Makaveli2007 - 9:56 pm on Mar 5, 2010 (gmt 0)
Hey martinibuster - sorry if that c ame off wrong. Actually, when you said that on here I didnt think of it as "he's probably lying or speculating about it" lol - not at all, I was actually thinking that you must have a point or otherwise you wouldnt say it. It was simply that in my own head it didnt make a whole lot of sense b/c I immediately had to think of the people who didnt even bother remove their broken links, so b/c that thought popped into my mind immediately..it simply didnt make sense to me and the idea of using that link building technique must have been moved to the back of my mind - until a few weeks later when it magically moved to the front of my mind, again as I realized that it was a bit short-sighted of myself to forget about the whole principle of targeting the right people (the people who 'care' in this case).
Just to clarify - I didnt really think that you were just spilling untested theories - it's just that it didnt make sense in my own mind when I read it. And of course I appreciate when you share ideas like that on here :-).
I definitely agree with what you've been saying in this thread (and in your latest post in it) about d uplicating c ompetitors' backlinks. If you do nothing but duplicate competitors' backlinks, I think you might not even reach a state of parity, if there's any truth to the "the older a link the more it counts in the SE algos theory" (personally I dont know for sure if this is true).
Then again (I just noticed this) in an uncompetitive niche where your competitors aren't spying on each other's backlink profiles (b/c they have no idea of SEO/link building), duplicating the backlinks of enough competitors might actually be all it takes to overcome that state of parity (if they havent all duplicated each other's links; thats why Im saying in an uncompetitive niche).
But of course, I do see your point about trying to get links from neighborhoods your competitors haven't even considered, yet (if I understood it correctly :-)). Thanks for sharing, again.