Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I’m going to create a domain that has thousands of pages of content that is on topic. The content will be free from other sites so I can get the site up quickly. These pages will be stories, articles, lists...whatever is free to use and relevant to my topic. Then, to get the new site recognized by the search engines, I’ll add a few articles to my main site and a few other sites of mine, which already have a PR of 4-6. Then I will put links in the new articles on my existing sites to the new site with all the content. After that, I can just add as many links as I want from the content of the new site to my main site and other sites using the keywords I want from each article. Wahlla! Thousands of links!
In short:
My sites -> Link To -> articles on my sites -> Link To -> my new site -> Links To -> content on my new site -> Links To -> all of my sites with relevant keywords!
Tell me what you think. Please.
But give it a try and let us know how you fare.
Would this change your stance that my sites would be no better off martinibuster? Would you see any possible negative effects of doing this like LifeinAsia mentioned?
Thank you!
*edit- off is spelled with 2 f's...who would have thought!*
[edited by: Jhet at 10:00 pm (utc) on Mar. 20, 2007]
If you take a dollar out of your pocket and put it into your wife's purse, then she returns the dollar later that evening, are you one dollar richer?
This a blatent, but poor, attempt at manipulating the SERPs, not the kind of thing Google likes.
A better option would be to invest the time in writing unique and useful content for your site. Forget regurgitating the same stuff that can be found elsewhere. If you can't do that then give up.
And if you can look at a picture and see that it looks funny, Google can likely write a program to detect it.
Plus, I think everyone here is politely telling you it almost certainly won't work.
What is a 'mini net' 300m? I have not heard that term before.
This used to be common in the 90's and is something that is frowned upon by search engines.
There may be a better way to explain it and perhaps someone will post a better defined answer.
Without that, all you're doing is moving your existing Page Rank around (like Martinibuster's dollar). You can achieve the same thing more safely ... and probably more effectively ... by working to improve your present site, with careful thought to your internal crosslinking.
Bottom line: if you want links, create something linkworthy. Don't expect to create them out of thin air.
To the best of my understanding it is a collection of sites owned by the same entity and they link to each other to artificially boost link strength.
This used to be common in the 90's and is something that is frowned upon by search engines.
Jhet, idea is for each website to be first established, somewhat popular, with some links from outside. Than, having few sites like that, you can link them slowly.
Now it is done under title of "partner sites", especially by entities with lot of money who own bundles of popular sites. It seems to me that they are not being panelized by G at all.
Those popular sites, owned by entities like IAC, are popular (with lots of links) independent of the network of "partner sites". Remove the handful of "partner links" and there will be little change because of the thousands of other quality links.
Good question though.
Let's not forget that behind all the numbers... behind the PageRanks, and crosslinks, and SERPs, and the other BS... behind all that are PEOPLE, who are looking for something interesting to buy, or read, or listen to, or whatever. Of what possible value could your scheme be for THEM?
What you are proposing is the online equivalent of throwing a box of banana peels on the sidewalk and hoping that every once in a while some poor schmuck on his way to a REAL job slips on one and drops a nickel out of his pocket. The potential risk and possible return of the scheme ought not to be the first questions in your mind. Uppermost in your mind should be this:
"Is this REALLY how I want to make my living?"
See, SEO is just a tool. It can make good content more visible to search, sure, but it can't turn a pile of s**t into gold, no matter HOW assiduously you work on your pile of s**t.
Now go forth and make yourself useful.
Is there any point in reporting them?
That was beautiful. I've got a little tear in my eye. :)
Seriously, though, Jhet, I have to second that. You should spend some of that crafty thinking worrying about how to make your sites more useful for the consumer/viewer.
With 4-6 pageranks on your other sites, what are you worried about starting a new site just to build its rank up to the same level? Try to boost those numbers. That will be equal to if not more than the effort that it takes to make a 1000+ page specifically for the purpose of SEO.
Thanks... I love that expression and shall use it going forth...
Why put all this effort into multiple sites when you could put it all into the site that makes money for you and create a fantastic, content -rich site while you're at it?
But isn't it amazing how fast it can turn gold into s**t?
Let me ask you martinibuster, If you put a dollar in your wife's purse and she gives you back $2 have you made any money?
If you folks are seriously suggesting that crappy link networks do not work with google, you are insane.
1. Are you suggesting that links from one site to a brand new site is going to rank the brand new site in the top five at Google?
2. We're not discussing link networks. We are discussing the OPs specific issue.
In nearly every niche there are sites with 4,000+ home page links - and they own all of them.
Nearly every niche? Nah. Unless you're counting dot EDUs.
The content will be free from other sites so I can get the site up quickly
can you elaborate on this one?
will you steal the content ot recycle the one you already have on your sites?
