Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Tiered Link Building


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 kenny010

kenny010

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 17 July 2015 - 04:50 PM

I started working on my tiered link building campaign to try and rank my main website and all my posts for their keywords. For my first tier I am doing it manually using web2.0s. I was wondering if I should include the URL of all the post and the main site I want to rank for in each individual web2.0 or spread it out and link each post in their own web2.0 by itself.

#2 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:09 AM

What's a web2.0?



#3 AvyGuttman

AvyGuttman

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:04 AM

I started working on my tiered link building campaign to try and rank my main website and all my posts for their keywords. For my first tier I am doing it manually using web2.0s. I was wondering if I should include the URL of all the post and the main site I want to rank for in each individual web2.0 or spread it out and link each post in their own web2.0 by itself

 

I am going to guess you see websites that are "web 2.0" as websites that dont bother with unnatural link building tricks. They actually build useful and valuable webites. Perhaps, a web 2.0 website in context with your question is a website that emphasizes user generated content. A quality website that has several contributors to its content in a democratic approach. This sounds great on paper but like most things with humans involved it is not so simple and doesnt always work out as planned. Either way, people are always looking for the easy and fast ways to reap the merits of effort but avoid the actual creative effort of putting in time into website content and user experience etc.

 

I wouldnt partake or suggest tier link building to anyone but if you are set in your ways, you should know that you would still need good content. No matter what link building strategy you take, thin and poor content are useless and detrimental to the quality, value and relevancy of your website. Can you really look at your webite and say honestly, that it deserves to rank? Even with the best backlink profile, is your webste providing any value? Take a step back and understand how much SEO and link building has changed. Google has really stepped up their game in recent years, give them some credit. Give people credit too. Even if your link building scheme works and you rank high, if you dont deserve to be ranked high and have low quality content, those people who land on your site are going to know it and bounce. In time, your low quality website will be unmasked and all that wasted time you could have spent at least trying to build something you can feel proud of because you made the effort.

 

Build your own quality "web 2.0" website, whatever that means to you...make your own and people will want to link to you and the website will have something valuable to offer to people.



#4 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:30 PM

Web 2.0 with regards to "SEO" is just bull poo.gif, some idiot a long time ago put two and two together and made it add up to JACKPOT!!!!!!!!

 

 

Then the "experts" invented lots of totally useless "link building schemes" based on a wildly incorrect premise (nothing new there then) and presented it as SEO.



#5 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,325 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 22 July 2015 - 09:39 AM

A Web 2.0 Website is a free-hosted blog on a service like Blogger, WordPress, Tumblr, etc.

 

kenny010, this is really not the best forum where you can ask these kinds of questions.

 

You're also creating a lot of work for yourself while taking on an immense amount of risk of getting your Website penalized.



#6 AvyGuttman

AvyGuttman

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Posted 22 July 2015 - 06:26 PM

A Web 2.0 Website is a free-hosted blog on a service like Blogger, WordPress, Tumblr, etc.

 

Web 2.0 with regards to "SEO" is just bull poo.gif, some idiot a long time ago put two and two together and made it add up to JACKPOT!!!!!!!!

 

 

Then the "experts" invented lots of totally useless "link building schemes" based on a wildly incorrect premise (nothing new there then) and presented it as SEO.

 

 

Web 2.0 is clearly a marketing ploy, and at the same time it attempts to "define" the major trends of the internet. With that in mind, I thought Web 2.0 meant user generated content websites, as in wikipedia, youtube, yelp, social media networks, craigslist etc... as was common during that period.

 

If I am not mistaken we are currently in the web 3.0 phase..."the semantic web"



#7 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 23 July 2015 - 08:39 AM

Maybe you're all still in Web 3.0. I've moved on to Web 4.0. But I'm not going to tell you what it is. If you have to ask, you're not ready for it. :)

 

--Torka :oldfogey:


  • Jill likes this

#8 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 23 July 2015 - 08:50 AM

I seem to remember the term Web 2.0 was coined at least 15 or so years ago, which is why I didn't understand the original question. It doesn't really make sense to be looking at something so old in relation to SEO today (which by the way, is finally dead!).



#9 AvyGuttman

AvyGuttman

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Posted 23 July 2015 - 09:01 AM

Maybe you're all still in Web 3.0. I've moved on to Web 4.0. But I'm not going to tell you what it is. If you have to ask, you're not ready for it. :)

 

--Torka :oldfogey:

Search engines need humans. They need us to give them data, patterns, details etc...It may seem a momentous task but in time Google may well be able to "digitize" everything it can in the world. People are teaching google and other search engines currently and have been for years. Key words are part of the learning process among many other things. They served their purpose, they were "teaching tools" from humans to search engines. It was ok to over optimize with key words for a while in what seems eons ago, because it was human data being taught to the search engines. Over optimizing was considered an SEO no no years ago because Google got what it needed and the learning stage progressed. Now, it needs to learn what words really mean, like a real person. The same pattern existed with authorship etc... Once enough data was collected, the next stage becomes a deeper form of learning. The stages of web 3.0, 4.0 or whatever are progressions of artificial learning and a wider scope of digitized mapping of human existence. I still say web 3.0 is a marketing ploy ;) but really what it represents is the stages and future of technology and human beings existing in unison.


Edited by AvyGuttman, 23 July 2015 - 09:03 AM.


#10 AvyGuttman

AvyGuttman

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Posted 23 July 2015 - 09:18 AM

I seem to remember the term Web 2.0 was coined at least 15 or so years ago, which is why I didn't understand the original question. It doesn't really make sense to be looking at something so old in relation to SEO today (which by the way, is finally dead!).

 

Whenever I hear SEO is dead or SEO is not dead, it makes me think of Nietzsche. He is famous for saying God is dead and with that, man must find a new mode of existence. SEO being dead or dying is similar, it is the human factor and involvement of Google / search engines achieveing a new mode of existence. I think SEO will be truly dead when Google no longer requires data from humans but has enough to understand what it needs to know without having to ask for any assistance or at least as much as it requires currently.



#11 rmorrow

rmorrow

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 04:19 PM

SEO is alive and will be as long as there are search engines and people searching.

 

But our role has now been changed to be more akin to "Quality Control" than to the "Holders to the Keys of Knowledge".

 

In other words - the more things change the more they stay the same using other explanations.



#12 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 06:27 PM

 Thankfully, it's dead to me  :victory:



#13 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,718 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 27 July 2015 - 04:43 AM

 

But our role has now been changed to be more akin to "Quality Control" than to the "Holders to the Keys of Knowledge".

 

 

Actually no, the role of the optimiser has always been one of quality control or more correctly Quality Assurance,  it's just that so many misconstrued SEO as being quantity acquisition, in terms of traffic.



#14 noobuk

noobuk

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 July 2015 - 09:24 AM

 Thankfully, it's dead to me  :victory:

 

I have to agree with Jill. Google has finally given up trying to build an intelligent search engine and now pulls numbers out of a hat instead.

 

I know this because one of our competitors got the #1 ball.

 

They have a thin site with no content. That's OK though because they don't engage in social media either. Other benefits include not having to optimise anything on the site - it's crap, but hey, crap works - they rank very prominently for 2000 keywords.

 

No late night link building for them, so it's up midday and straight onto the golf course I presume - a spot of lunch, then a quick stop off to count their hard earned cash before returning for drinks at the club. 

 

Forget Web 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0. Just find yourself a Romanian on Warrior Forum who will spin bullshit on expired domains for a tenner a month.

 

Google's OK with too - after reporting our competitor at least 50 times over the last 8 months, I've come to the conclusion that spam reports count as 'mentions' and make them even stronger.

 

And, here's the good bit - because no legit company can get near the number one spots, they have to pay for Adwords. Home run!

 

But beware of those who'll tell you SEO is about the long game - I think this saying has been misinterpreted over time - its should be a losers game - for while Google chooses to ignore spam reports, either intentionally or because the people they employ are just thick as pig s*it, it always will be.



#15 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 28 July 2015 - 12:50 PM

What Noobuk has written is not at all what I meant. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what I meant. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.