Here's an interesting series of case studies using a Link spam network.
The guy who ran the case study used a TIERED LINK system. 3 layers. Basically, you use web 2.0, profile links, forum links (xrumer type links) on the outer layer, 'clean it up' as it hits layer 1 and layer 1's 'clean' links boost the MONEY SITE - the site where your affiliate links are.
Verdict: Longtail strategy survives Penguin 4.1 BUT.... killed by Penguin 3.0
Here are the case studies and post-morterm
http://www.matthewwoodward.co.uk/tut...oogle-updates/
Post-mortem:
http://noobwarrior.com/spam-site-dea...ive-spam-site/
WHAT DOES THIS TEACH US ABOUT PENGUIN 3.0?
This post from last year (re Penguin 2.0) is VERY INSIGHTFUL-notice the the use of the word 'upstream'
http://mattsbackpack.co.uk/penguin-2...lding-trouble/
Quote:
3:13 ? ?We?re also looking at some ways to go upstream to deny the value to link spammers. People who spam links in various ways. We?ve got some nice ideas on trying to make sure that that becomes less effective.?
This is really the key bit for me. Google are fully aware that tiered link building is being used very effectively to game its search results at the moment. It makes sense that they would be looking for ways to tackle that. To me, Cutts? use of the word ?upstream? is particularly telling.
If Google go more ?upstream? when looking at your websites backlinks, what are they guna find? Are they still guna find good quality links from good quality sites, just like you would naturally expect? Or are they going to find that your links are being ?powered up? by a layer of spammy, crappy links that you wouldn?t want anywhere near your money site?
|
Check 3:13 of this video