1/2 pr 7/8 links..or 100000 gb links

what would you choose if limited to one method only

[steve128]

So hypothetically what would you choose if only one option was available, thousands of GB links anchor text if you want @ $500 for 12-months

Or 3-4 PR8 links, no anchor text @ $5000 for 12-months

Money is no problem, but you can only choose one option…and why

[rfgdxm1]

The guestbook links won't go away after 12 months. The issue is how long will Google keep counting these? My guess is Google will very soon filter all of these, so you might be paying $500 for nothing.

And as for those PR8 links, how come for $5000 a year you can't also get the anchor text you want? Also, is there any expectation of click through conversion on these PR8 links that cost $5000 a year? If this is just for Google PR purpose, 5 grand a year is a hefty chunk of change.

[mil2k]

Answers to such questions always depend on the individual case and instances. All the points raised by rfgdxm1 seem valid enough.

[ciml]

Ignoring the guestbook issue:

Many links from other domains with appropriate anchor text should be better that a few links from high PR pages. Not in terms of PR transfer, but in terms of ranking.

Considering the guestbook issue:

Seeing as the guestbook fad has come back, even though this time it's an anti-guestbook fad, I'd not have much confidence in links from guestbook pages.

[div01]

If you do some searching (on Google), gb links shouldn't cost you more than $10-20. You can't tell though how long they will be relevant for Google.

[rfgdxm1]

>Many links from other domains with appropriate anchor text should be better that a few links from high PR pages. Not in terms of PR transfer, but in terms of ranking.

If it was me managing a paid link campaign for just Google ranking purposes, $5000 a year for 3-4 PR8 links, no anchor text sounds like a lousy deal. For that sort of money I could get lots of links with appropriate anchor text from a large number of different sites. I'd expect this latter strategy to be far more effective.

>Seeing as the guestbook fad has come back, even though this time it's an anti-guestbook fad, I'd not have much confidence in links from guestbook pages.

When was this a fad before? I've looked at a variety of guestbooks. Some which have been on the Net longer than Google itself has existed. I haven't seen much evidence that guestbooks were heavily spammed until the last year or so.

I'd agree have no confidence in guestbooks at this point. Google should quickly have this trick neutralized. You need to think of other cost effective strategies that haven't been really exploited yet if you want to get ahead in Google. You need to be ahead of the game, not following the pack.

[ciml]

> When was this a fad before?

Ah, use of guestbook links was quite popular, and successful, some time ago (maybe I just keep bad company). Nowadays, I don't see much successful guestbook spamming but I do see a lot more complaints.

[rfgdxm1]

I see lots of guestbook spamming today, which I didn't see much back then. As for whether much guestbook spamming today is successful, I have my doubts. It is possible that you kept bad company back then. Back in that day, was adding guestbook links more subtle and sophisticated than the overt spamming that goes on now? If the number of SEOs doing this years ago was small, and they did so in way that didn't make it obvious they were spamming, it would have been hard to notice. The reason for all the complaints today is that the spamming is so blatant and widespread.