[ColSpanker]

Yes.
I'm assuming tier 2 are places such as Squidoo.
Has the latest Google updates had any effect on your business?

(09-05-2012 10:18 PM)IainMuirs Wrote:  

Tier 1 I build by hand and make 5 sites for each pyramid. Each tier 1 pyramid contains trusted sites, i.e. blogs (like Tumbler, Wordpress, Blogger, Live Journal), article directories (EZine, EHow, Article Base etc), video sites (youtube, vimeo, videojug), document sharing sites (scribd, docstoc, google documents), Q&A sites (Yahoo Answers, WikAnswers etc), Social bookmark and social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Stumbleupon, Pinterest), Wiki sites etc. You get the picture. Sites that google already trust. You add unique content to these sites, make them look legit, if it's a blog then add a few pages of content and a few posts, chuck some video and pics up.

Tier 2 is similar sites to tier 1 but of a lesser quality, you just spin your tier 1 articles and post them tier 2. Don't need to build these sites up to a high quality.

Tier 3 would be thousands of blog links for example, if you don't have the ability / software to do it you can buy gigs on fiverr for 50,000 blog comments or whatever high QUANTITY links you can find. Quality is not important here.

Tier 3 links to tier 2. Tier 2 to tier 1. Tier 1 to my money site.

Tier 3 boosts the page rank of tier 2, which in turn boosts the page rank of tier 1 which in turn passes on to your money site.

Does that make sense?

[IainMuirs]

Yeah you can use Squidoo, Hub Pages, Info Barrel etc for tier 1 and tier 2. I've not been affected by google updates.

[Tbone]

Guys remember this: visit duration, pages per visit, and bounce rate factor into your rankings also. You can't just focus on link building.

You should actually put more effort into producing great content than link building. If you do that, you will have others building links for you on an ongoing basis. They will want to share your content and comment on it. This is going to produce the most natural link profile, and you should be safe no matter what changes Google makes.

[Kitsune]

(09-10-2012 09:49 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

Guys remember this: visit duration, pages per visit, and bounce rate factor into your rankings also. You can't just focus on link building.

You should actually put more effort into producing great content than link building. If you do that, you will have others building links for you on an ongoing basis. They will want to share your content and comment on it. This is going to produce the most natural link profile, and you should be safe no matter what changes Google makes.

lol.

That is what the guys at google want you to believe. The fact of the matter is, their system is completely broken.

[Tbone]

I think you missed the point.

Whether you believe time on page and bounce rate affect rankings or not (yes, they are small part of hundreds of different criteria), the fact is that high quality content rules.

What's most effective:

1. Write pages with so-so content and build 100% of the links yourself (because nobody is going to share bad content).

2. Provide great content, build links yourself plus have others like, tweet, and link to your content because they like it and want to share it?

[Kickb]

Is this website an example of Affiliate Marketing?


http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/

The guy running the page has very expensive products for sale (Obviously) and I assume for each sale he is paid commission?

[Tbone]

Yes kickboxer. You're right.

[Kitsune]

(09-11-2012 12:58 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

I think you missed the point.

Whether you believe time on page and bounce rate affect rankings or not (yes, they are small part of hundreds of different criteria), the fact is that high quality content rules.

What's most effective:

1. Write pages with so-so content and build 100% of the links yourself (because nobody is going to share bad content).

2. Provide great content, build links yourself plus have others like, tweet, and link to your content because they like it and want to share it?

That'd work in an ideal world, but the fact is you'll never get a 'natural' approach that can't be replicated.

The algorithms can't differentiate between whether those 'others' are paid for or natural. I can pay for people to share my links and build my links, regardless of the content on my site, and I can do it in a way that looks pretty much completely natural. The only difference is I can do it at an order of magnitude quicker than it'd take for it to happen naturally.

Building a valuable site with strong content isn't enough. It was once upon a time, but it isn't now. For instance, for one of my stores, I'm at number one for a few very competitive keywords. My site doesn't have any unique content, it is an ecommerce store: it has product descriptions which aren't even unique, and stock photos. I don't have outrageously cheap prices or a super-designed site.

Yet this site ranks number 1 with strong competition that are selling the same or similar products: some with better descriptions, blogs, and other things that would make it a 'better site.'

If content is king, then how is the above possible?

[Tbone]

My point is to write for visitors. You want your content to be so good that others help "spread the word."

I guarantee you that Roosh does not have to do any ongoing link building because others are constantly linking to his articles. He has insightful, interesting content. He doesn't have to pay others to build links for him.

If your content is shit, you will ALWAYS be link building because you will be the only one creating links to your site.

I have a site in the sauna market that I haven't touched in about three years. It holds steady because of the content. Others constantly link to it. I never build links to it anymore.

Google also wants fresh content. If your content is good, others will leave comments and your site will constantly be updated with new content whether you're active on it or not.

Yes, by all means be active in building links. I will certainly build links for all new websites. But be as concerned with the quality of your content.

[Kitsune]

(09-11-2012 05:34 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

Again, you missed the point.

What I'm talking about is not just for search engines. It is to write for your visitors. You want your content to be so good that others help "spread the word."

I guarantee you that Roosh does not have to do any ongoing link building because others are constantly linking to his articles. He has insightful, interesting content. He doesn't have to pay others to build links for him.

If your content is shit, you will ALWAYS be link building because you will be the only one creating links to your site.

Google also wants fresh content. If your content is good, others will leave comments and your site is constantly being updated with new content whether you're active on it or not.

Yes, by all means be active in building links. But be as concerned with the quality of your content.

I'm not entirely sure how I'm missing the point.
From what I understand, your point is: Build a good quality site and then other people will build your traffic for you via sharing your link with other people.

If that is the point, then I'm not really missing it: I'm disagreeing with it. If that isn't really the point, my apologies. Feel free to correct me.

Whilst building quality sites should be a priority, it won't bring in traffic or money. If you wait for other people to do your link building for you via word of mouth and tweeting and commenting and sharing articles etc. you will get outcompeted.

It is all very well saying "It isn't for google, it's for visitors!' but then you can't alternately say, 'content will make your rankings better.'

To use the example you did - Roosh probably gets most of his links made naturally. Fair enough, that might be true, and people might generally find his site useful and read all the articles and buy his books. But does that equate to 'Google love?' Does his content mean he outranks companies that are building links professionally? Not that I can see. And whilst ranking isn't everything and neither is online visibility, it can't be denied that Roosh has carved a small niche in a market with massive money going into it.

[Tbone]

I never said don't build links. My point is you should put as much thought into creating good content as you do into link building.

Two people can build sites in the same niche and do identical link building activities, but the one who has good content will come out ahead. He's going to have help building his links. His visitors are going to link to him because they want to share his content because it's high quality.

The person with average content will always have to pay for link building because his visitors aren't going to "help" him build links.

That's what I want to get across.

It's real simple. Produce average content, and you build ALL your links. Produce quality content, and you PLUS your visitors are going to build links.

[Alpha Mind]

(09-10-2012 09:49 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

Guys remember this: visit duration, pages per visit, and bounce rate factor into your rankings also. You can't just focus on link building.

You should actually put more effort into producing great content than link building. If you do that, you will have others building links for you on an ongoing basis. They will want to share your content and comment on it. This is going to produce the most natural link profile, and you should be safe no matter what changes Google makes.

Yes, duration, pages per visit, and bounce rate all matter.

Do they matter more than links? No

Does content matter more than links? No.

GREAT content will get you links, but if you're just another dude selling vitamins, bar stools, college apparel, etc., no one is going to do you any favors.

You can produce a natural link profile unnaturally by not being a fool and building on the same term. 15% for head of tail keywords is what you should aim for.

The ranking benefit from thousands of pages runs on a curve, then plateaus if you don't continue adding pages. And that's algorithm specific, and you can find that in the Google patents if you care enough to question it.

It all depends on your niche. No one is going to link to your affiliate website for cheap Nevada auto insurance.

That said, if you produce quality content (Roosh, G-Manifesto), you'll get links. It all depends on the niche, but for most people slinging physical goods online, link juice is king and always will be.

[IainMuirs]

Backlinks are still the #1 way that Google and other search engines determine your site ranking. Unique content on your main site is obvious, people should have always been doing that but just adding unique content and waiting for people to find, share and link to it will take forever. I don't have forever until my sites start making money, my competitors won't hang around they'll start building links and I'll be left in the dust whilst they make all the profit. You need to build backlinks.

Quote:

I guarantee you that Roosh does not have to do any ongoing link building because others are constantly linking to his articles. He has insightful, interesting content. He doesn't have to pay others to build links for him.

I'm sure I read a post that it took him around 7 years to start building up a following and make money from his blog. That's a long time. Why wait 7 years when you can do it much quicker by doing backlinking? Good content + solid backlinking means you'll grow even quicker AND people will share your content and build links for you, bonus!

[alphascout]

for creating 10 000's of shitty backlinks to the 2nd or 3rd rung in the multi-tier strategy, do you use a specific program or fiverr gigs? whats the most cost/time effective way to do it?


one thing i noticed about the CONTENT/BOUNCERATE/TIME ON PAGE issue, is that for my niche where all the other sites are not relevant (a typo niche), my site, with rather shitty content had a stable ranking and only went up with more backlinks despite a high bounce rate. For my other niche, with an actual keyword and not great cotnent either, i listed the site too early with very crappy content resulting in high bounce rate. my site went down eventually to like the 4th page. I think i notice a trend from this observation...:


BOUNCE RATE/TIME ON SITE IS RELATIVE TO THE OTHER SITES IN THE TOP 10.

for example, if your site is at #6 and has a bounce rate of 60%, but all teh others in the top 10 have higher bounce rates, its good for your site. (the typo example, people were not searching for the type) On the other hand, if your site at #6 has a bounce rate of %60, but others in the top 10 have a %10 bounce rate, your site will go down due to poor bounce rate. (google will deduce your content to be poor)

To stretch even further, it could be the case that Google Ranks "content" as a relative varialble, i.e. relative to the other sites ranking for the same keyword.

[Tbone]

Right. Of course duration, pages per visit, and bounce rate don't matter more than links. My original point was to not to forget about these metrics.

It's a mistake to think links, links, links. That was the mistake that I made with my first content site. My site had more than 150 pages, a solid link profile, but I got mediocre results. When I went back and rewrote lots of content, that site started to take off.

I was able to take my hands off of it and still watch it grow. No more link building. No more added pages. People liked the content so much that they shared it for me. I got more and more visitors from all over the place - Facebook, forums, blogs, etc. Of course I also made more and more money, on complete auto pilot.

The power of great content is that you become less reliant on Google to send you visitors. When hundreds of people are sharing your content constantly, you get visitors from all over the web. This is the safest way to go with all the changes that will continue to be made with search engines.

Of course it all depends on niche and your chosen method of internet marketing. But I've even seen some ecommerce sites that add quality articles.

See this article on an ecommerce site - http://www.myweddingfavors.com/honeymoon...ation.html

There are dozens of such articles on that site. The guys who run it make millions of dollars. They know what they're doing.

Wherever there are opportunities to add great content, one should do it.

[slothpiece]

Don't forget that social media activity influences ranking after Penguin. You can somewhat get boosts via Tweets, Retweets, FB linkage, Google +, etc. When you're auto posting your blog content to one of your many social accounts, your followers will do some legwork where they're posting your content in their blogs and linking to your twitter accounts or fb pages. Don't leave this out of the equation. The days of link spamming blog comments and forum profiles with scrapebox alone to get to number one are over. You need to diversify your links.

[Alpha Mind]

(09-11-2012 03:42 PM)kickboxer Wrote:  

Is this website an example of Affiliate Marketing?


http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/

The guy running the page has very expensive products for sale (Obviously) and I assume for each sale he is paid commission?

Yes, solid business. They advertise all over Reddit.

I am not a fan of social--in general--but this is a fine example of how to not carry anything, anywhere, and get paid. Although, I doubt their CEO runs game on foreign women.

My guess is he works 80+ hours per week.

If I have this biz? I would be rocking more...at least in the short-term.

[Alpha Mind]

(09-11-2012 11:29 PM)slothpiece Wrote:  

Don't forget that social media activity influences ranking after Penguin. You can somewhat get boosts via Tweets, Retweets, FB linkage, Google +, etc. When you're auto posting your blog content to one of your many social accounts, your followers will do some legwork where they're posting your content in their blogs and linking to your twitter accounts or fb pages. Don't leave this out of the equation. The days of link spamming blog comments and forum profiles with scrapebox alone to get to number one are over. You need to diversify your links.

I've benefited so much from the finite game tips on here, I wish I had the time to dispel all Google Penguin misconceptions

Penguin is an algorithmic addition, not "new rules."

"Social buzz" is at most, 10% of the algorithm, at best. And we have at least 10 years before it's the defining factor of search results.

That said, I'm not implying it doesn't have weight, which are two separate things.

Your high PR--hopefully, contextual--links will be enhanced by how much attention you pay to this factor (social buzz), but it's only to a degree.

Everyone whose game/business/life was ruined by penguin was because they were myopic and didn't anticipate the future; they stacked their deck in favor of old rules and lost.

We benefited, across the board, in the vitamin AND SEO spaces.

Maintain regular social behavior, build pages (hey, if they get links, great, chances are, they won't, so send quality flow deep, to internal pages), and build links. You'll rank.

Post-penguin, rankings are no longer dynamic, but roll out in phases. If you're human, keep pressing. Don't be discouraged by lag-time in the SERPs. Everything gets aggregated, calculated, and adjusted accordingly.

[IainMuirs]

Quote:

for creating 10 000's of shitty backlinks to the 2nd or 3rd rung in the multi-tier strategy, do you use a specific program or fiverr gigs? whats the most cost/time effective way to do it?

If you don't have software and don't want to be buying it then there are fiverr gigs where you can get 50,000 blog comments or 10,000 wiki comments or even an SeNuke X campaign. Search for 'blog comments', 'wiki links', 'se nuke x' or 'web 20s' and you'll find tons of gigs. Just don't blast your money site with them.

[LoveBug]

I'm just starting to get into internet marketing.. One piece of advice I was given is that learning the principals of paid traffic is more valuable than focusing on SEO.. dude told me only paid traffic was scalable and could forever be applied both online/offline, while SEO may change at any given time as social media and search engines popularity comes and goes

[ManAbout]

(08-23-2012 03:06 AM)Alpha Mind Wrote:  

I run a large (10K products) ecommerce website and a top 100 (rated top 100 by serps.com) SEO agency, and have experience in most internet marketing related spaces. I've sold a few ebooks, but none of them have done spectacularly well.

How are you doing the fulfillment for such a large number of SKUs? Do you do dropship? Do you hold any stock and use a third party fulfillment company?

[ColSpanker]

After playing around with IM for a year, I'm finally starting to see the traffic build on one of my Wordpress pages. How that will translate into $$$ is yet to be seen. I have several of these WP sites pointing at my money site, but only one of them are directly related to the branded products we sell. I've also noted the people logging onto the WP site which is getting most of the traffic don't click on the other links. Solving this problem is going to be the key to making some money or just wanking. The problem with too many good blogs/sites out there is that most of the content makers are happy to wank.
I'm still trying to figure out what all the numbers mean. What is the number you get from "Google Index" and how do you make sense about it?
I'm trying to "white hat" it all the way. I talk up my sites on other forums and beg for links. Sometimes I get them.

[Alpha Mind]

(09-12-2012 08:57 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(08-23-2012 03:06 AM)Alpha Mind Wrote:  

I run a large (10K products) ecommerce website and a top 100 (rated top 100 by serps.com) SEO agency, and have experience in most internet marketing related spaces. I've sold a few ebooks, but none of them have done spectacularly well.

How are you doing the fulfillment for such a large number of SKUs? Do you do dropship? Do you hold any stock and use a third party fulfillment company?

All of the above.

We're moving toward 100% fulfillment company, but we don't want inventory sitting around. It's quite hard to manage and track that kind of volume. And no, we don't have 10K products sitting around. Most business is specific products from long tail searches, but we have several brands that we stock regularly.

[Alpha Mind]

(09-11-2012 11:11 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

Right. Of course duration, pages per visit, and bounce rate don't matter more than links. My original point was to not to forget about these metrics.

It's a mistake to think links, links, links. That was the mistake that I made with my first content site. My site had more than 150 pages, a solid link profile, but I got mediocre results. When I went back and rewrote lots of content, that site started to take off.

I was able to take my hands off of it and still watch it grow. No more link building. No more added pages. People liked the content so much that they shared it for me. I got more and more visitors from all over the place - Facebook, forums, blogs, etc. Of course I also made more and more money, on complete auto pilot.

The power of great content is that you become less reliant on Google to send you visitors. When hundreds of people are sharing your content constantly, you get visitors from all over the web. This is the safest way to go with all the changes that will continue to be made with search engines.

Of course it all depends on niche and your chosen method of internet marketing. But I've even seen some ecommerce sites that add quality articles.

See this article on an ecommerce site - http://www.myweddingfavors.com/honeymoon...ation.html

There are dozens of such articles on that site. The guys who run it make millions of dollars. They know what they're doing.

Wherever there are opportunities to add great content, one should do it.

Sure. I do what he does too.

That said, that isn't what you'd call share-worthy content. That article exists to increase the size of the website, link out to a perceived high-authority site (notice the link out to the .gov), and to support another article, which supports a specific product page. I can promise you that gets few, if any shares, or inbound links because people liked the article.

One thing we've been doing is creating our own images/pictures/graphics or modifying others, and hosting them on our website. Then, we push to Pinterest and Tumblr, which provide most benefit, ranking wise, out of all the social signals.

Google+ followers to a website's G+ page also provides a solid boost, but it's somewhat limited compared to getting an image shared that's hosted on your own website.

[ManAbout]

(09-13-2012 01:13 AM)Alpha Mind Wrote:  

We're moving toward 100% fulfillment company, but we don't want inventory sitting around. It's quite hard to manage and track that kind of volume. And no, we don't have 10K products sitting around. Most business is specific products from long tail searches, but we have several brands that we stock regularly.

What percentage do fulfillment companies take? Any recommendations for reliable companies? Have you tried Amazon's fulfillment services?