Saturday, 27 June 2020

Strategic Communications Training


Effective Strategic Communications turns your whole organisation into a communications tool focussed on delivering strategic goals and outcomes.

The Strategic Communication Academy helps organisations navigate the world of communication and brand management; building tcommunication awareness across your workforce and providing your professional communicators with the skills they need do support your organisational goals.

With decades of experience in the strategic communications industry, we've mastered the ability to teach effective communication techniques to working professionals in any industry. Our trainers are all, or have been recently, highly trained and experienced communication professionals. Whether you choose to work with us remotely or take residential courses, or have us come to you you will feel welcomed and learn invaluable techniques to develop your skills as a trusted and in-demand communication professional.


Saturday, 13 June 2020

Tuesday, 9 June 2020

re: Additional Details

hi there

After checking your website SEO metrics and ranks, we determined
that you can get a real boost in ranks and visibility by using
aour Deluxe Plan:
https://www.hilkom-digital.com/product/deluxe-seo-plan/

thank you
Mike

Monday, 8 June 2020

re: re: improve serps

Hi again
here is the service I was telling you about
https://www.monkeydigital.tk/product/serp-booster/


thanks and regards
Eden Weiser




Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:59:48 -0700 tr, 19:37 veremail4.psc87
<veremail4.psc87@blogger.com> ra�e:
Ok, sen@d me the link, I need% the ranks to be fixed urga@ntly.

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

[Build Backlinks Online] TITLE

Build Backlinks Online has posted a new item, '30 day challenge for March: no external email'

In January, my 30 day challenge was to limit my social media. That was a productive month.

In February, my 30 day challenge was to eat more slowly. I did that by counting to ten between chewing bites of my food. I tend to wolf down my food, which doesn’t give my stomach time to say “Hey, I’m full enough to stop.” I was also raised to finish everything on my plate, but sometimes it’s better to stop eating and leave leftovers on the plate. It’s actually been a really great challenge, and one I hope to keep doing in some form.

For March, my 30 day challenge will be not to reply to external emails. Email continues to be my nemesis. It’s so hard to prioritize important things over the pelting of lots of emails that claim to be urgent. Answering emails provides the illusion of progress, but it’s one of the least scalable ways to communicate. When you answer an external email, you’re usually helping one person in private, as opposed to helping many people at once like with a video. And of course when you’re answering emails, you’re usually reacting rather than plotting an active course forward.

Last night I got the chance to hear Fred Brooks talk about different aspects of software engineering and management. He told a story about the IBM System/360. Apparently a few months before the public launch, a smart manager concluded that the team need to focus on work with no distractions. So the manager decreed: no meetings with sales people or other non-related internal staff. What the team needed was to “just be mean” and buckle down and focus on the most important goal, which was meeting their launch deadline.

March is a great month to do some deep thinking about the future and various work and personal projects. So I’m going to try to do more of that and less answering email. Sorry in advance if you write but don’t get a reply from me.

You may view the latest post at http://feeds.mattcutts.com/~r/mattcutts/uJBW/~3/tAJhK_bR-o0/ You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted. Best regards, Build Backlinks Online peter.clarke@designed-for-success.com

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

[Build Backlinks Online] TITLE

Build Backlinks Online has posted a new item, 'Warning: Reading May Cause Your Hat to Fall Off'

hat-offPerceptual vigilance is a term used to describe what happens when you keep noticing the same things over and over again. For example, you may have just purchased a new car and you start to see that car all over the place. It’s almost like the entire city purchased it.

Recently, the thing that I seem to be noticing more and more is people discussing which SEO tactics are Whitehat, which are Blackhat and even those which are Greyhat. Because many of the discussions tend to be around tactics like networks – which I covered recently – I wanted to share my thoughts on the topic.

Before I begin, I will say that I’m not going to try and convince you that any tactic goes under any hat. You’re all smart enough to decide whether you think of something as “good” or “bad” when it comes to SEO.

Though I’m not going to tell you where a tactic goes, I do want to make you think about whether the categories are really that important. I much prefer the idea of tactics being effective or ineffective, rather than which hat a tactic is wearing.

Guest posting, for example, can be done in a very natural way and it can be automated and spammy. Directory submissions can be performed automatically in a spammy way, too, but then you have the Best of The Web directory, the Yahoo directory and Dmoz which, after all this time, Google still seem to give credit for having a mention there.

If you’ve been involved in SEO for a really long time then you probably don’t need to hear about any of this. But, after recent posts, I can see some webmasters are more confused than ever about what they should be doing.

Google’s Ideal Result is That We Censor Ourselves

When Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA started sweeping across the internet, I came across this great quote on Reddit after people were discussing how they can make their lives more private. The quote was something along the lines of “A government wins and a society loses when we all start to censor ourselves.”

If anyone knows the quote I’m referring to please do share it in the comments, they probably worded it far better than I did.

One of the people I’ve really respected for a long time was Barry Schwartz of Search Engine Roundtable and Search Engine Land fame. Barry started openly selling links in the sidebar of his website back in 2004. To put that into perspective, I hadn’t even built my first website by then.

Barry was selling links far before there were ever any Google guidelines on the subject and well before link buying and selling was a hot topic for SEO blogs. Of course, you now probably think that selling links is a very frowned-upon tactic and any big brands who get involved in it are going to receive some negative press for “manipulating Google”.

This is of course because Google advised webmasters to use the no-follow attribute on any links that they are selling to show they’re not there to game Google for a higher listing in search results.

Barry stood up to this and basically decided to stick with what he had done all along. He even stuck with it when he received a Pagerank drop from 7 to 4 and a rankings penalty which resulted in reduced search traffic.

seroundtable

Here’s what he said back in 2011 on that post.

“As you can see, I am making a conscious decision to leave the paid links here despite the PageRank and ranking penalty. Why?

  • I had those links there prior to Google’s paid links guideline
  • I always clearly labeled them as paid links for humans to see
  • Google reads this blog, they know about the paid links and I know they discredit them”

Some of the most well-known faces in the SEO world chimed in and said they really respect him for his decision.

dansharp

Three years after that original post which Barry received a lot of praise for, he updated his stance on the topic with the following article:

yield-google

The reason he gave in is the point I’m finally getting to: Sponsors wanted to censor themselves. They just wanted to support his website and personally asked him to no-follow the link.

People have been selling text links on their websites before Google even existed, yet now it’s something any “pure SEO” would look down on and file under a monochrome hat.

The Evolving Censoring

The first real time I ever became aware of Google cracking down on shady links was probably in 2007. Matt Cutts published a blog post on their new backlink tool which shows backlinks to website owners. Here’s what he had to say;

matt-cutts-weight

From that point on, I simply believed – like the majority of other SEO’s – that bad links just weren’t giving credit. It didn’t really stop any of the angry cries from webmasters though, and later Google came up with a tool where SEO’s could report each other.

pagerank-snitch

To take things even further, we now of course have reinclusion requests and the disavow tool that allows us to say that we don’t want to be associated with certain sites that are linking to us. This has created a great business for some SEO companies because they can now charge people to find and remove all of their “bad” links. Many SEO services like Link Detox and DTOX from Link Research Tools have popped up to help out this growing market.

All it has served to do for the average webmaster is make them more paranoid than ever about the type of backlinks they have. Exactly what Google want people to think. Now I’m even getting link removal requests for blog comments:

compliance

This was nothing more than a blog comment with his first name as the username and already no-followed. Now that I think about it, I wonder what happens to domains that keep showing up in Google’s disavow tool. Will Google put some kind of filter on them to help themselves discredit the links algorithmically?

The Only “Blackhat” Tactic to Me

The only real link building method I really disagree with is hacking websites and inserting your links in there somehow. Anything that interferes directly with someone else’s websites, I guess Negative SEO could go here too, is something I hate the idea of.

But it happens, and will probably be happening for as long as Google are the most popular search engine. Their link based algorithm was a blast of genius when put together by Larry Page and Sergey Brin back in 1999, but it’s a thorn in their side at times as well.

I’ve sometimes heard the argument about automated social bookmarking or directory submissions being a really dirty tactic. The concept is usually followed up with the phrase “they really clutter the internet”.

Let’s be honest for a second, when has the internet being cluttered really bothered you personally? I’m not talking about getting a million pop-ups when you try to view a TV-show online, but the actual act of someone building links with directory submissions.

It’s not like you have to physically move the sites out of the way with your hands on your way to Facebook. The people who host the websites are paying a hosting company to host. They’re not somehow stealing the Internets’ bandwidth.

That’s not to say I’m saying its okay and I’m not saying it’s bad. If the point of this post is coming across properly, it doesn’t really have to go under any category. It’s not that important. Be OK with people doing it because it’s going to happen anyway.

Google Don’t Know About Your Guest Blogging Backlinks

Before I mention a site I used to own, I want to make it very clear that I used to own it. I’m actually pretty sad at what it has become since I sold it a few years ago.

It was a personal development blog that some of you may recall me being a part of or mentioning here, called PluginID. I had just moved to South Africa (I was 18) and was going through a lot of personal changes and having to “grow up fast” so started the blog to basically put those changes in a diary form; sharing as I learned myself.

After a year of running the site it had 4,000 subscribers and 6 months after that my Feedburner chicklet had just ticked over 7,000. That probably doesn’t sound a lot now, but it was quite a big deal back then.

pluginid
(How the site used to look, courtesy of the Wayback Machine)

I ended up selling the website to someone I had known for quite a while. They had asked a great writer to come on board, my friend Bud, so I thought things would continue fairly successfully.

They ended up selling the website about 3 months later for a $10,000 profit. I’m not going to start a debate on religion but the new-new owner brought a lot of Bible-like ideas over to the website which really seemed to turn-off the audience that I had built up previously.

Coupled with another sale or two and about five redesigns, the site is still running but has clearly lost everything that made it successful in the first place.

The reason I’m bringing it up today because I very publicly had a lot of success writing guest posts to build up the brand. Guest posting is of course another hot-topic right now in the SEO world after Matt Cutts made an official announcement on the subject, recommending guest posters to no-follow links back to their site.

I remember when I wrote an article for Zen Habits, which has over 200,000 subscribers now, and it sent me 400 sign-ups in just 24 hours.

Needless to say I quickly wrote for them again.

Though I primarily wrote the guest posts to share good information and value, part of it was to get more backlinks to my site that would result in Google traffic. I picked two keywords that I wanted to rank for based on the Google keyword tool’s suggestions, which were:

  • Personal development
  • Personality development

If truth be told, I didn’t really know what personality development was until I saw it in the keyword tool and decided to research it. Not limited to the fact that it was getting searched for 27,000 times per month (exact match). This was only a little behind personal development, with 30,000+ searches per month

If you keep in mind that guest posting spree happened most heavily between 2008 and 2009, guest posting wasn’t really a “thing” that people were relying on for SEO. I did not know a single other person utilizing guest post so heavily for SEO when I started.

I think there was one month where I wrote 26 posts alone, all of which eventually ended up going live on a respectable blog and linking back to my website.

Here’s a snippet of some of my author bio’s.

bio-snippet

With the recent announcement from Google on guest posting – saying links should probably be no-followed – if someone were to try and do this now you would say they were doing something spammy, right?

Right?

If I were to say I’ve started blogging on all of these marketing blogs linking to Viperchill with the text “viral marketing”, for example, then you would probably think I was doing something shady and unethical.

Guest posting was working so well for traffic and links that I wrote more, sometimes putting multiple links into the author bio.

Of course, don’t forget that I tried to write very high-quality articles for each site I posted on. Nothing was just thrown together. Some of my guest posts actually received huge traffic. This one for DumbLittleMan received 7,800 Facebook shares and counting…

dumblittle

Nobody ever really thought I was doing anything bad or that my links should be no-followed, and instead simply getting ‘credit’ for writing a great article for another site. I definitely didn’t include anchor text links in every bio I submitted, but I didn’t feel like I was gaming the system.

Yet, if I were to do that now I probably would. Why? Because when Google make a statement about anything, the view of that tactic seems to change in the mind for everyone. When I wrote about guest posting on the Moz blog four years ago I had started to notice people taking things a bit too far.

I have noticed a few big name SEO’s abusing this already (I won’t say who) so I don’t know how long this tactic will remain effective, but it’s working well for now and is probably hard to algorithmically block in all cases.”

As soon as I started seeing the tactic getting abused and picked up by SEO’s I knew there would be an official Google response on it eventually. Those came two years later in 2012, and more recently now in 2014.

The reality is though, years later those exact backlinks have retained the high rankings they originally earned. My prediction was correct. Many people will say what I did probably looks like a shady tactic now, but it worked and is still working.

Here’s a 4th place ranking for ‘personality development’, purely through those guest blogging bio’s:

40kexact

Google clearly don’t have a rule in their algorithm where any links near text that says “Guest post by” don’t get some form of credit. You would think people thought otherwise if you’ve read the blog posts I have since that latest Matt Cutts video.

Here’s another search term where you can see that the guest post links I picked up years ago have been instrumental in helping this page rank:

18kexact

While it is on page 3, if the title tag was changed back to it’s original – with personal development written there – I have no doubt it would jump back to the top of page 2, if not page 1 where it was previously before the change.

Of course, once I saw this worked so well I used it in other industries which are still benefiting from their rankings.

Just because Google make a recommendation about a tactic, it does not mean that source of backlinks is ineffective. If I were to start doing this today any self-professed Whitehat SEO would tell me not to use that anchor text and to no-follow my links. Few, it any, of them would have said it back when I started though.

Guest blogging was simply thought of as a great source of backlinks you’ve “earned” because you’re writing content for another website.

The Playing Field Will Never Be Fair

A large part of what I covered in my recent post was how much favoring certain brands seem to receive. I showed how Godaddy are breaking some of the biggest rules in the book – which they’ve publicly being doing for years – and still have top rankings because of it.

I showed Cnet having one of the worst pages on the topic of web hosting yet ranking for the majority of web hosting related phrases.

Another Google example comes from John Chow, the “make money online blogger” who used to be really popular back in the day. A few years back John started putting together some competitions where he would ask people to link to him with the phrase “make money online”.

It’s a term that gets around 135,000 exact searches per month and it’s in a niche where there is a lot of money to be made so it’s understandable people would target it. For a while, it worked really well for John and I believe he held the number 1 position in Google for the phrase.

Then, after another while, he was banned in Google. For three years.
He could have gotten out of the mess much quicker if he complied with Google’s terms, but like Barry he wanted to challenge the norm. He also had a goal to see if he could grow his blog without Google.

What was interesting to me was how he was able to get back into Google after the ban, from his blog:

Untitled-3

I bet “Matt and I exchanged several emails” and “submitted a re-inclusion request on my behalf” is something you’ve never been able to say.

Perhaps more interesting is that John still ranks on the first page of Google for ‘make money online’, propped up with all of those backlinks he received when he was gaming Google. I’m not outing John here, he admitting gaming Google himself and purposefully hadn’t tried to get back into their “good books.”

I’m just trying to show that Google really don’t have as good a grasp (or memory) on how a site earned backlinks as you may be led to believe.

Eric Enge, who is fairly respected in the SEO world very recently published a blog post on Search Engine Land entitled: “Google is not broken”.

eric-is-broken

Before I get into his post, which one commenter described as being like Google cut him a pay cheque (comment has now been deleted), I just want to clarify that Eric does have a lot of credibility in the SEO world and a lot of people follow his advice.

The gist of Eric’s article is that people might moan about poor search results but Google are growing in marketshare so they can do what they want. He says there are times when they act really slowly (like penalizing a certain link tactic) to make sure their changes don’t mess up all results but Google can act fast, just like they did with Rap Genius.

The first argument has merit, but I don’t agree with him on Rap Genius at all.

First of all, Google had no idea what Rap Genius were doing. If they did, they hadn’t done anything about it. The only reason Google got involved was because Matt Cutts saw a thread on Hacker News about the subject. Which was originally posted by a blogger whose last five posts didn’t gain a single comment.

Second of all, acting so fast on the Rap Genius saga is a real hit in the face for normal webmasters who don’t have that kind of brand or the connections with Google that Rap Genius were found to have. As I shared in my last post, Webmasters are now being told they’ll have to wait a few weeks before their re-inclusion requests are even considered, never mind taken action on.

Google Owe You Nothing, Nor You Them

Just because you have more links than someone or may feel like you have a better website than others in your niche, there’s obviously no guarantee that you’re going to rank well in Google for your chosen keyphrases. Just as obvious, is that Google don’t even have to index your website if they don’t want to. They owe you absolutely nothing when it comes to search rankings, no matter how frustrating it can be when you think you ‘deserve’ to rank in a certain position.

We’re all welcome to use Adblock, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo Mail to stop benefiting their business
.

In a similar vein, I don’t think we owe Google anything either. If you want to go and sell paid advertisements which just happen to be links on your site then do it. It’s certainly not illegal. If you want to go and write a guest post for another blog and they accept your anchor-text rich backlink then go and do it. It’s very clear that Google have a hard time distinguishing between the types of links which are earned and those which aren’t.

dave-wtf

It’s very easy for us as SEO’s to think that the challenges we face are actually that iimportant. Of course, they’re only really important to us. How many of your family members would be interested in this post? I’m guessing close to none.

I think it’s a real shame that we’re so bothered about which tactic falls where, confusing new webmasters more than ever with which direction to go in. My advice has been for a while now: When in doubt, do both.

I try to follow the Google-guidelines very closely in a lot of industries I’m involved in, but in others if you properly look at the search competition there’s just no way you’re getting a shot at top rankings without bending the “rules” in your favour.

Build up a brand and try to “earn” links naturally, and build another brand that ignores the guidelines a little. Look at the potential risk versus reward and decide which path you want to take in the future based on the results you get.

Over the next few weeks I’m going to be getting into more detail about link networks that probably doesn’t fit under a “pure whitehat” view. This is an advance disclaimer for those who think that this isn’t for them, you may not want to subscribe to future blog updates (or you may want to unsubscribe).

You can think whatever you like about certain marketing tactics, but hold a little caution before labeling something as blackhat and spammy because, once upon a time, people probably didn’t think that way.

Just like there’s more than one way to skin a Chicken, there’s more than one way to implement a strategy…

You may view the latest post at http://www.viperchill.com/no-hat-seo/ You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted. Best regards, Build Backlinks Online peter.clarke@designed-for-success.com

Tuesday, 28 January 2014

[Build Backlinks Online] TITLE

Build Backlinks Online has posted a new item, 'Why Google Pushed Me to Build a (Bigger) Link Network'

link-networkIn 1865, Fredik Idestam built a pulp mill on the banks of the Tammerkoski River in southwestern Finland. He soon added a papermaking machine. As with any papermaking company at the time, much of what the company produced was used for stationery, newsprint, and books – the primary means of communication before the age of television, radio, and telephone. So in a way, it was in the communications business.

By 1900, it was already one of the biggest paper producers in Finland and was looking for growth opportunities. Electricity was a rapidly growing source of energy at the time. So in 1902 it decided to build its own electric generators and sell the current to local businesses. By the end of the 1920s, however, the company was struggling financially so it decided to join forces with Finnish Rubber Works.

Rubber (being a natural insulator for electricity) offered obvious synergies for the combined companies. By the early 1920s, telephone service was a rapidly growing business and cables were still being laid from city to city. In 1922, the Finish Cable company was wisely added to this growing conglomerate. Over the next several decades, it continued to expand smartly into adjacent industries and around the world.

By 2010, it had become a $40 billion company, with operations in 120 countries around the world, and a market leader in its main business line, which is still communications.

You know the company by the same name it had a hundred years ago when it was producing paper in Finland–Nokia.

I really love this story because it shows a company reacting to a changing landscape and thriving because of it. Often, I feel like we have to do the exact same thing when it comes to SEO. Whether or not an idea fits perfectly within Google’s guidelines.

I Never Wanted to Build a (Bigger) Link Network

The reason I say bigger link network is because I’ve built them before and honestly believe everyone should try building one. Every single person who is active in SEO – especially those who do it for clients – should have built at least one link network for testing purposes. It’s not like anyone is forcing you to actually use the links for your authority sites; there’s very little to lose by testing them out in a new industry.

To be honest with you, I’ve never wanted to have to build a bigger link network. Or I should really say lots of small ones around different industries. To give you an idea of scale, my own network will probably be well past 1,000 domains before the end of this year. I’m not looking forward to the renewal fees, but they have more than paid for themselves already.

I’m aware that admitting and even talking about building a link network probably doesn’t put this brand in a very good light. Please spare the jokes about this brand already having a bad reputation ;) . Put simply, my motto for this blog is, and always has been, “write what I would want to read.” That’s where 100% of my material comes from–topics I wish other people were writing about in such detail.

This may seem like quite a strange topic for someone who, for eight years, has been highly focused on the Google “right way”. Not too much has changed there because I still believe in the Google way. If you could overly-simplify the Google algorithm and say that they just want “great resources for end users which pick up links naturally” then I think that’s a great model. It’s obviously an ideal in the perfect world.

The problem, of course, is that it just doesn’t work. Building a search engine to correctly order billions of web pages for billions of queries has to be one of the greatest computational challenges in human history. I genuinely believe that. But the challenge really shows and the end result is something I can only describe as Google search results not being fair based on the guidelines they set.

Not everyone gets the same treatment, so why should we all act the same?

GoDaddy Makes Google Their Bitch (Again)

Over two years ago now, back in December 2011, Joost de Valk a.k.a Yoast wrote a interesting blog post about Godaddy performing spammy link building techniques. Yoast higlighted that Godaddy we’re using widgets on their website builder and linking back to their own website with anchor-text rich backlinks. He also revealed that it was working really well, having a huge impact on their search traffic in recent months.

godaddy-yoast

Two years later, this practice is still happily going on. Instead of just focusing on their website builder, Godaddy have also employed this tactic for people using their SSL certificates as well. If you do a Google search for SSL Certificate, I see Godaddy in first position (I removed the ads at the top for clarity purposes).

godaddy-ssl

It’s not a hugely surprising search result on the surface of things. After all, Godaddy are the biggest web hosting company in the world (based on number of customers) and a well-known brand in the industry, whether you like them or not.

Keep in mind his is a highly popular search term, with 40,500 exact searches per month and a recommended Adwords bid price of $14.58. I found the ranking as I was actually looking to purchase an SSL certificate, which is no-doubt a phrase where a lot of searches convert into buyers.

If you look at the anchor text profile before you look at the actual links to the page, you can just tell something unnatural is going on:

anchor-ssl

All of these perfect anchor-text links are of course coming from the widgets that GoDaddy are putting on client websites. Notice that under each graphic there is a text link there. Even more amazing is that some of these links are white text on a white background so you don’t see them unless you try to copy some text on the page. I assume webmasters have done this to try and hide the link without knowing how to modify the code GoDaddy gave them:

joke-godaddy

That picture should give you an idea of how they’re alternating the links, surely a practice not to look too unnatural (hah!) and rank for more terms.

And just look at how well it’s working:

  • “Secure servers” — Google Rank: #1
  • “Secure website” — Google Rank: #1
  • “about ssl certificate” — Google Rank: #5

And because some of you are super-smart you may be thinking that these are all very old and not a practice that Godaddy still gets involved in. I did purchase their SSL certificate and I was not given the link code but in both Ahrefs and MajesticSEO, a lot of these links have only been discovered in the last couple of months. I’ve included a screenshot of a few sample links in Ahrefs below:

ahrefs-latest

I also emailed Godaddy SSL support about this practice regarding site seals. It took a few emails for them to understand what I was talking about so I sent them the screenshot you see in this post of all the widgets with the links underneath. There was zero-denial in their reply:

godaddy-admit

It’s a practice that Yoast outed for their free site builder and it’s a practice they’ve also employed across other services they offer, such as SSL certificates. And because they have such a huge brand and user base already, even if you wanted to compete with them using this exact same tactic – which Google don’t like – you would stand little chance. The irony is that you would probably get penalised.

These links are not no-followed either which is Google’s recommendation for widget links; check the websites in that Ahrefs screenshot for examples (thanks to Mr. Floate for helping me with that). Is Google going to make Godaddy go and disavow these links and contact webmasters to take them down? Yeah right.

Cnet With More Brand Favoring

We actually came up with a classifier to say, okay, IRS or Wikipedia or New York Times is over on this side, and the low-quality sites are over on this side.” – Google’s Matt Cutts

Cnet are one of the best tech resources out there online. There are very few people who would question that statement. Google obviously think the same, because CNET manage to rank for an awful lot of web hosting related queries.

The problem? Their page has no reviews, no more than 100 unique words and is simply just pushing affiliate links.

cnet-spam

This is the page that is ranking 3rd in Google for “web hosting reviews” with over 12,000 searches per month and a suggested Adwords bid price of $14.65 per click. Yet, there are no reviews. The only thing I’ve missed from that screenshot is their Google ads at the bottom of the page. Don’t think those links on the sidebar will take you to anything substantial either. They have some forums, but even the hosting section I could only see one recent thread on actual hosting companies, which has 2 posts.

That page is ranking for a lot of alternatives on this term as well.

cnet-alternatives

Another page on the CNET website is actually competing with us in our XXX Niche Case Study and is very similar to what they have here (though obviously a different niche). A thin page, getting undeserved rankings purely because of their brand name.

Go and check out the backlinks to that page in Ahrefs. You’ll probably get a laugh out of it like I did.

The Rap Genius Drama Was a Joke

There have been many blog posts around the web on the controversy surrounding the Rap Genius drama so I’m not going to cover it in a lot of detail here. The short version of the tale is that Rap Genius, a lyrics website, were asking affiliates to place a number of links back to certain pages on their website to get higher search rankings for those terms.

Here’s what happened, in bullet-point form:

  • Rap Genius tried to throw all of their competitors under a bus by saying they were all doing it
  • Rap Genius failed to show any examples and ignored repeated emails asking for this information
  • Rap Genius were given special treatment by Google, getting to speak directly with their web spam team
  • Rap Genius were back in Google within 10 days (tell me when that’s ever happened to a site you know about)
  • One of the Rap Genius co-founders is a former product manager at Google
  • Rap Genius now have 20% more backlinks than they did before thanks to all of the press
  • Google got to reinforce their “don’t try to manipulate us” PR message
  • Google had zero idea about these backlinks until a blogger who previously had zero readers wrote about it

Next.

One Story in Millions of Being Unfairly Outranked

I was recently reading this article on Branded 3 about doing link removals. In the article they say they’ve had 60 manual penalties removed by not actually removing any links and just using the disavow tool. This is interesting, albeit strange, since in posts just a few months ago they said they do perform link removals.

What really caught my attention though was the comments section. There were quite a few angry webmasters there, with one example being Stephen. Here’s what he had to say:

stephen

Now, when I first read this comment I thought “I bet if I look at his website I can see where he’s going wrong very easily“. That’s probably a cynical approach, but I’ve came across many webmasters who can’t believe they’re not ranking well yet they have very few backlinks, they’re in a really difficult niche or some other fairly obvious reason.

That wasn’t the case for Stephen. I see no reason why he should have lost his rankings.

And more importantly, I see no reason why it’s his job to go and manually process every link he has when a new update around the corner may make all of that time and effort spent pointless.

With a bit of online detective work I managed to find Stephen’s tapas website (his comment username wasn’t linked) and pretty quickly found that the search term he was referring to was “spanish tapas”. This is part of the title tag of his Proper Spanish Tapas website and sure enough, I saw him in 15th too. He doesn’t have the most attractive website design, but it’s clearly an authority website on this topic:

spanish-tapas

The first obvious thing I can see is that the structure of the search results have not turned in Stephen’s favour. I have visited this search result page from many different IP addresses and each time I was presented with 6-7 results (across page 1 and 2) which are recommending restaurants. It’s odd that Australian websites come up when I’m using a Texas (USA) based IP but there you go. I change the IP and these recommendations of restaurants change.

It’s definitely not a typical, local based Google search result, but if anything it is probably the main cause of the rankings slip for Stephen. I don’t really have any qualms with that; this is Google’s search engine and it’s up to them which kind of results they want to display.

My problem is why About.com have two listings on the first page, the BBC are ranking and so are WholeFoods Market.

This is not a dumb SEO question. The obvious answer to that website is that they’re “authority domains” or “authority websites”. That may be the case, but they are not authorities on this niche and I’m sure they will never try to be or claim to be.

Whole Foods basic page on this topic is killing Stephen’s 50+ pages of information on a website that is 8 years old. The Whole Foods page has 2 backlinks. The BBC page has links from 12 different domains.

Yet his website has been unfairly shut out and replaced in a Google algorithm which puts so much weight on brands, that people who love and are passionate about a topic have a really hard time getting noticed. Surely they should be the people ranking?

And I did look into his backlinks. The funny thing is that some of them aren’t from the best sources but he attained them in a really credible way. For example, he has links from article directories, but they’re the best articles I’ve ever seen published on such directories. And it’s not like he’s trying to build them now, he published them back in 2006 and 2007. Again showing how long he has been building a website on this topic. He even authored a book on the subject, if you need more convincing there is no need to question this sites authority.

He has plenty of natural links that come from simply creating a great resource:

spanish-links

Sadly, when a brand like WholeFoods or About.com can whip up a simple page on this topic that is barely useful to a searcher, those links just aren’t good enough when an update comes. Stephen is not alone. There are without a doubt millions of webmasters struggling because of this kind of thing. I’ve spoken to plenty of them when I do phone consultations.

The Concept of Building a Link Network

To oversimplify the concept of building a link network for those who aren’t familiar with the idea, it goes like this: You build other websites around similar topics to a website that you want to rank – usually on powerful expired domains – and then link back to your original website.

If we’re using a whitehat to blackhat scale then this probably sits bang in the middle at being a grey hat tactic. Definitely not the kind of links Google want you to be getting, but also not hacking peoples websites and injecting your viagra links into them either.

I do believe there is a right way to do things when it comes to building a network, like actually making the sites you build attractive and useful, meaning no default WordPress theme and no-spun content. Just human written content that actually has some value in it if anyone were to ever come across them (although that is not the aim).

One thing you have to be careful of when you build a link network – we’re ridiculously over-paranoid about ours – is privacy. If you don’t set things up properly then you could easily create a footprint which links all of your websites together and could possibly get all of the sites linked from those domains penalised. Some of the obvious steps to take when protecting yourself are:

  • Using numerous different hosting companies and IP addresses
  • Mixing up your WHOIS data (legally, but never the same) for each stack of domains
  • Never keeping a list of all your websites in one place
  • Not using automated software to put together your websites. Set them up manually
  • Block the sites from link checking tools (like Ahrefs & Majestic SEO) so competitors can’t report you
  • Don’t put analytics code on any of the websites. You don’t need it.

And so on. There are about 10 more steps that we take with our network but I’ll save those for another day. That’s not to say we’re totally safe – not even guest posting is totally safe these days – but myself and Diggy will take our chances.

I’ve happily outed my own link networks before when we built really terrible ones such as for our Penguin2.com case study.

We have a very slow, expensive process, but I believe it’s worth it for the long run.

Originally, as I’ve said in this post, this was all primarily for testing. I have seen link networks, freshness abusers and plain spammer-owned sites outranking me and others in far too many industries to ignore trying this. I’ve simply decided to ramp up my efforts in the wake of all the drama surrounding Google and how they operate in the industries I follow, not limited to the examples I’ve posted above. And not to mention the over reliance of Google on ranking “brands” highly, even if they aren’t the best result on a subject.

This is not a post trying to convince others to build their own network – think of it more as an interesting opinion piece – but to help weigh any options you may have I’ve structured the rest of the post in a Good vs. Evil format with what I see a networks benefits and weaknesses are.

Positive: A Network Can Get You “Natural” Links

Something interesting that has happened in a number of the niches I’m involved in is that a link network has helped me to get a lot more natural links to my website. That may seem a little odd, until you hear why.

Whenever people are doing round-up posts for things like “Here’s what X amount of experts in X niche say about X” – which are all over the web – then they will often go to Google and look at the top sites ranking in those industries. I see at least 5 of these blog posts in the internet marketing niche every week, and I promise you they are common in other large industries as well. I’ve gained a lot of natural backlinks just by answering a quick email because someone already found me in Google.

I guess you could say this about any tactic that takes you to the top of Google but my point is that you don’t only need to rely on a network just because you’ve used it. They can be excellent platforms to build from.

Of course, this is only going to happen if you’ve done a good job with keyword research and know how to use network links to get you good rankings.

Negative: A Link Network is Not Risk-Free

One of the most recent takedowns of a private blog network was that of Anglo Rank. Some of the biggest search blogs on the web covered the news of their demise.

anglo-matt

What amazes me is not that they were caught and lost rankings but that Anglo Rank is nothing more than a service being promoted on BlackHatWorld. If you read the thread then you’ll see they’ve still been making plenty of sales in January, so it didn’t even deter people from that exact network. You really think Google would have better things to focus on to get some PR, scaring webmasters into any type of off-site SEO *cough*Godaddy*cough*.

Just after that, came Backlinks.com:

matt-cutts-backlinks

If you’re not building your own link network then you have to be very careful about link networks that you use from other people. Every single day on my Facebook ads I see people promoting link networks. They scrape the fans of popular facebook pages – ViperChill, Smart Passive Income, etc – then try to sell you on the network dream.

These are the same sites that tell you there are only 18 days left to opt-in, yet a week later they’ll say there’s 18 days left. I would stay very clear of anything like this. A network that is open to anyone with a Facebook account is not going to have customers promoting the best websites or be very secretive about where the links are coming from.

pat-fb

Ironically, I believe the people in question that Pat are talking about are aligned perfectly there on the right hand side of Facebook with his status update. I’ve saw them running ads with his face on and many other internet marketers.

Positive: A Network Can Keep You Ahead of the Curve

One of the great side-benefits of running a network has been being able to keep ahead of the latest SEO changes. There was literally an update two weeks ago, yet not a single person reported it. At least not until a few days after we noticed something. Being totally honest here, I didn’t even notice it myself until members of our private community started sharing their experiences:

forum-stuff

At first I kind of dismissed this blog post. Everything looked fine for the sites using our network (and the thread OP said PBN links looked fine), and when I checked sites like MozCast – which monitor Google fluctuations – everything seemed pretty normal.

I decided to reach out to Dr. Pete who handles MozCast (as far as I know) but he hadn’t noticed anything either:

dr-pete

I decided to post a question on Inbound.org to make sure we weren’t crazy and other people must be noticing something as well.

serp-changes

Crickets. There’s one person discussing the update.

Me.

Then one week after I asked about it, a better worded title makes the homepage of Inbound.org about that exact same topic.

better-wording

I deserve absolutely no credit for this discovery, and owe it all to people in our community who were happy to discuss these effects on their own sites which I hadn’t noticed, and it seems like the entire SEO community didn’t notice either (for at least a week).

This gave me a lot of data to work with, well in advance of the “SEO world” and I’ll be updating all of our users in the next few days about what I think the update addressed.

Negative: You Can’t Always Use Them for Clients

I recently had the opportunity to work on an SEO campaign for LG. Unfortunately, since it was a country-specific product and they were hiring multiple freelancers, their budget was a lot smaller than I was expecting and thus I didn’t end up working with them.

Even if I had got to work with them, the last strategy on my list for building links with them would be building links from a blog network. That’s not say I don’t think they would work, but some brands are simply not going to be okay with you building those types of links, and I’m not really surprised.

If you are going to be focusing on creating great content that gets people talking though – which isn’t always easy in the air-conditioning industry – the budget would have to be bigger than someone who is happy with network links that you can build for them.

Positive: A Network Is Easy to Backtrack From

There’s one thing that’s quite clear when looking into the drama around Google’s Disavow tool is that they simply do not know which links you’ve created yourself and which links someone else has built for you. As far as I know, it would be impossible for any search engine to ever know this. What has seemingly happened in thousands of cases (if not more) is that you will receive some kind of penalty for unnatural links and get a warning about this in Google Webmaster tools.

You will be shown a sample of the links you have to take-down and then it’s up to you to manually contact webmasters to get those links taken down. Don’t expect that because you do this though you’ll be guaranteed to rank where you did previously or even just get back in the Google index for your brand name.

Just this month, the message Google are giving webmasters has changed.

The latest reports from this month are that you may be asked to remove more links and then you’ll have to wait a few weeks for them to get back to your new request:

marie-haynes

Keeping in mind that once again it’s your responsibility to go and find these links; Google are not going to tell you about all of them. It’s a ridiculous move on their part because they’ve now opened up a totally new SEO industry where companies are charging businesses to help them find the links to remove. Not everyone has the money to pay $79/m to Ahrefs or similar to get a better idea of their link profile.

I’ve actually been giving free reports to some people because they simply have no idea what links are pointing to their website that Gogle may not like.

With a link network, you can take down any links in minutes. No worrying about contacting webmasters whatsoever.

Negative: They Won’t Work in Every Niche

Recently, a client of mine – let’s call him Stan – invited me to meet up with one of his friends who was interested in my services. I met up with him for lunch a few days later and he was a great guy, already ready to start paying me after seeing what I had done for Stan.

He asked me to never tell anyone his industry as he really thinks he has a hot corner in a popular category – which I would mostly agree with – and wanted me on board.

I checked out his site, saw there were quite a few improvements to be made, but thought the terms he wanted to target sounded long-tail enough before I did any proper research. When I got home I was sad to see sites like the NHS (The UK’s National Health Service), Wikipedia, About.com, .Gov and .Edu authority sites on the topic.

Even for long-term phrases which were sometimes very-specific product names, big recognisable organisations were showing up in the search results. I sent him a pretty simple email, “I don’t think I can make a good impact on this search term for you and it wouldn’t be fair to accept your money”.

It wasn’t his budget, it was more about the links I could build for him. Network links would simply not penetrate those search results baring a stranger than normal Google results page.

Positive: They’re Amazing in New Industries

It should be no secret to regular readers of this blog that I love making money by targeting new industries, which I’m fortunate to have been successful with. I’m finding good new niche ideas on a regular basis, but they’re so new it’s almost impossible to get “proper links”.

One example I gave a few months ago was Neverwet. At the time, an affiliate website was ranking 1st in Google.

What are my options here, really, if I want to make money from that niche?

  • Broken link building? My site is new so nobody is linking to me or others anyway.
  • Writing blog comments? Mostly nofollow and those that are dofollow are spammed to hell. Seeing an affiliate site in a comment URL also looks suspicious.
  • Getting links from high-quality press sites? Why wouldn’t they just link to the main product website
  • Writing guest posts? You can’t deny they would be primarily for SEO. Nobody really wants to read about that product, but instead watch that product.

I could go on, but you’re starting to get the idea. In a new niche when I’m breaking through a new market, network links work amazingly well. They work just as well for local SEO as well, but I don’t want everyone knowing that. A little reward for those of you who read every word of this post ;) .

Why ViperChill Will Always Have Porn Backlinks

Something I noticed a few months ago after my blog posts on Google freshness was that someone started a Negative SEO campaign for this website, essentially sending links from erotica style websites with similar terms as the anchor text.

I have to admit I laughed when I first saw this:

pornlinks

The other funny thing is that I am 99% certain I know who did this — someone I know personally. Fortunately it has not affected the rankings of my WordPress SEO page, but even if it did I wouldn’t do anything about it.

Why? Because I believe Google can do the job just fine on their own. I think the disavow tool really gives them fantastic PR in terms of scaring webmasters to do anything external that even hints at being done to get better search rankings. I refuse to have to spend days or even weeks of my time trying to get these links manually removed; especially when someone can click a button and build them all back up again.

If only we were all ex-Google product managers like one of the founders of Rap Genius.

I know Google isn’t the only marketing option. I know there are millions if not billions of search results where most people would agree they’re great results with the sites on them being great resources. I also have no desire to start using Bing. But I have zero doubt that the game we are playing here is just not fair. There are times when the individual just has no chance against big brands, and the ‘rules’ just aren’t able to be enforced.

I know many people who would never consider doing anything but writing great content and trying to get ‘natural’ links. I think that’s great. I would never perform an unnatural link building campaign for this website, mostly because I don’t need to or have the desire to rank for much.

The irony though is that focusing on content can even land you in trouble, as Rae recently put it:

I'm sorry, but I live in reality. In reality, creating good content guarantees you nothing.

There's no guarantee good content will magically be shared.

If it does get shared, and gets shared so much that a larger site republishes it, it could screw me.

If people like it, and link to it with too much anchor, it could screw me.

If not enough quality sites link to it in proportion to the overall inbound links, it could screw me.

If multiple bloggers with a good audience who can give me good exposure, but that also blatantly sell links or publish a lot of guest posts links to it, it could screw me.

If I include a nifty graphic in it and enough people repost that graphic and give me a link credit for being the source, it could screw me.

There are industries and cases where utilising a link network would not be a very effective option, but there are other markets where – with these links – you’ll actually have a fighting thriving chance at getting your quality resource noticed.

Just my $0.02. Hello, 2014.

You may view the latest post at http://www.viperchill.com/blog-network/ You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted. Best regards, Build Backlinks Online peter.clarke@designed-for-success.com