Forum Moderators: martinibuster
These companies have incredible power, massive hoards of cash, networks, affiliates, branding and reach - while the poor ole webmaster has naff all in real terms. I mean let's admit it to ourselves, we are small time in comparison and it will take us years to make a dent in cyberspace compared to major brands out there, so our problem isn't about getting links - more the speed at which those links are obtained, indexed by the engines and out there working for us - and yes, the ease of how links are working.
Having now got 2 websites in cyberspace, I now realise a little of what's involved, but seems I haven't really won very much or made any significant headway at all. Yeah, yeah, I've developed some content, submitted to engines, directories, a few articles, done the many targeted link swaps, got few high PR links, been good and not spammed anybody blah blah - yet this tidal wave of links that everyone raves on about, hasn't happened, which says to me this isn't as easy like everyone makes out.
Ok, I've hung around the forums, read articles done this and that, and you know what I've discovered? The techniques may be free, but it's too slow and at this rate I'll be drawing my pension before I make it - how frightening reality can be. So what's the answer, hanging about the forums, hoping for that magical grain of info that suddenly ignites my linking knowledge that it propels my site to unbeatable heights? Probably not and can't see anybody divulging that info, and that's if they actually know anyway, which I seriously doubt.
I feel that as perhaps many do, a fresh linking perspective is needed to speed up this link building, and as the web is full of what shall we say 'bad signposting'?, then maybe it's time we stopped wasting valuable time on listening to folks that clearly send us in the wrong direction, and slowly at that, - and just step back to think about why methods fail and why we haven't 'made it'. Er, start again with a fresh, clean and lightening fast linking approach, feels right - after all the old ways are, well - old hat.
Now, it's going to seem tough to just stop using old linking methods, but if the results aren't there, then why continue. So, I guess you guys and gals want some kind of proof or reasoning before you welcome, anything new right?
Ok, I worked out some statistics based on my link building campaign, and this is just to show that I've done everything and covered all the basics, before anyone jumps in and suggests otherwise. I realise that many devote their lives to link swaps alone, which I found to be most unhealthy and time zapping, which is just plain nuts in my opinion.
K, mt site is established 5 years, has a PR6 homepage, most other pages PR of 4. Starting off I managed to get 700 links in various directories, also submitted to search engines as well as contacting various site owners and trading links.
Now, I suppose I could have gotten more links - way more, but that would involve linking to anything and anybody thus being untargeted for my needs and possibly inviting a ton of trouble in the process. So I deliberately kept my linking to my website's country and not ventured beyond that.
Despite those first 700ish links gained, all these links haven't produced squat - I repeat, they haven't produced, delivered any significant traffic, or enticed any new major linking partners or forced any type of major link surge. So, the question has to be why.
Have I linked to the wrong sites - no, as I've done what everyone else has done, eg: obtained first links so I get spidered, sent out link swap invitations, and this has helped a bit, but it's just not fast enough or produced this magic that so many brag about that's happened to their sites, which has made me think that this advice floating about the web ain't worth squat.
I get about oh, maybe 10 link requests per day from desperate webmasters - that's 50 a week, 200 hundred per month and 2400 each year. But I'd say 50% of these requests are unworthy, untargeted and not worth the results, so I delete them.
Maybe I should swap with junk sites, as that would speed up my link results. Ah, but hang on Mr forum member said NO, it's bad for me, and Mr Google says NO too, and that's just a wee bit controlling, wouldn't you agree?
And why do folks suggest this, why does Google not want me to engage in huge linking campaigns so I gain an advantage for my site? Excuse me, but it's my site - our sites yes or no?
Is this to do with Mr Google keeping it's index cleaner, stopping the spam websites?, constructing a better search experience for users? (thoughts on this would be welcome folks!), - I say nope, I say Google wants to control us for whatever reason, and that's just not right guys - right?. How does this 'link restricting' help webmasters - it doesn't, does it.
We need masses of links to truly make a difference yes - I think this is the truth and why we have to stop being afraid and allowing the search engines to control us, and do something for ourselves. Or we will be follwing the tired, old hat way of link building forever - you know it's true guys, so admit it.
Lets drop the old worthless ways, speed up the entire link building process and do some good for ourselves, which hopefully helps out others too. I see know reason why new link methods can't be introduced and actually beat the search engines grip on us.
I've never understood why folks are so afraid of Google, and infact isn't the entire web larger than Google - ofcourse it is, so stop being controlled by them then.
I see the way forward as viral, and any other link technique will always be inferior to that.
Why would anyone want to do what everybody else is doing.
Hardly original thinking. Got to be original where linking is concerned, and copying what tens of thousands of others are doing isn't the way anymore. No point in sticking with the past - time to move forward with linking.
Supporting old attitudes doesn't help anyone much.
[edited by: Helpinghand at 11:05 pm (utc) on May 6, 2007]
