer ranks.

If instead you build the links to a Tumbler blog that in turn linkes to mymoneysite.com, as long as the tumbler blog was beneficial (that is until it were penalized for unnatural backlinking) the SEO juice pours into mymoneysite.com. If however it gets penalized, you simply delete the link from the tumbler blog, and all the bad stuff just falls away from mymoneysite.com, and mymoneysite is not affected by the unnatural links penalty anymore, and still ranks.

Then your second tier is composed of some other kind of sites and your third and fourth tier, the same thing, with the goal of building thousands if not millions of links to your web 2.0s site to give it "authority".

Click to expand...

Precisely so. The links that you built pointing to your tier 1 Web 2.0 properties are coming from your tier three sites. Sites that link to the tier three are called (believe it or not) tier 4. You can have as many tiers as you want.

Then you link your web 2.0 sites to your money site and it ranks like crazy.

Click to expand...

Yes, in 2010.

So... what's so magic about web 2.0 sites that you can build thousands of links to, but you can't do that to your money site? What are some exact examples of web 2.0 sites?

Click to expand...

The part where you burn the Web 2.0 instead of your money site.

I have thousands of my own domains that are niche relevant to my money site, so can I use those in my first tier or do I rish having them banned and penalized?

Click to expand...

Thousands of domains, and you are asking this? Did you forget the <bulsht></bulsht> tags?

What kind of content/platform (Wordpress self hosted site, or Wordpress.com blog) should be used for tier1? Please give real examples if possible.

Click to expand...

If you can make a web presence there, and its not a shit hole, it will work.

Why can't Google just track your links and see that you'be built a link pyramid to your money site and then ban you? I mean we can see our own link pyramids using software or just by hand I'm sure they can write software to do this automatically.

Click to expand...

Yes, They do this everyday.

Google's policy is very clear:

You are allowed to, even encouraged to, promote your business online.
BUT
You are not allowed to try to influence the ranking of your site within Google's SERPS.

Clear as mud, huh?

If you do not leave footprints, it will look like random entities on the net enjoyed your stuff so much that they just had to share it, and Google will shower authority and rankings on you.

If you leave a footprint, it will be obvious that these "random entities" are in fact created by the site owner to help rankings. In which case Google slap your site with an unnatural links penalty.

Do you fellow SEO experts take into account "dis-information" put out by Google? Because it seems that Matt Cutts is just 99% full of total horse shot, trying to trick people into failing at SEO so you have to buy their ad sense (which their own white papers admit don't work.)

Click to expand...

Most real SEO's know that Google and Matt Cutts are spouting the company line, which espouses what the company considers "best practices". These "best practices" are the way things would work in a google perfect world. Much of the information that matt cutts puts out is fundamentally true. The problem is that everyone listens to what everyone else says about twhat Matt says, instead of paying attention to what he actually said. For example, recently this news rang out:

"Matt Cutts says press releases will not help rank your site".

What he actually said was "Note: I wouldn't expect links from press release web sites to benefit your rankings, however" (emphasis is mine).

Quite a bit of difference

People fail at SEO because they are lazy, and listen instead of think.

My advice to people is to just get links from high PR sites, simple as that.

Click to expand...

Proof that you know very little about SEO.

But I haven't mastered the black-hat world of link pyramids yet, or even seen that they work.

Click to expand...

Further proof

For example Matthew Woodward has some tutorials (selling SEO software too) about link pyramids and tiered linking but then on his site says he doesn't use link building, just follows Matt Cutt's advice, but then says he visits niche relevant blogs a lot and that he spends upwards of 8 hours a day doing this, every day and only makes $10-$20k a month. I don't really call this successful if you are an "SEO" expert in the trillion dollar potential pott of honey that is potentiall available.

Click to expand...

He is not an SEO expert, he is an Internet Marketer, but splitting the difference, $15,000 a month is $93.75 an hour based on 40 hour's work. Fuckin slave wages, huh?

So I want to know what are some real examples of web 2.0 and why they can handle so many links while a money site can't?

Click to expand...

Further proof.

Where have you been for the last 4 years?

Click to expand...

I've been spending the money I made in SEO in 1 month, now I need to get back into it and things have changed a bit

You have thousands of your own domains? Oh, really? One thousand domains will cost around $10k in just registration fees. So, you're sitting on tens of thousands of dollars just in domains. Sounds like you have boatload of money. Of course you do, since $10-$20k a month is not a measure of success in your book.

Click to expand...

yes I'm a domain junkie

and yes I spend a lot on them

how do you manage your thousand of domains with little SEO knowledge? you just buy domains for fun?

you are still doing backlinks

Techxan said:

Web 2.0 is a generic term for website that you interact with, or interact with other people on. Their value comes from the massive user base that is active on them.



If you have a site called mymoneysite.com that was 150 years old and had 20 million pages building backlinks to it could get it banned. If it does, my moneysite.com no longer ranks.

If instead you build the links to a Tumbler blog that in turn linkes to mymoneysite.com, as long as the tumbler blog was beneficial (that is until it were penalized for unnatural backlinking) the SEO juice pours into mymoneysite.com. If however it gets penalized, you simply delete the link from the tumbler blog, and all the bad stuff just falls away from mymoneysite.com, and mymoneysite is not affected by the unnatural links penalty anymore, and still ranks.



Precisely so. The links that you built pointing to your tier 1 Web 2.0 properties are coming from your tier three sites. Sites that link to the tier three are called (believe it or not) tier 4. You can have as many tiers as you want.



Yes, in 2010.



The part where you burn the Web 2.0 instead of your money site.



Thousands of domains, and you are asking this? Did you forget the <bulsht></bulsht> tags?



If you can make a web presence there, and its not a shit hole, it will work.



Yes, They do this everyday.

Google's policy is very clear:

You are allowed to, even encouraged to, promote your business online.
BUT
You are not allowed to try to influence the ranking of your site within Google's SERPS.

Clear as mud, huh?

If you do not leave footprints, it will look like random entities on the net enjoyed your stuff so much that they just had to share it, and Google will shower authority and rankings on you.

If you leave a footprint, it will be obvious that these "random entities" are in fact created by the site owner to help rankings. In which case Google slap your site with an unnatural links penalty.



Most real SEO's know that Google and Matt Cutts are spouting the company line, which espouses what the company considers "best practices". These "best practices" are the way things would work in a google perfect world. Much of the information that matt cutts puts out is fundamentally true. The problem is that everyone listens to what everyone else says about twhat Matt says, instead of paying attention to what he actually said. For example, recently this news rang out:

"Matt Cutts says press releases will not help rank your site".

What he actually said was "Note: I wouldn't expect links from press release web sites to benefit your rankings, however" (emphasis is mine).

Quite a bit of difference

People fail at SEO because they are lazy, and listen instead of think.



Proof that you know very little about SEO.



Further proof



He is not an SEO expert, he is an Internet Marketer, but splitting the difference, $15,000 a month is $93.75 an hour based on 40 hour's work. Fuckin slave wages, huh?



Further proof.

Click to expand...

I'm good enough at SEO to rank sites without SEO tools and to not have to work. I made enough using SEO actually that I haven't even worked in SEO for 4-5 years now.

People say that PR is dead, which is total bullshot. I've asked a lot of people for advice on this site and 99.9% of them are trying to rank LOW COMPETITION keywords. I work in super competitive areas where PR 4 and below sites just do not exist on the 1st 2-3 pages of results. Anyone can easily rank #1 if the competing PR is 3 or lower. I can do this very easily. The trick for me now is how to raise my PR up again since all the PR shifting that has gone on in the past 5 years. I've also seen the social bookmarking works, but only as a minor helper for non-competitive areas. I do legit niches for real services, not rip off "loose weight" or "pay day loans" and those areas are much more competitive because people pump millions into their SEO and Google Ads.

The latest trends are social signals and if you do a search you'll see that "Matt Cutts" says they don't work but what he really says is that they work like any other link, meaning they do work. So the new way to get links is also to get likes. This is great for a blog, but it's totally worthless for a service oriented flat web site that no one really cares about, they just want to get into your site read what you do, like a plumber or lawyer, and then call you or fill out your form. It's illogical to think that people are going to be "sharing" their DUI Lawyer with their facebook fans.

If you all take a step back and really look at what's going on is that Google has made their formula so that the SEO's are promoting their business partners web sites. They want a site or blog platform or social network to be rich, famous, and well used? Well they do this by making it so you wont rank unless you are linked from that platform. So they are actually one upping all the SEO's by making you their bitches aka little link monkey slaves promoting and using the sites they own so they can sell more advertising on them. They dont care if its spam because they still get paid!

Any hourly job is slave wages compared to what Google is making off your monkey linking work.

A real SEO doesn't have to work because they are ranking for valuable keywords. I'm just here trying to evaluate all this link pyramid hype that I see. Ive seen some people saying that they've built like 60 high PR web2.0 "properties" linking to their main site but that's too vague for me. High PR is relative just like $90/hour is good for you but unacceptable to me. So I'm trying to see what people are really and exactly doing and if they are really ranking for tough web sites and how so I might be able to use it.

Do you realize that 1000 domains hosted and linked to my main site would cost: at least $5,000/month just for hosting fees, then you have to find a way to spread them out over different IP's so that you really get the link juice passed on. But are there 1000 different hosting companies? That would take more than 400 days just to setup, not to mention then trying to build links to each of those sites... I guess that now you'd need about 10-100 web2.0 site linking to each of the 1000 private blogs in my network. That means I have to mak 100,000-1million tier1 web 2.0 properties... which would take a few years for one person to setup. This doesn't seem feasable and that's why my domains just sit for now. I just don't have the motivation or easy formula to monetize them yet. Yes, I'm a little lazy, but that just makes me work smarter.

I appreciate all the help on this topic guys!

ThatK1dB said:

how do you manage your thousand of domains with little SEO knowledge? you just buy domains for fun?

Click to expand...

I use a computer and my keyboard. What do you mean how do I manage them? I haven't found any software that's worth the money to buy that really works. I'm not going to pay monthly for something like a Wordpress site manager if that's what you mean? I use FTP and SSH and sometimes the auto-installers to install sites. Why is this topic about me instead of what SEO things work and which web2.0's would work? It just seems counter productive to spend a lot of time promoting someone esles (web2.0 site) site so it ranks well just to indirectly link to my own site. I'd rather just promote my own site! It's a catch 21 and kind of a circular thought process. You need links from ranked sites to get ranked. How do you get a link from a ranked site? You link to it! lol Step back and look at the big picture. In the beginning there was only Google. Then they assigned some high PR numbers to their favorite "Friends" they killed off some people that they didnt like and made some people/sites that they liked and had a financial or other interest in very rich and famous. You realize that Google owns part of Facebook (which is a web2.0 site) and probably Google employees or Google themselves own a slew of other web2.0 sites? Does Google own Yelp too? It might make sense. Then you have buy property on Google and their friend's web sites in order to do business. So out comes SEO to try to find loopholes in their system but they are usually way ahead of us in their thinking and actually tricking us into "growing the size of the internet" because the bigger the internet is, the more money they make through ads. Once the internet was big enough, poof, now they penalize you for the same things that worked (panda/penguin) and so on and so on. Now they want everyone to socialize the web, because really Google is part of an agenda with a much bigger picture than just money. So now you have to get links from web2.0 and next it might be mobile or some other area they want to grow. We/you are working for them!

Why did you get so many domains registered and dont know what to do with them..?

weknowit said:

you are still doing backlinks

Click to expand...

who is? links are the key to the google ranking formula, just like PR is... realize that between two exactly equal sites, the site with the highest PR will rank higher

for a while Google tried to grow their Google+ social network so they added that into their ranking formula, then realized it didnt catch on and lowered its relevance some... thats why you find that there are some useless service providers (across all services) that rank now who are not really the best service providers but they built up a big Google+ following (did the promotion work for Google) and so Google rewarded them with the carrot.

Anyway anyone have any tips on which are the best web2.0 sites and what kind of links should be in tier2 exactly? how long does it take to increase the PR of a web2.0 site and how long does it take on average?


Does anyone have experience with the above type calculations?

Another spammer that must have bought an old BHW account somewhere.

platinumcent said:

Why did you get so many domains registered and dont know what to do with them..?

Click to expand...

Well I just got offered $25k for one of them, but I turned them down because I like the domain.

After reading that wall of text, I have come to the conclusion that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You think that PR will rank a site over it's competitors. Bullshot, as you would say.

You think likes are equivalent to links, utter nonsense.

You say people are ranking low competition keywords a lot. Well, DUH, sort of the reason for the keyword research in the first place.

You seem to think that SEO for a general website is the same for a local brick and mortar business. Further proof.

You seem to think that Google owns the internet. Somehow in your world, Linkedin is successful because they are a business partner with Google. Twitter would be ignored if it were not for Google. Everyone would leave facebook, pinterest, and instagram if Google quit promoting them? What are you smoking and where can I buy some?

You think that between two exactly equal sites, the site with the highest PR will rank higher. This is simply not true. The site with the higher domain authority and relevance will rank first. The PR of the page is irrelevant.

And last but not least, you seem to think a real SEO doesn't have to work, because he is ranking for valuable keywords.

Final proof.

ch8878 said:

Another spammer that must have bought an old BHW account somewhere.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? Are you calling me a spammer? If so why? Doesn't a spammer sell something?

I want real answers to my questions. A couple guys answered, but most people are like why are you rich? Why are you buying domains? derrrr are you a spammer? Instead of talking about the topic. Crazy forum people, I tell you...

matthewseo said:

What do you mean? Are you calling me a spammer? If so why? Doesn't a spammer sell something?

I want real answers to my questions. A couple guys answered, but most people are like why are you rich? Why are you buying domains? derrrr are you a spammer? Instead of talking about the topic. Crazy forum people, I tell you...

Click to expand...

First: You have an account from 2010
Second: You have a username with SEO in it and don't know what Web 2.0's are

Need I say more?

Also there have been allot of these old accounts popping up lately with spammers like you.

180 posts in 3 years lol.

Techxan said:

After reading that wall of text, I have come to the conclusion that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You think that PR will rank a site over it's competitors. Bullshot, as you would say.

You think likes are equivalent to links, utter nonsense.

You say people are ranking low competition keywords a lot. Well, DUH, sort of the reason for the keyword research in the first place.

You seem to think that SEO for a general website is the same for a local brick and mortar business. Further proof.

You seem to think that Google owns the internet. Somehow in your world, Linkedin is successful because they are a business partner with Google. Twitter would be ignored if it were not for Google. Everyone would leave facebook, pinterest, and instagram if Google quit promoting them? What are you smoking and where can I buy some?

And last but not least, you seem to think a real SEO doesn't have to work, because he is ranking for valuable keywords.

Final proof.

Click to expand...

That must be why your icon says "Donor" because you need a brain donor? (just kidding)

Seriously, the answer is yes to most of your questions. Google is the #1 spot where people go to buy something. Facebook ads are still vaporware (meaning they don't work.) Remember when people were selling banner ads for $150,000 a month that didn't convert then the Internet crashed, it's like that with Facebook ads. Sure some people can get them to work but 99.9% of all paid internet advertising only pays off for the person selling it. Even Google admits this in their own white papers on their paid advertising programs. Just because people do it doesnt make it true or right or correct.

You're off topic, And YES! Google owns the internet if you didnt already know that....

Google's Monopoly and Internet Freedom
When one company controls nearly 82% of the global search market and 98% of the mobile search market, it's time for serious changes.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303830204577448792246251470

Facebook would be a lot less without Google. And espcially LinkedIN... the whole reason people use linkedin and facebook is because those results come up #1 and #2 over all the other sites... even higher than someones aged person domain that is firstnamelastname.com. It's a kind of reputation management to rank those sites so you dont get crap comming up when you apply for a job and someone googles your name and gets you confused with some murderer in Europe. Read this for a direction to go for an answer on your social networking theories:

You're a Nobody Unless Your Name Googles Well
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB117856222924394753

And pinterest and instagram are not serious financial business entities in my opinion. They are just features of Facebook and Google. Printerest isn't even making a profit. Just like Facebook didn't make a profit for many many years. Google makes a huge profit however, so does Microsoft and Apple. Those 3 are serious companies. edit: add in Amazon to that list

"Pinterest will generate its first revenue this year, when it begins charging advertisers to promote their wares to the site's millions of hobbyists, vacation planners and do-it-yourselfers. Ads on the site could generate as much as $500 million in 2016, estimates Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities."

Click to expand...

from wikipedia
$500 million is nothing compared to Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and the big guys and that is just wishful thinking, its vaporware again (meaning not real).

edit: yes, likes equal links according to Matt Cutts and Matthew Woodward. Also I've ranked sites recently to the first page just using social bookmarks. Which supports the claim of Matt Cutts that social links are the same as any other links (he recently said that in a video.)

Anyone have some web2.0 linking tips? Or you all just don't like me?