Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

website FAQ

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 15

									I have already addressed the question about backlinks on an “inner
page” of a High Page Rank domain in the first part of the PDF that
contains the backlinks. I am going to address a few more of the myths
that get passed around about backlinks and that you've probably heard
or were wondering about.

Myth number 1: You must have “relevant” links in the same niche as
your website or they don't count or you will get penalized in some way
by Google.

Relevance or "theme-related" backlinks:

This is another myth that gets passed around a lot. Sure, it's good to
have relevant links and Google recommends it, but links that are not
"relevant" also count. Have you ever seriously looked at the backlinks
that a Major Authority site has? Many of them would not be considered
"relevant", and there are hundreds of different types of blogs listed,
usually.

The Drudge Report was put on the "map" the day he broke the news that
President Clinton was having an...er, indiscretion with a young intern
named Monica Lewinsky. THOUSANDS (maybe even HUNDREDS of
thousands) of sites linked to him that day. Many of them were not in his
"niche".

About a year ago I challenged my Physical Therapist (I have an old ankle
injury) that I could get him on Page One of Google for his keywords. He
was at the bottom of Page 6. I did his links one night and then went to
bed. The next day I got up and checked and he was NUMBER ONE in
Google for ALL his keywords. Not one of the sites I added his link to was
"relevant" for Physical Therapy or even Health and Wellness. Yet they
still worked that well that fast. And his site is STILL in the number
one position; more than two years later.


You often see "Yellow Page" sites linking to major businesses. Now,
you and I, being humans, can understand why a site like that might link
to a business' website, but do you really think a Search Engine's algorithm
can make that determination? What if there was a "community portal" site
that linked to all the businesses in the area? What about directories?
What "niche" are they in? Search Engines do not and cannot determine
whether all the sites linking to other sites "make sense" (relevant) or not.

The search engines would have to know what is "relevant" and that will take
a LOT of human interaction. A site for parents might link to a veterinarian's
website because the site has a warning about a certain flea medication being
poisonous to children, Yellow Pages websites might link to businesses in the
area, the Fire Department's website might link to the PUD (Electric
Company) because of a warning about electrical sparks, the Food Bank might
link to the local High School because of a huge food drive the kids did...see
what I mean? To determine "relevance" would take CONSTANT human
interaction on all the TRILLION webpages on the Internet. Many Web 2.0
sites' only "relevance" to anybody is the 'community factor' that they
provide. Theme-wise, many of those
sites aren't "relevant" to most niches.

I'm number four out of 79 million sites for the keyword "Angela". If the
backlinks that got me there HAD to be "Angela-related", how do you think I
would find enough Angela-backlinks to get me to the top for a word THAT
competitive? It would be a daunting task, if it were even possible, I can
assure you of that.


If you leave out great sites because they are not "relevant" to your niche,
you are leaving a lot of money on the table. I'd use them all.


Myth Number 2: If you build more than two links a day, you will be
penalized by Google.

As far as being penalized if you build links too fast or getting too many, you'd
have to have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of the same kind of links to
have that happen. How many links do you think Facebook has? I guarantee,
it's in the hundreds of millions. "Natural Linkbuilding" happens every day.
How many links do you think I'd get TODAY if I had some sort of breaking
news about US President Obama? What if I knew something about his
background that no one else knew? I guarantee you, I'd get THOUSANDS.

The Drudge Report was "put on the map" the day he broke the news that
President Clinton was having an indiscretion with a young intern named
Monica Lewinsky. Not only did HUNDREDS of thousands of other sites
link back to him that day, but many of them were NOT in the same niche.
This is natural and expected by Google. What is NOT natural is building
THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of links all in the same niche in one day.
Then, you might be removed. But unless you are doing that, you have
nothing to worry about. :-)

Remember, people always recommend that you have SUCH "great content"
that other sites will want to link back to you. If you do have that great
content, how are YOU going to control how many people a day link back to
you? You can't. Google knows and understands that.

What happens if thousands of other websites LOVE your content? What if I
made a brand new site TODAY and had a contest to win a MILLION dollars
if folks would bring more folks to my site. What if I posted it on a hugely
popular forum or something and then advertised it on Craigslist and
Facebook. Don't you think every webmaster worth his salt would put a link
to my site on his site so that he can be the winner? How will Google know
WHY these folks linked back to me? Remember, Google is an algorithm and
not a human being. They'd HAVE to set up the algorithm to discount ANY
new links that a new site gets. Obama's site, Change.gov is now a Page
Rank 8 site and that site was started right after the inauguration only a year
and a half ago. So Google did NOT discount the backlinks and I don't think
they sat up and said, "Oh! This is Barack Obama's website. We'd better treat
it differently."

What if YOU offered a contest where webmasters could win a MILLION
dollars if they are the site that refers the MOST traffic to your site. How
many backlinks do you think you would get then?? How are you going to
control or slow down the backlinking??

Remember, people always recommend that you have SUCH
"great content" that other sites will want to link back to you. If
you do have that great content, how are YOU going to control
how many people a day link back to you? You can't. Google
knows and understands that.
What happens if thousands of other
websites LOVE your content? How are
you going to control or slow down the
backlinking??




Myth Number 3: I can't see my backlinks in SEO Elite, Yahoo Site
Explorer, or some other “Backlink Checker” tool, so they don't count.

This is as FAR from the truth as you can get. The "backlink checker tools",
including Yahoo Site Explorer, take some time to show the links. Google
will NEVER show them all to you. I was talking to my Physical Therapist the
a couple months ago and he and I made an agreement that if I was able to get
his site moved up in Google for his keyword, he would tell other business
owners about me. He was on the bottom of page 6.

I did the February links for him one night and then went to bed. When I got
up the next morning, he was number one for all his keywords! However, I
tried to see his backlinks in a backlink checker tool and none of them
showed. Not even a single one! So the backlinks help your site LONG
before they ever show up in a backlink checker tool. Some links take up to
three months to show in these tools, but Google will "see" them almost
immediately.

Myth Number 4: I have to vary my keywords, or Google will think I am
doing a “Google Bomb” and I will be penalized
I do not recommend varying your keywords. For instance, if you want to be
at the top of Google for iPod, and you used 3 DIFFERENT keywords: iPod,
podcast, electronics (as an example), then you are getting only 10 sites per
keyword. You are LOSING a bunch of Google power by not using all 30.

Adobe is number one for the phrase "click here". That's because MILLIONS
of other sites used those exact words in anchor text on their site for Adobe.
That didn't harm Adobe at all; it helped them. This idea about varying anchor
text came about after the "Miserable Failure" prank that was played on
George W. Bush. Google only takes action about stuff like this when it is
FORCED to. It doesn't do it as a matter of course. I haven't EVER varied
my anchor text and my name Angela is number 3 out of 76.8 million and my
article is number two out of more than 12 million for the keyword backlinks.

I advise that people do NOT vary their anchor text. :-)
Myth #5 Google is going to start penalizing the people using these
packets, because they are all putting their links on the same sites.

People don't realize just how big the Internet is. My husband figured out how
long Google employees could spend looking at webpages if EVERY
employee worked NON STOP without ANY bathroom, smoking, meal, or
sleep breaks at ANY TIME all year. Remember this is absolutely NO breaks
of ANY kind and this is EVERY Google employee, from the CEO on down,
including Matt Cutts:
  Quote:
   Employees – On a worldwide basis, Google employed 20,164 full-time employees as of March 31, 2009, down from 20,222 full-time employees as of
   December 31, 2008.




   http://investor.google.com/releases/2009Q1_google_earnings.html


   One trillion divided by 365 days in a year = 2,739,726,027.39



   2739726027.39 divided by 24 hours in a day= 114155251.14 items per hour
114155251.14 items per hour divided by 20164 GOOGLE employees = 5661.33 items per hour
based on a 24/7/365 year, no time off at all.


5661.33 items per hour divided by 60 minutes in an hour = 94.355 items per minute.


94.355 divided by 60 seconds in one minute = .64 SECONDS are available for each item, based on
every GOOGLE employee working NON-STOP, 24/7/365


That's also with no slowing down to look at some sites. 1.572 seconds per webpage per person.
That's IT!! Google works based on an algorithm. That's how they HAVE to do things.


That's a little more than HALF A SECOND per webpage that could even be
LOOKED at, if the employees didn't eat, didn't sleep, didn't smoke, and
didn't go to the bathroom ALL YEAR. Some pages take longer than that just
to load!


Millions of people use millions of websites every day; many of them the
SAME websites. People have been selling “Social Bookmarking”
software and offering programs that make it easy to use Social
Bookmarking sites for a couple of years now, and MILLIONS of people
have taken advantage of those programs and software. Here is an
example of this sort of program that you can put onto your own website
so that people can Social Bookmark your site. How many millions of
people have the same thing on their own sites?


Social Bookmark your stuff


   How many thousands of people do you think have taken advantage of
   something like this?



For Google to shut down the links in these packets because the users all
use the same sites would be like Fed (Federal Reserve System in the
  United States) shutting down all Home Loans because a group of people
  in California didn't pay their mortgages. Backlinking is not like NOT
  paying a mortgage, of course, but the illustration shows you the scope of
  what we're dealing with on the Internet. If Google was going to
  “penalize” sites because people put their links on them, it would start
  with sites like Digg, Reddit, Backflip, and Propeller; there are hundreds
  of thousands MORE people using those sites for backlinking their own
  stuff than what there are using the sites in my packets. Not only that, but
  many of the sites deliberately give you the capability to get a link on
  their site. Google is NOT going to penalize this sort of “Web 2.0”
  activity, as that will drive the Internet back into the “dark ages” of the
  web.


Another thing that a few people worry a lot about is if their backlinks
are “indexed”. I have NEVER looked for mine or paid attention to
whether or not they were indexed. That's because the backlinks have
NEVER failed to get whatever project I wanted to Page One of Google;
usually very quickly. I don't know why some of your profiles and such
don't show up in Google's index very quickly, but I CAN tell you that
Google sees them very shortly after you put them up.

Look for MOVEMENT IN GOOGLE, as opposed to worrying about the
“indexing” of your actual backlinks. This movement is the whole idea
behind the backlinks; don't forget.

If you're truly worried about your links getting indexed, here is a
program that can help you:

Get your Backlinks Indexed FAST!!




Another question I get asked is if I have prior months' packets available
for sale.
Yes, I do sell the previous months' packets to current subscribers. I started in
August of last year, so the ones that are available are August, September,
October, November, December, January, February, March, April, May, June,
July, August 2009, September 2009, October 2009, November 2009,
December 2009, January 2010, February 2010, March 2010, April 2010,
May 2010, June 2010, July 2010, August 2010, September 2010, October
2010, and November, 2010, December, 2010, January, 2011, February, 2011,
March, 2011, April, 2011, May, 2011, June, 2011, July, 2011, August, 2011,
September, 2011, October, 2011, November 2011, December, 2011, January,
2012, February, 2012, March, 2012, and April 2012.

I sell them for $5 apiece, which is what you would have paid if you had been
a subscriber all along.

If you want any of them, you can send payment to
pinkviolets2001@yahoo.com and in the "note to seller" section, just put
which packets you want. :-)

Another question people ask me quite often is if I am going to
offer bigger packets.

At this time, I am only offering 30 links per month, which is what the
program has been from its inception. There are two reasons for that:

#1. I want even newbies to be successful online and I designed this program
so that people could put up one link per day, if they're busy, which MOST
people are. Many newbies just don't have the funds to outsource the job to
someone else and I don't want more established marketers to have the
advantage over the newbies. They always have the advantage over newbies
with other programs; usually because they have more disposable income.

#2. I look high and low for the highest Page Rank, best quality sites for my
packets. I don't know that I could offer super High Page Rank, High Quality
sites in larger numbers on a continuous basis. (Trying to be diplomatic here; I
am ONLY speaking about my own program, not anyone else's.) I could find a
bunch of sites that are not quite as high in PR or quality and give them out,
but I choose not to do that as I prefer to give higher quality, higher Page Rank
sites. For the last two years, my links have been Page Rank 6 and above and
at this time I am not recording any site below Page Rank 6 for my upcoming
packets.

Another concern that folks have is that they think I should limit the
amount of subscriptions to this program. Here are my thoughts on that:

There has been documentation that "sites shutting down" has happened
just about as much, even in the cases where folks have limited the buyers
to 50 or less.

Also, how do the folks who limit the packets keep their customers from
making money using those links to do backlink work for other people?
That would ALSO cause extra sign ups to the sites in the packets.


 Quote:
  Originally Posted by Michael patrick
  Even with only 50 people doing this its still causing the webmasters to shut down the sites or going
  nofollow or disabling the links features...I have only done a handful so far and 3 sites arent
  working..I am guessing there are going to be a few more before I finish..I sure hope this doesnt get
  worse..I guess its not as stealth as promoted



*My projects are STILL at the top. They haven't "fallen off" or lost all
their links or anything. They are still at the top of Google, doing just fine.
Obviously, most of the links are still working beautifully.


* Whether I close off registrations or not, the "black hatters" will still
try to get their hands on my product, just like they do with everyone
else's. When they get my product, they will post it on their forums, just
like they did with Frank Kern's "limited access" product as well as
thousands of other marketers' products. Even if I only had a dozen
subscribers, there will still be a "rush" of people going to the sites in the
packets, because all the unauthorized people will be going there as well,
although I have taken steps and been quite successful at stopping quite a
bit of this.

Digital Point has over a hundred THOUSAND members and people post
lists of sites there ALL the time for people to get links from. If a bunch of
people going to sites and getting a link was going to "shut down"
backlink capability forever, it would have happened years before I ever
started my program.

I've seen lists of sites right here on the Warrior Forum, which ALSO has
over 100,000 members and thousands more who just lurk.
* Unless we know who is "leaking" and/or abusing the sites themselves,
then who is to say what number of people in the program is "safe"? How
do you know it's not person #5 who is providing the packets to the
torrent/warez sites and black hat forums? And how do you know that
person #8 isn't the one posting a bunch of junky looking spam that's
angering the webmasters? People stay with membership sites an average
of about 3 months. So as people go, new people come in. How is that
wrong and who knows just "how many" people the program should
have, anyway?

* I spend a great deal of time searching for spam-resistant sites and I've
been quite successful with that. Many of these sites are very large and
already have new sign ups happening all the time. New sign ups don't
faze every website owner.

Here is what one person said about a site in Paul's packet that created a
bit of a stir:


 Quote:
  if you go to urbis.com there is a scrollthat shows what the activity is, there is an account created
  every minute or two,. If this is normal i have no idea how they find you or notice a spike in traffic




 New accounts on super popular sites is perfectly normal. So is people
putting links to their Facebook accounts and such in their profiles.


* All the sites in my packet are Page Rank 6 and above. Sites in that
Page Rank range are usually well traveled, popular sites. Again,
many of these sites are very large and already have new sign ups
happening all the time.


* Not everyone in the program goes to all the sites on the first day.
There are quite a few people who are still working on the older
packets and haven't even begun the new one yet. A lot of folks admit
to being quite a bit behind.



* Some sites will go "no follow" or close off registrations or remove
clickable links from their sites. It's been that way from the beginning
and it will probably always be that way. This is nothing different
from the way the packets have been all along. I have sites in my
"Master List" that have changed things since I discovered them,
too...and those sites (as far as I know) have only had a link put on
them by one person: Me. The ratio of these not-yet-disclosed sites
changing things is roughly the same as the ratio of the sites in the
packets who have changed things. This is just the way it is when
you're a guest on someone else's website.


Think of it this way: If a friend came to you and said he knew of a
Page Rank 8 site, four page rank 7 sites, and six Page Rank 6 sites
that you could get a backlink from, would you be willing to pay him
$5 for it? Of course you would! That would be a steal! And that's for
just 11 great sites! Think back to the old days of IM, when you had to
find your OWN backlinks and they were USUALLY some low Page
Rank blog (as many blogs are) you had to make a comment on. $5 for
what your friend is offering to you is well worth it. Yet, people start to
grumble when one or two sites in the packet don't work anymore.
Some people stop using the program altogether. Even though they
have more than 25 great, usable, High Page Rank sites from PR 6 all
the way to PR 10 at times. Just remember the value of these links
you're getting. :-)


•   If many of the sites are good in every packet, how is it fair that
people who didn't know about my program before shouldn't be
allowed to participate and have a chance to get to the top of Google,
too? What makes those who have the subscription already more
"worthy" than people who don't? And since many of the sites are just
fine, why should I be unfair to a large group of people just because
another group thinks I should be? How would we like it if all the
Social Bookmarking sites were closed off to new registrations just
because a lot of people used them?


* People with more disposable income are not necessarily more
trustworthy or honorable than those with less and paying more for a
program does not make everybody respect it more. Keep in mind that
I saw Frank Kern's VERY expensive "limited" products on the black
hat forums, too as well as some guide from a Forbes 500 business
owner that reportedly cost $1,500; all of this being given away for
free to anyone who visited the site. Raising the price is not necessarily
going to do anything except exclude some of the very folks who need
the program the most.


*People are allowed to cancel whenever they want and some people
do. This is not a "forced continuity" program, and I don't make
people sign a contract to stay for a certain amount of time. So if
people can and do cancel whenever they want, how is it fair to ME to
keep new registrations closed off?

* Some websites don't like links. If a website doesn't like your link,
 remove it and move on. We are not trying to upset the website
 owners. However, backlinks are the lifeblood of the Search Engines,
 and putting links on websites is not illegal, nor is it unethical.
 Websites have been doing this sort of thing for years. It's not like you
 are trying to disguise the links on the site or anything. You can't get
 sued or reported to the FBI or any other regulatory agency just for
 putting a link on a site, regardless of what you might read in a few
 places.


 * Those of you who are putting quite a few links on each site are
 running the risk of having your profile look "spammy". I know it's
 easier to put a whole bunch of links into one profile but think about
 how that might look on the 'receiving' end and act accordingly. If the
 site is "busy" or full of "bling" (like some sites are) that is fine. If it's
 not, you're risking the site for all of us.



 * If I do the links FOR people (like some folks say I should) that cuts
 off ALL the folks who are using the packets for "offline" businesses,
 or are making money doing the links for other non-Warrior
 marketers. This would seriously reduce the income of quite a few
 people and I don't think that's fair.


* I've recommended all along that people do what I did: Create a
"Master List" for yourself of all the sites from all the packets that DO
work. That way, when you have a new article or blog or Squidoo Lens
or something, you have a tremendously powerful tool for getting that
project to the top. I would recommend focusing on this instead of
focusing on the fact that some sites have removed the capability to get a
link. Focus on the positive, folks. Life's too short to dwell on the
negatives.
Another concern folks sometimes express is that everyone is “rushing”
to the sites on the first of the month. Here is what I have found out:

 The idea that "thousands of people are hitting the sites all at once" is
 pure speculation. Someone's idea of what they THINK might be
 happening, without any evidence to back it up. There are PLENTY of
 sites in my "Master List" of sites I haven't put into packets yet that
 have changed since I got a link from them. Webmasters can and do
 change their sites. That is a fact of life.

 From an earlier month:

 Quote:
  Also, for those of you who think there's a huge mass of people hitting the sites all
  at once each month, that's just not true and appears to be more unverified
  speculation. I have personally bookmarked and am watching my Page Rank 8
  .Edu site; the very best backlink in this month's packet (and the site you'd think
  most people would rush to) Although several folks aren't following the clearly
  stated instructions for the site, there is actually only a trickle of folks signing up.
  A small number each day. No big mass rush to the site.



 I'm watching this site every day. This site gives total members, tells
 how many members are online at any one given time (and who those
 members are) and gives information about when the site had the
 most members online at once. Their "big day" was 1-2-10; they had 7
 members online at one time. That's right. 7. I checked this site again
 today and the "big day" with the 'most members online at once' is
 STILL January 2. And the "big number" is STILL 7 people.

 There is a small trickle of folks signing up; around a dozen or two a
 day. But no huge rush or oversaturation of sign ups. And this is
 probably among the best sites I have ever had. Reports that the sites
 are getting huge rushes of folks signing up the first few days of the
 month are greatly exaggerated.
Again, the sites that "shut down" are most likely doing so due to
abuse, not due to numbers of folks who are signing up.

								
To top